Lots of liberals dislike NCLB, or the No Child Left Behind Act.  Clearly, it’s not the name that they dislike (who would want to leave any children behind?)

So, what is NCLB and why do so many liberals so openly dislike it despite the appealing moniker?  This is an important question for me, who, as an avowed  liberal, is on the odd position of of supporting NCLB.  I know I am not supposed to like NCLB, but why?

Briefly, the NCLB regulations require states to set learning standards (most already had these in place when NCLB was passed), develop and administer assessments that measure the extent to which all students meet these standards, and provide options and remedies for students in schools where the students are not generally meeting the standards.  In particular, NCLB mandates that schools be held accountable for the achievement of all subgroups of students, in ways that schools had not been held accountable in the past.

Consequently, as I understand my liberal ideology with its explicit desire for something called social justice, I should like NCLB.  A lot!  As a liberal, I am supposed to look out for society’s disadvantaged and thus be in favor of programs that intend to provide a leg up for those in danger of falling behind.  In the world of education policy, I should privilege policy positions that foster improved outcomes for all kids, and especially for disadvantaged kids.

For that reason, one of my favorite components of the flawed (yes, it is not perfect) NCLB law is the focus that is placed on the achievement of  potentially marginalized students, such as poor students, minority students, and students for whom English is a second language.     In my work, I have talked with hundreds of teachers and school leaders over the past several years about issues of testing and accountability.  One recurrent theme —  school testing and accountability in general, and NCLB in particular, have forced teachers to pay more attention to whether our poorest students are meeting education standards.  This is, without a doubt, a welcome change.

What is not welcome, however, are proposed changes to NCLB that aim to dilute this social justice component, this intensified focus on our neediest students.  Unfortunately, that would be exact effect of the NCLB modifications proposed by our own Senator Blanche Lincoln (along with Idaho Senator Mike Crapo).  Two of their proposals are especially troubling:

1. Decrease the fraction of students that must be tested by schools from the currently stipulated 95% down to 90%.
2. Allow schools to count subgroup students as members of only one subgroup, even if the students are members of multiple subgroups (e.g. an Hispanic student who is also an English Language Learner and  economically disadvantaged).

These changes are problematic because they provide an “out” to schools that may not be serving their disadvantaged students well.   First of all, we have evidence that schools do sometimes selectively (if subtly) encourage lower-performers to stay home on test days.  This potential issue is largely solved by the 95% testing requirement.   Diluting this would only be one step backwards.

Second, many school leaders have complained that schools can be labelled as in need of improvement solely because of the failure of one of many eligible subgroups to score at the appropriate level.    It is certainly sensible for school leaders to ask that these types of failures be labelled differently than are failures in which all students and groups in a school fail to meet standards.  But it is NOT sensible to allow school leaders the opportunity to strategically label students so as to minimize the appearance of failure.  Using the example student above, if the Lincoln/Crapo (crappy?) changes were enacted, rational school leaders would carefully analyze the scores of this student and many others to figure out whether they should call him an Hispanic, an ELL, or an economically disadvantaged student.  This odd labeling decision would, of course, be based on which categorization is least likely to place the school in alert status.

This is not what our school leaders should be doing … sure they should be rigorously analyzing test scores of students.  But this should be for the purpose of helping the students grow academically and be placed in the right courses, not in the right subgroup category!

C’mon Senator Lincoln – do the liberal thing and expend your efforts focusing on the future of the students instead of pandering to the adults who work in the schools.

Here is the October edition of Reason.tv’s Nanny of the Month.  And in case you missed it, you can also check out September’s winner in the second video. We’ll post future editions as they are released.

It has been a good week for freedom of speech.  First, FBI agents arrested two Chicago men for plotting to kill a cartoonist in Denmark.

From the Chicago Tribune:

The Chicago men, who knew each other from a military school in Pakistan, on Tuesday were accused of an international plot dubbed “The Mickey Mouse Project” that since late 2008 included scheming with others to “commit terrorist acts against overseas targets,” according to federal criminal complaints made public in Chicago.

The North Side men are accused of plotting to target employees of the Danish newspaper Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten, which published cartoons of the prophet Mohammed in 2005, sparking violent riots across the Muslim world.

The most controversial of the 12 cartoons depicted Mohammed wearing a bomb with a lit fuse as a turban. That cartoon was drawn by Kurt Westergaard, 78 — who was targeted for assassination, authorities said.

Westergaard has said that the meaning behind the cartoon was that extremists exploit the prophet to legitimize terror by drawing “spiritual ammunition from Islam.” Extremists, outraged by the cartoons, including the would-be-murderers arrested this week, responded by exploiting the prophet to legitimize terror by drawing spiritual ammunition from Islam.

Ironic, I know.

