Crash Course; A Lens That Distorts; Testing the Limits of NCLB; Basically a Good Model

Here's a summary of four articles at:
<http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/8768237.html>

FORUM:
Will NCLB Hit the  Wall?

http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/9223346.html
 
Congress hopes to finish work on the reauthorization of the No Child  Left Behind Act (NCLB) before the presidential primary season begins in  January 2008, though it is unclear whether that deadline will be met. The  six-year-old law was originally passed by Congress with strong bipartisan  support, but now faces opposition from both the right and the left. Can the  law be saved? The editors of Education Next join in the debate on NCLB’s  future, assessing the law’s shortcomings and prescribing what Congress should  do to avert a disaster.
 
Crash Course <http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/9223491.html>
Frederick Hess and Chester Finn argue that NCLB was bound to  crash and burn, since the machinery of the law is not powered by a coherent  model of educational change or a sound view of the federal role in education.  
 
A Lens That Distorts <http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/9223496.html>
Paul Peterson defends NCLB-style accountability but  challenges Congress to fix the measuring stick used to evaluate schools.
 
Testing  the Limits of NCLB <http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/9223531.html>
The real problem with NCLB, says Michael Petrilli,  is that it wrongly assumes the federal government can force recalcitrant  states and school districts to do their job well.
 
Basically  a Good Model <http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/9223561.html>
NCLB is a groundbreaking civil rights law that has already  improved the nation’s schools, counters Dianne Piché, who offers a vigorous  defense of the statute.

I think all four make good points, but agree most with Dianne Piche's take (she's on the board of Dems for Ed Reform):

No Child Left  Behind (NCLB) may be the most vilified act of Congress in modern  times. Just about anybody can find something in the law to get worked up  over: the testing rules, “highly qualified teachers,” funding shortfalls and  so on. It’s great fodder for presidential candidates, too, one of whom  recently went so far as to blame the childhood obesity problem on NCLB and to equate companies providing tutoring to low-income students to Halliburton.  Funny thing is NCLB is actually doing some good things for real people, many  of them students who historically have been shortchanged in our public  schools.
 
I was an early, proud supporter of the law, and I still am. My  civil rights colleagues and I fought for some of its tougher provisions, like  accountability for subgroups of students, the 2014 proficiency deadline,  requiring states to submit plans for the equitable assignment of teachers, and  providing a way out for kids trapped in failing schools. By now, most of the  criticism of NCLB — some legitimate but some ginned up by special interests opposed to real accountability — seems pretty old and tiresome.

-----------------------

http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/9223491.html
Crash Course
By Frederick M. Hess and Chester E. Finn Jr. <http://www.hoover.org/bios/finn.html>  

NCLB is driven by education politics

Enacted in 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) began with the resounding promise that every U.S. schoolchild will attain “proficiency” in reading and math by 2014. Noble, yes, but also naive, misleading, and in some respects dysfunctional. While nobody doubts that the number of “proficient” students in America can and should increase dramatically from today’s woeful level, no educator believes that universal proficiency in 2014 is attainable. Only politicians promise such things. The inevitable result is weary cynicism among school practitioners and a “compliance” mentality among state and local officials.

-----------------------------

http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/9223496.html
A Lens That Distorts

By Paul E. Peterson <http://www.hoover.org/bios/ppeterson.html>  

NCLB’s faulty way of measuring school quality

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) put schools under the microscope by requiring that they report, annually, the test-score performance of students in grades 3 through 8, and, again, for grade 10. As President Bush said shortly before he signed the bill into law, “We need to know whether a curriculum is working. We need to know whether the teachers, the methodology that teachers use is working. We need to know whether or not people are learning. And if they are, there will be hallelujahs all over the place. But if not, we intend to do something about it.”


--------------------

http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/9223531.html
Testing the Limits of NCLB

By Michael J. Petrilli

Implementation is not the problem

It’s popular in Washington to declare No Child Left Behind (NCLB) an excellent statute (even “99.9% pure,” as Secretary Margaret Spellings once claimed), but complain about its “implementation.” Many individuals on Capitol Hill and in advocacy groups appear sincerely to believe that with the right people calling the shots in the U.S. Department of Education, making good decisions, and acting wisely, the law could work as intended.

-------------------------------

http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/9223561.html
Basically a Good Model
By Dianne Piché

NCLB can be fixed

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) may be the most vilified act of Congress in modern times. Just about anybody can find something in the law to get worked up over: the testing rules, “highly qualified teachers,” funding shortfalls and so on. It’s great fodder for presidential candidates, too, one of whom recently went so far as to blame the childhood obesity problem on NCLB and to equate companies providing tutoring to low-income students to Halliburton. Funny thing is NCLB is actually doing some good things for real people, many of them students who historically have been shortchanged in our public schools.