Diane Ravich

Diane Ravich

Diane Ravitch
March 12, 2015

Secretary of Instruction Arne Duncan'due south commentary for EdSource last month, called "How Not to Fix No Child Left Behind," consisted for the most part of mushy platitudes that must exist measured confronting the realities of his actions over the by vi years.

During that time, Duncan has aggregated an unprecedented power to tell states and districts how to operate. The assistants's Race to the Superlative plan was not passed into law by Congress, yet information technology was funded with $five billion awarded by Congress as part of the economic stimulus program following the 2008 recession.

Duncan used that huge financial largesse to brand himself the nation'due south education arbiter. When states were most economically distressed, he dangled billions of dollars earlier them in a competition. They were not eligible to enter the competition unless they agreed to lift caps on opening more than privately managed charter schools, to rely on test scores to a significant degree when evaluating teachers, to adopt "college-and-career-ready standards" (aka the Common Core standards, which had non fifty-fifty been completed in 2009 when the competition was announced) and to take dramatic action to "turn around" schools with low examination scores (such as closing the school or firing all or near of the staff).

Almost every land applied for a share of the billions that Duncan controlled, and virtually every state changed its laws to conform to his wishes, yet but 18 states and the District of Columbia won awards. Duncan added the same weather condition to state waivers from NCLB's unrealistic target of 100% proficiency in reading and math for all children in grades 3-eight.

As an do in federal power, it was vivid, as Duncan got almost every country to practice what he wanted and brand information technology appear to be voluntary. Information technology is important to bear in mind that none of the then-called sanctions and remedies in No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top was supported by testify from research or experience.

State takeovers of low-performing schools have seldom (if always) led to improvement; charter schools have a mixed and by and large unimpressive record; evaluating teachers by their students' examination scores has been unsuccessful because well-nigh of the factors that influence test scores (like family unit life) are across the control of teachers, and students are not randomly assigned to classes; and the furnishings of the Common Core standards are untested and unknown.

When Duncan writes "how not to fix NCLB," he is responding to the Republicans' revulsion to his heavy-handed do of power over the last six years. They want to curb his power and that of hereafter secretaries of education to overstep the long-understood federal system that limits the role of the U.Due south. Department of Education.

At that place is much to dislike in the Republicans' rewrite of No Child Left Backside (NCLB), which is the most recent version of America's most important education law, the Uncomplicated and Secondary Educational activity Human action (ESEA). They intend to brand Title I funding for poor children portable, then that the coin can be transferred to charter schools and possibly vouchers as well. Instead of federal help existence targeted to help schools in poor communities, it will go bachelor to spur school option, which has long been the Republicans' favorite remedy, despite the absence of show for the efficacy of either charters or vouchers.

Any genuine fix to NCLB would recognize that the administration of President George W. Bush took a wrong turn past changing ESEA from a police force devoted to equity to a law devoted to testing and accountability. The switch from ESEA to NCLB was a substitution of punishment and sanctions for directly federal aid to the neediest districts. ESEA and the federal assist information technology supplied were supposed to help poor children, not convert their schools into test-prep factories or close them or privatize them.

Both Republicans and Democrats are determined to maintain the annual testing regime at the heart of NCLB. It is perplexing to see so many Democrats aligning themselves with George W. Bush's educational legacy of almanac testing. Teachers and parents know that high-stakes testing has distorted the purpose of educational activity, has diverted billions of dollars to the testing industry, has discouraged teachers, has labeled children as "failures" in elementary school, and that NCLB is widely viewed as a failed constabulary.

Advocates of the testing regime will signal to improved examination scores as "proof" that the demands of NCLB were correct. But they won't acknowledge that test scores improved even faster before NCLB was implemented, or that scores on international tests remain flat. Nor do they care that the relentless focus on testing has reduced the time bachelor for the arts, science, history, civics, foreign languages and physical didactics. Thus, the quality of education for most children has been reduced in pursuit of higher test scores.

Over the past half dozen years, the evidence showing the invalidity of Duncan's "reforms" continues to accrue, yet he insists on ignoring information technology. He loves charters, fifty-fifty though they intensify segregation and the zero-tolerance policies of "no excuses" charters create harsh disciplinary environments, leading to high break rates. He remains determined to judge teachers past test scores, even though the National Academy of Instruction, the American Educational Research Clan and even the American Statistical Association warned confronting it. Duncan'south preferred method of instructor evaluation has been found to be unstable and inaccurate, but he doesn't care or notice.

Enrollment in teacher education programs across the country and even in Teach for America has dropped sharply; veteran teachers are taking early retirement. But Duncan does non acquaintance the lowered status of the teaching profession or the demoralization of teachers with his own punitive policies.

Instead of talking about "how not to fix NCLB," here are a few ideas for how genuinely to set NCLB:

  • Restore the original purpose of the ESEA: equity for poor children and the schools they attend. These schools need more money for smaller classes, social workers, nurses, and librarians, not more testing.
  • Designate federal aid for reducing class size, for intensive tutoring by certified teachers and for other interventions that are known to be effective.
  • Raise standards for those entering teaching.
  • Eliminate the testing and accountability portions of the constabulary and leave decisions almost when and how often to test to states and districts.
  • Rely on the federal testing program – the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) – to provide an inspect of every state's progress. NAEP data are disaggregated by race, gender, ethnicity, language and disability condition. NAEP tracks achievement gaps between blacks and whites and Hispanics and whites. Anyone who wishes to compare Missouri and California can easily do so with NAEP data that measures operation in reading and math in 4thand eightth course every two years.

Testing every child every year in grades 3-8 and eleven is an enormous waste of money and instructional time. Testing samples of students, every bit the NAEP does, tells us whatever we need to know. Teachers should write their ain tests; they know what they taught and what their students should have learned. Use normed standardized tests only for diagnostic purposes, to help students, non to advantage or punish them and not to reward or punish their teachers or shut their schools.

Policymakers may decide to reauthorize NCLB and give it a new proper noun. Only if they maintain the current programme of loftier-stakes testing, as both Secretary Duncan and the Republicans desire, they will feed the fires of the anti-testing movement. They will face up angry parents, students and educators who know that testing has become too consequential, too punitive and too frequent. High-performing nations do non test every child every yr. We shouldn't either.

 •••

Diane Ravitch, an educational activity historian at New York University, is the author of "Reign of Fault: The Hoax of the Privatization Move and the Danger to America's Public Schools."  She was Banana Secretary of Education for Research and Improvement in the assistants of President George H.Westward. Bush from 1991-93.

The opinions expressed in this commentary represent solely those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing various points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, delight contact us.

To get more reports like this i, click hither to sign up for EdSource's no-cost daily email on latest developments in education.