<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Future of No Child Left Behind</title>
	<atom:link href="http://educationnext.org/the-future-of-no-child-left-behind/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://educationnext.org/the-future-of-no-child-left-behind/</link>
	<description>Education Next is a journal of opinion and research about education policy.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 18:44:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Understanding Government &#187; Blog Archive &#187; What the Bush Ed Dept Got Right</title>
		<link>http://educationnext.org/the-future-of-no-child-left-behind/comment-page-1/#comment-4600</link>
		<dc:creator>Understanding Government &#187; Blog Archive &#187; What the Bush Ed Dept Got Right</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://content.hks.harvard.edu/educationnext/?p=43628767#comment-4600</guid>
		<description>[...] No Child Left Behind law aimed to get all students to score &#8220;proficient&#8221; on math and reading NAEP tests by 2014. There&#8217;s no way that&#8217;s going to happen &#8212; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] No Child Left Behind law aimed to get all students to score &#8220;proficient&#8221; on math and reading NAEP tests by 2014. There&#8217;s no way that&#8217;s going to happen &#8212; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Education Next</title>
		<link>http://educationnext.org/the-future-of-no-child-left-behind/comment-page-1/#comment-948</link>
		<dc:creator>Education Next</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:17:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://content.hks.harvard.edu/educationnext/?p=43628767#comment-948</guid>
		<description>The following was submitted as a letter to the editor:

As I was reading “The Future of No Child Left Behind” (forum, Summer 2009), I found myself agreeing with both authors. I support the tenets of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in theory, but in practice I think it misses the mark. And while the authors spend time debating the theoretical issues, neither one addresses how to change the law at the ground level. The problem is that lawmakers, theorists, and educators look at the law and what changes should be made to it, rather than scrutinizing how the changes will affect students. The new NCLB needs a “regs” before the law approach.

The number-one change that should be made: judge schools on a set of measures that together create a school quotient score. Sixty percent of the quotient should reflect the average of two sets of test scores, one set based on state standards and tests and the other based on national standards and tests (NAEP, the Stanford 10, etc.). The rest of the quotient should reflect such measures as opportunities for gifted students, including AP classes; participation in the arts, music, and extracurricular programs; attendance and dropout rates; community service projects; special education exit rates; use of technology; staff turnover; participation in state tests and pass rates among English language learners; and parent involvement. The quotient could be used to judge schools against established benchmarks and ensure they are developing well-rounded, capable learners. The quotient could also be used to judge the progress of schools over time.

NCLB needs to change. One option is developing a school quotient score that would maintain the tenets of NCLB while acknowledging other school strengths as well.

Peter Weilenmann
National Board-Certified Teacher
Arlington, Virginia</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The following was submitted as a letter to the editor:</p>
<p>As I was reading “The Future of No Child Left Behind” (forum, Summer 2009), I found myself agreeing with both authors. I support the tenets of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in theory, but in practice I think it misses the mark. And while the authors spend time debating the theoretical issues, neither one addresses how to change the law at the ground level. The problem is that lawmakers, theorists, and educators look at the law and what changes should be made to it, rather than scrutinizing how the changes will affect students. The new NCLB needs a “regs” before the law approach.</p>
<p>The number-one change that should be made: judge schools on a set of measures that together create a school quotient score. Sixty percent of the quotient should reflect the average of two sets of test scores, one set based on state standards and tests and the other based on national standards and tests (NAEP, the Stanford 10, etc.). The rest of the quotient should reflect such measures as opportunities for gifted students, including AP classes; participation in the arts, music, and extracurricular programs; attendance and dropout rates; community service projects; special education exit rates; use of technology; staff turnover; participation in state tests and pass rates among English language learners; and parent involvement. The quotient could be used to judge schools against established benchmarks and ensure they are developing well-rounded, capable learners. The quotient could also be used to judge the progress of schools over time.</p>
<p>NCLB needs to change. One option is developing a school quotient score that would maintain the tenets of NCLB while acknowledging other school strengths as well.</p>
<p>Peter Weilenmann<br />
National Board-Certified Teacher<br />
Arlington, Virginia</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

