It's official: Arne Duncan has fulfilled his promise to propose a reauthorized No Child Left Behind law that is "tight" about the results expected while "loose" on the means. The ESEA blueprint released by the Obama Administration yesterday would represent, as Andy wrote, a dramatic change in the federal role in education--one that would be more targeted, less prescriptive, and??use a??lighter touch on the vast majority of America's schools.
[quote]
Under this proposal, there would be no more "Adequate Yearly Progress," no more "public school choice" or "supplemental educational services," no more "cascade of sanctions," no more requirement for 100 percent of students to reach proficiency by 2014, no more getting labelled a "failing school" because some of your special ed students or English language learners failed the state test.
Except for the very worst schools in the country--which would be subject to??serious turnaround efforts--the rest would be freed from federally-mandated accountability. (The fastest-improving schools would actually get cash rewards and extra flexibility.) It does call for 100 percent of students to graduate from high school "college and career ready" by 2020, but that's purely an aspirational goal; there are no consequences attached whatsoever. (The transparancy of annual testing and reporting would continue.)
In a sane world, the teachers unions would be singing Amen, the accountability hawks would be screaming bloody murder, and the Republicans would be dancing in the streets. But that's not the reaction found in press accounts in the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, and Wall Street Journal . It's a classic blind man's elephant: everyone seems to be focusing on just one part of the proposal they like or hate, but not seeing the big picture.
The unions are complaining that the blueprint, in Randi Weingarten's words, "places 100 percent of the responsibility on teachers and gives them zero percent of the authority." John Kline, the ranking Republican on the House education committee, warns that the proposal doesn't square with Obama's promise of more flexibity for the states. Meanwhile, Amy Wilkins of the Education Trust said that "getting all kids college-ready is absolutely the right aspiration."* And Margaret Spellings praised "a more nuanced approach to accountability."
Excuse me? This is a huge victory for the unions, as at least 90 percent of the nation's schools??would no longer??live without fear of federal interventions.** Likewise for the GOP, as the federal role in most suburban schools would diminish significantly. It's a big setback for special ed and ELL advocates, because the failure of their clients would no longer send schools into a??buzz saw??of sanctions. The civil rights types, who earnestly believe Washington can fix all equity issues from on high, should be apoplectic. And doesn't Spellings understand that this violates all of the "bright lines"?? of accountability that she's argued for over the past decade?
The only reactions that made sense were those from Daniel Domenech of the American Association of School Administrators ("we're very encouraged by this proposal") and civil rights warrior Christopher Edley ("I'm alarmed by the frequent references to ???incentives,' and the apparent intention to reduce the federal role in forcing compliance.???)
As for me, I'm thrilled that the proposal is largely faithful to reform realism. It uses federal power to give political cover to reformers at the state and local level, but focuses most of its muscle and prescriptiveness on a handful of the worst schools. With its call for common standards but its vast increase in flexibility over state accountability systems, it lives up to the "tight-loose" premise. And it acknowledges that NCLB's sanctions--including public school choice and free tutoring--were a bust.
That's not to say that it's perfect. The move to make funding "comparable" from school to school could have all kinds of unintended consequences if implemented foolishly, and could tie schools in a whole new layer of red tape. A proposal to target schools with big achievement gaps might ironically shame the few racially integrated schools still in our midst. And the turnaround strategic envisioned for the 5 percent??worst schools is still overly optimistic.
But on the whole, this proposal would right-size the federal role in education in a way that clear-eyed reformers should embrace. For the likes of John Kline it gets the feds off the backs of most of the country's schools, and for the likes of Lamar Alexander it "catches schools doing something right" rather than just punishing them for doing something wrong. It's a serious blueprint, and one that would be a?? huge improvement over current law.
* Though, as my colleague Eric pointed out to me, her quote in the Wall Street Journal was much more critical, and thus predictable: "You can't say we're going to get all kids college ready and ignore 85% of the schools. The rewards don't reach them that far down and the negative consequences don't reach that high. So there's nothing in the middle. If you're a school that is in the bottom 25%, you could just be in the bottom 25% and just sit there."
** I understand that the unions are upset about a proposed new requirement for states to determine if individual teachers are effective, based in part on student learning. (Updated at 3:45.)
-Mike Petrilli