In other good news, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took a stand against a U.N. resolution that aims to prohibit the defamation of religion:

From the Examiner:

The Organization of the Islamic Conference, a group of 56 Islamic nations, has been pushing hard for the U.N. Human Rights Council to adopt resolutions that prohibit the defamation of religion. The resolution “condemns… any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”

The resolution is an attempt by Islamic countries to restrict the freedom to criticize religion. The resolution would be used to justify crackdowns on free speech in Muslim countries, and give cover to those who would harass religious minorities.

In her remarks, Clinton said:

Some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies…. I strongly disagree. The protection of speech about religion is particularly important since persons of different faiths will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions. These differences should be met with tolerance, not with the suppression of discourse.

And, in not-so- good news for freedom, a church in North Carolina is holding a good ole Halloween book burnin’. Of course, there’s nothing  anti-free speech about people burning their own property. What is problematic is that authorities are threatening to stop the burn and fine the church members because of (what sounds like a trumped-up) ban on book burning. I gotta support the church on this one.

In truth, the story is funny enough that it sounds like something out of The Onion.  Based on the list below, can anyone tell me which music shouldn’t be burned? From the church’s website, here’s the plan:

Halloween Book Burning

Has NOT Been Cancelled!

Burning Perversions of God’s Word

October 31, 2009

7:00 PM – Til

This event is not open to the public. Only our members and those by special invitation from the pastor only. All others are tresspassing.

Great Preaching and Singing

We are burning Satan’s bibles like the NIV, RSV, NKJV, TLB, NASB, NEV, NRSV, ASV, NWT, Good News for Modern Man, The Evidence Bible, The Message Bible, The Green Bible, ect. These are perversions of God’s Word the King James Bible.

We will also be burning Satan’s music such as country , rap , rock, pop, heavy metal, western, soft and easy, southern gospel, contemporary Christian , jazz, soul, oldies but goldies, etc.

We will also be burning Satan’s popular books written by heretics like Westcott & Hort , Bruce Metzger, Billy Graham , Rick Warren , Bill Hybels , John McArthur, James Dobson , Charles Swindoll , John Piper , Chuck Colson , Tony Evans, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swagart , Mark Driskol, Franklin Graham , Bill Bright, Tim Lahaye, Paula White , T.D. Jakes, Benny Hinn , Joyce Myers , Brian McLaren , Robert Schuller, Mother Teresa , The Pope , Rob Bell, Erwin McManus , Donald Miller, Shane Claiborne, Brennan Manning, William Young, Will Graham , and many more.

We will be serving fried chicken, and all the sides.
.

YES!

Well, at least we can agree there are no benefits. To me this seems like a no-brainer, but the ever growing amount of money spent on baby media products (approaching $225 million annually) like those offered by Baby Einstein indicates some parents think otherwise. Now Disney, who bought Baby Einstein in 2001, is admitting its baby media products do not make kids smarter, and is offering a full refund on products purchased since 2004. Here is a NY Times article with more details about the recall.

Remember when then President Bush hailed the founder of Baby Einstein as the embodiment of “the great enterprising spirit of America.” Here is a good Slate article from the day after that State of the Union address.

UPDATE: Here are some more interesting articles on this topic: CNN, Time 1, Time 2.

As it turns out, actually interacting with your children is better for them that any video ever could be.  Here is a strong statement to that effect from the American Academy of Pediatrics from a 2006 memo.

Research on early brain development shows that babies and toddlers have a critical need for direct interactions with parents and other caregivers for healthy brain growth and the development of appropriate social, emotional, and cognitive skills. These infant videos are marketed under the guise of being educational. The company names alone, Brainy Baby and Baby Einstein, are proof of the marketing strategy. There is no current evidence to prove that these videos help infants and toddlers in an intellectual or developmental way. Parents should know that their babies will develop just fine without watching these videos.

Check out this Baby Einstein video.  I don’t know about educational, but it sure is mesmerizing.

UPDATE: Read what Dan Willingham has to say about this topic here.

Russ Whitehurst, former director of the Institute of Education Sciences, has written a long article for Brookings titled “Don’t Forget Curriculum.” He compares the effectiveness of reforms such as charter schools and merit pay to the reform of improving curriculum, noting that the effect of the latter on academic achievement seems to be markedly higher. He concludes:

Curriculum effects are large compared to most popular policy levers.

Further, in many cases they are a free good. That is, there are minimal differences between the costs of purchase and implementation of more vs. less effective curricula. In contrast, the other policy levers reviewed here range from very to extremely expensive and often carry with them significant political challenges, e.g., union opposition to merit pay for teachers. This is not to say that curriculum reforms should be pursued instead of efforts to create more choice and competition through charters, or to reconstitute the teacher workforce towards higher levels of effectiveness, or to establish high quality, intensive, and targeted preschool programs, all of which have evidence of effectiveness. It is to say that leaving curriculum reform off the table or giving it a very small place makes no sense. Let’s do what works for the kids, and let’s give particular attention to efficient and practical ways of doing so.

