The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in 2002 was the apotheosis of the standards-assessments-accountability movement, which had been building for about two decades.
Some loved it, believing this latest reauthorization of the LBJ-era Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) finally put the spotlight on high-need kids and our nation’s ongoing inability to provide them with a great education. Advocates point to the steady closing of the achievement gap during the law’s period of influence as evidence that it was producing the results desired.
But many others viewed NCLB as the ultimate distortion of K–12 accountability. It emanated from Washington, unrealistically aspired to 100 percent proficiency, labeled too many schools “in need of improvement,” and—sin of all sins—was obsessed with assessments.
If NCLB represented the farthest point of the testing pendulum’s swing to the right, many forces beyond gravity alone are now pulling it leftward.
Congress’s inability to reauthorize the law (now about seven years late) is a clear indication that many members are uncomfortable with the law’s contours.
The “opt-out” movement, whereby parents decide to free their students from the administration of ESEA-related tests, shows that, at least to some degree, families have misgivings about assessments.
And in a growing number of states—most recently in Tennessee—legislators are moving to end their relationships with the two Common Core–aligned assessment consortia.
If the success of tactics and short-term wins are the measuring stick, the anti-testing crowd has reason to celebrate. They appear to be ascendant.
But we should keep our long-term goals in mind and judge the leftward swing of the pendulum accordingly. In other words, are kids, especially disadvantaged students, benefitting from this retreat (or “strategic retrenchment,” depending on your worldview)?
Well, there’s reason for concern.
Maryland’s Montgomery County, just outside of Washington, D.C., is one of the nation’s largest school districts and has both highly affluent pockets and areas with significant at-risk populations. Joshua Starr, its superintendent, has been trying to make a national name for himself as an opponent of high-stakes tests tied to school- and teacher-level accountability provisions.
But just this weekend, the Washington Post’s editorial board scolded his administration for results showing the achievement gap is growing. Quoting a report from the county’s Office of Legislative Oversight, they noted, “Since 2010, the economic, racial and ethnic stratification of students among MCPS high schools has increased . . . the achievement gap between high- and low-poverty high schools has widened . . . MCPS’ approach is not working as intended.”
If this were an isolated incident, we might brush it aside. But the anti-NCLB sentiment energizing Starr’s strategy can also be seen in the Obama administration’s ESEA-waiver gambit.
Now to be clear, Secretary Duncan has been an advocate for tougher standards and high-quality assessments, as he explained to a House appropriations subcommittee last week. But, as Anne Hyslop’s waiver study showed, fewer schools in the Waiver Era are going to be held accountable for their results. Similarly, Chubb and Clark’s report on waivers suggests that freedom from NCLB is likely to lead to some states’ re-embracing testing and accountability approaches that had failed prior to NCLB.
For all of its imperfections, NCLB did some serious good. Today’s testing backlash may be inevitable, and it may be cathartic in some camps. But my hope is that those pushing this agenda realize that the more successful they are, the more we all will reap what they sow.
Perhaps that’s an idyllic world of authentic teaching and learning, where children learn to love schooling and take charge of their own educations. Or maybe it’s a return to the lamentable pre-NCLB era, where a paucity of assessments and interventions allowed states, districts, and schools to hide achievement gaps and do little in response when they were revealed.
This first appeared on the Fordham Institute’s Flypaper blog.
The paradoxical logic of military and political strategy is a result of the fact that in the strategic world one’s opponent is able to react to your efforts with counter-moves.
The ambitious program could fund the development of truly disruptive models for educating students in a manner that is tightly connected to workforce opportunities.
Is the best urban district good enough?
No, or at least not very much
A state court in New Jersey rejected arguments by the teachers union against two charter schools in Newark that use blended learning.
The brute force and directness required for adopting national standards makes its effective implementation in a diverse, decentralized, and democratic country impossible.
In a crowded 2016 field, education could and should be a critical asset for a potential Bush candidacy. What happens with Common Core over the next 24 months will determine whether it is.
Is it legal to opt your child out of state tests? Should it be legal?
After eight years of helping make New Orleans the most exciting American city for K–12 education, Neerav Kingsland is going to focus on bringing NOLA-style reform to other cities.
Posts by Authors
- Achieve, Inc.
- Alliance for Excellent Education
- Alliance for School Choice
- American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence
- American Institutes For Research
- American Legislative Exchange Council
- Annie E. Casey Foundation
- Aspen Institute
- Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
- Broad Foundation
- Brookings Institution
- Building Excellent Schools
- Center for American Progress
- Center for Education Reform
- Center for Educational Achievement
- Center on Reinventing Public Education
- Citizens Commission On Civil Rights
- Common Core
- Consortium for Policy Research in Education
- Core Knowledge Foundation
- Data Quality Campaign
- Democrats for Education Reform
- Education Sector
- Education Trust
- Foundation for Excellence in Education
- Friedman Foundation
- Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media
- National Alliance for Public Charter Schools
- National Association of Charter School Authorizers
- National Charter School Research Project
- National Council on Teacher Quality
- National Education Writers Association
- National Governors Association
- National Institute for Excellence in Teaching
- New Leaders for New Schools
- New Schools Venture Fund
- Program on Education Policy and Governance
- Progressive Policy Institute
- Public Impact
- Teach for America
- The New Teacher Project
- Thomas B. Fordham Institute
- United States Department of Education
About the Blog
The Ed Next blog aims to provide lively commentary on education news and research and to bring evidence to bear on current education policy debates.
Our bloggers include editors at Education Next magazine and others who have written for the magazine. Education Next is a quarterly journal of opinion and research about education policy published by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and additionally sponsored by the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University and the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
The opinions expressed by the Ed Next bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of Educationnext.org, Education Next magazine, or its sponsors. Educationnext.org is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by the bloggers.