An announcement on education waivers is anticipated this week. Don’t expect the reaction to be positive, for it appears that the President and his education secretary will renege on their promise of “flexibility” for the states.
It’s not just the President’s bizarre State of the Union request that states raise their compulsory attendance age to 18. No, I’m referring to the Army of the Potomac’s reaction to John Kline’s ESEA proposal and to Chairman Tom Harkin’s and Rep. George Miller’s response to the waiver requests put forward by several states.
“Consequential accountability” corresponded with a significant one-time boost in student achievement. As an early adopter, Texas got a head start on big achievement gains, and also a head start on flat-lining thereafter.
The states are presenting sensible alternatives to the antiquated Adequate Yearly Progress model. The challenge to Arne Duncan, his peer reviewers, and his team: Say yes to these proposals or be accused of a “Washington knows best” mentality.
Education Next talks with Martha Derthick and Andy Rotherham
More bias than evidence behind NRC panel’s conclusions
We finally have a serious, thoughtful ESEA reauthorization proposal in the Senate, one that should gain support from both sides of the aisle and both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. But here’s a warning: It’s not the bill that the Senate is currently marking up.
If the debate around the federal role in accountability is coalescing, a much bigger question remains wide open: Could we be watching the beginning of the end for the accountability movement in toto?
I am encouraged when Sandy Kress tells me that the moves away from accountability and merit pay that have taken place recently in Texas were forced upon Governor Rick Perry and Robert Scott, the state’s education commissioner, by legislative pressures beyond their control.
Governor Perry has been a strong leader on education and a fervent supporter of accountability and other policies designed to improve student academic results.
While everyone is wondering what will happen to NCLB, Nathan Glazer looks back at the law’s past, reviewing two books that explore the development of the law. The review will appear in the Fall 2011 issue of Ed Next. The books are Schoolhouse of Cards: An Inside Story of No Child Left Behind and Why […]
The Secretary of Education’s authority to undo law and regulation in No Child Left Behind is not as broad as a recent story in the New York Times seems to imply.
Despite the bashing the ten-year-old federal law has been taking–much of it deserved–on the ground, in the provinces NCLB has succeeded in beginning a much-needed change in the culture of public education: from a system focused on adults to one looking behind all the curtains to see how kids are doing. It hasn’t been a pretty launch, of course, but the ship is only barely out of port.
Will reforms follow Obama’s spending on education?
Hispanic student success in Florida
End it? Or mend it?
To some, fixing education means taking on poverty and health care
Is court involvement in school spending essential to reform, or can we use education funding to drive reforms that promise better outcomes for students?
Stop trying to fix failing schools. Close them and start fresh.
Three separate lines of inquiry provide evidence that existing accountability systems have led to larger gains than expected in a world without them. At the same time, accountability is a relatively new invention, and it needs to be refined and improved.
In fact, most render the notion of proficiency meaningless
New school start ups and replications of high performing charter school models provide a better solution
If Secretary Duncan is serious about “listening” to ideas for the next ESEA reauthorization (aka “fixing what’s wrong with NCLB”), he would do well to start with this important and depressing book.