A stumbling block for curricular reform, however, is that lots of people don’t really want more effective curriculum. For example, Whitehurst cites evidence that Saxon Math is a superior math curriculum, but Saxon Math has been controversial because of its alleged “drill and kill” methodology. Indeed, when Saxon Math first became known back in the 1980s, the head of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics said that Saxon “ has chosen to teach mathematics which would have been appropriate in the 1890s to children who are going to have to live in the 21st century.”

The curriculum adoption process can be coopted and dominated by people who, for whatever reason, don’t wish to use a curriculum with proven results. Freer educational choice has the benefit of allowing parents to opt out more readily and seek a more rigorous curriculum elsewhere.

UPDATE: Mary Damer has several excellent and lengthy comments in the thread here. An excerpt that illustrates my point:

Ten years ago, I naively thought that when objective, valid tests showed the predictable achievement gains from research-based reading instruction, reading instruction would change to what was objectively more effective. But when the students we’d worked with were outscoring most of the other students in the district, the reading administrators who were so opposed to the systematic, explicit reading instruction we had introduced in three schools said that the scores didn’t matter. Our students didn’t have the critical thinking skills of the other students and more importantly they didn’t like reading as much. So naively, for two years we administered the developmental reading attitude survey which asks kids questions like, ‘How do you like going to reading class?” “How do you like the stories you read in reading class?” How do you feel when someone gives you a book as a birthday present? and so on. . . .

No surprise to us that these students from poverty revealed that with the systematic explicit phonics, even the most struggling readers who were getting Direct Instruction liked reading and their reading classes as much as typical students – even our struggling readers who typically don’t by third grade. But this didn’t match the assumptions of what students liked and so was routinely dismissed.

The Arkansas Blog wisely reminded us yesterday that there is more going on in Little Rock schools than “court and legislative entanglements”, and directed its readers to a draft of a strategic plan that is focused on education and students rather than litigation.  The draft plan is the product of the Little Rock School District’s Strategic Planning Commission, appointed earlier this year by Superintendent Linda Watson.  The group is headed by Former State Senator Jim Argue and community activist Terence Bolden. 

At Mid-Riffs, we would much rather talk about the curriculum than the courts and about learning rather than lawyering.  So, we eagerly dug into to this plan.   Bolden and Argue’s group set the tone immediately by presenting aggressive learning goals for children of all ages, and focused on those persistent achievement gaps plaguing disadvantaged children.  (For example, to meet the plan’s objectives, twice as many African-American students in grade 8 will need to be proficient in math within the next five years.)  Surely, we couldn’t hope for much progress if we didn’t have high expectations. 

While setting lofty goals is a good start, the plan really gets interesting in the next section, where it presents a list of specific strategies and analyses that the Little Rock schools should be undertaking. 

Here’s my Fave Five list of the Best Ideas in the LRSD Plan: 

1. Engage more school faculties in assessing state test results in depth (from section B1)
2. Simplify and reduce the number of interventions (section B8)
3. Conduct an analysis of staff resources in every school (section C3)
4. Begin partnering with groups such as The New Teacher Project, Teach for America, Troops to Teachers, and other groups to obtain more teacher talent (Section D3)
5. Focus on measurable student learning gains in teacher evaluations, principal evaluations, and in awarding bonuses to teachers (section E)

 Don’t look now, but if LRSD officials were to take these Argue/Bolden recommendations seriously, the district could quickly move to the forefront of urban school reform.  What would this new LRSD look like?  

1. LRSD would have a teacher workforce who, instead of criticizing and bemoaning the testing in schools today, would actively utilize the data provided by state (and other) exams to make decisions about how best to teach kids.  If LRSD were to encourage computer-adapted continuous student assessments (such as the NWEA) in its schools, teachers would have a myriad of important information at their fingertips about which students need what type of help in which areas at several points in time throughout the school year.  In this way, testing would be rightfully used as both a diagnostic tool and a summative measure of how much the students learn each year.
2. LRSD would be different than most districts, which regularly pile one new school reform “fad” on top of the other with little thought given to coherence of the disconnected fads.  If LRSD were to follow the Argue/Bolden recommendations, LRSD teachers would be a happier lot because they could avoid the pattern of adopting new and disconnected educational fads year after year. Presumably then, there would be some cost savings that could be shifted toward a coherent and (if needed) expensive educational plan.
3. LRSD would be ahead of the curve by paying careful attention to equitable and efficient resource allocation.  In most districts, teachers are simply sent out to schools to teach for principals who have little say in choosing their faculty.  The inequitable result that occurs in many districts across the country is that the schools in the wealthier neighborhoods attract the more experienced and more expensive.  What this means is that fewer resources get spent in poorer neighborhoods as compared to wealthier neighborhoods — all in the same district.  And these inequities can go under the radar because most financial reporting for schools is at the district level.  LRSD would be wise (and unique) to examine teacher resources at all schools and ensure that they are allocated both equitably and efficiently.   
4. As Michelle Rhee said in Little Rock just last week, teachers are not interchangeable, and the honest truth is that some are more talented than others.  Admitting this truth is the first step … actively seeking the most talented teachers to work with LRSD students is the next!  The Argue/Bolden recommendations are right on in urging the district to break down barriers to attract talented teachers to LRSD.  This is not the “status quo” model of teacher training and recruitment, and some of the old guard actively oppose these programs, but there is simply no denying that are areas (geographic areas and subject areas) in which we have great needs for teaching talent.  LRSD would be wise to be open to all options for finding effective and interested teachers.
5. While leaders in most districts across the country talk about student performance as the ultimate measuring stick, LRSD would be living this out if the Argue/Bolden recommendations were put into play.  To an outsider, rating teachers and principals based on improved student performance seems the obvious thing to do, but that is not the case in most schools.  It would be great to see the LRSD take a lead on making sure evaluations of all district staff are explicitly connected to improved student performance.  Actually providing financial rewards to these effective educators would be icing on the cake!  

Now, we outsiders can wait and see … what will LRSD officials do with these thoughtful and reform-oriented recommendations?

The always-interesting Noah Millman offers some lengthy thoughts on questions such as why there isn’t a G.E.D. equivalent for college, why we need a greater diversity of sorting mechanisms, and how rich people should donate money. Read the whole thing.

Everyone understands that with the introduction of the lottery, Arkansas, like most states, has a government-operated monopoly on gambling.  But not everyone understands that the government has something approximating a monopoly on the production of alcohol.  No, the government does not manufacture or distribute alcohol itself, but it does tightly regulate and heavily tax the industry so much that it essentially has control.

If you don’t believe me, consider how the state prohibits the production of moonshine, even if only for personal consumption.  Just this week a Washington County man was arrested for possessing a moonshine still (in addition to possessing pot and illegal firearms).  There is an exemption for home brewing, but that beer may not be sold to others and is strictly limited in quantities.

The government chooses and collects money from the limited number of people who can manufacture alcohol, distribute it, and have a restaurant, bar, or store to sell it.  For all practical purposes, the government has outsourced its alcohol business to some private vendors.

The only major “sin” that the government does not operate as its own monopoly is prostitution.  Maybe Lt. Governor Bill Halter can propose a chain of state-operated brothels to go along with the state-operated lottery, and state-controlled alcohol business.  He might want to tax and regulate it so that we could fund scholarships for students to attend universities.  We could call it Trix are For (College) Kids.

The Associated Press reports that Hawaii public schools will go to four days a week for most of the remainder of the school year because of revenue shortfalls. Here’s part of the story:

The deal whacks 17 days from the school year for budget-cutting reasons and has education advocates incensed that Hawaii is drastically cutting the academic calendar at a time when it already ranks near the bottom in national educational achievement.

…

While many school districts have laid off or furloughed teachers, reduced pay and planning days and otherwise cut costs, Hawaii’s 171,000 public schools students now find themselves with only 163 instructional days, compared with 180 in most districts in the U.S.

…

The deal in Hawaii and has parents and education authorities up in arms, including families now scrambling to find day care for the off days. Parents of special-needs students are considering suing the state, and advocates believe the plan will have a “disparate impact” on poor families, ethnic communities and single parents.

…

The new contract, approved by 81 percent of voting teachers, stipulates 17 furlough Fridays during which schools will be closed, with the first happening Oct. 23. The teachers accepted a concurrent pay reduction of about 8 percent, but teacher vacation, nine paid holidays and six teacher planning days are left untouched.

The new agreement also guarantees no layoffs for two years and postpones the implementation of random drug testing for teachers.

…

The cuts are occurring in a Hawaii public education system that’s already ranked 47th in the nation in eighth-grade reading and math, according to 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress test scores.

… and may work better too!

A couple of weeks ago we had a post that mentioned Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s proposal to lengthen the school day and/or year. In this previous post, Brian advocated for more targeted interventions. I would argue we would likely get more bang for our buck if we invested in afters-school programs. These programs have two advantages over an across the board lengthening the institutional day:

1.  They are cheaper
2.  You can more easily target kids and subject areas

Yesterday I read an editorial in the New York Times that called for an increase in funding for after-school programs. During the 2008 presidential campaign President Obama claimed he would double the funding for these programs, but his latest budget shows no such increase.

The Times editorial links to an interesting study by the advocacy group Afterschool Alliance. You can find it here. Also check out the Arkansas Fact Sheet from this report and the Arkansas Out-of-School Network website.

What do Mid-Riffs readers think? To what extent should the government rely on after-school programs?