THE NATION’S NEWSPAPER

Collegiate
Case
Study www.usatodaycollege.com

States get creative to minimize Assessment of Educational Progress

federal law’s effect The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation passed over five years ago was designed to
By Ledyard King improve academic achievement for students in elementary and secondary school.
.....................................................................................3 NCLB mandates that states must show progress of this achievement by testing stu-
dents in reading and math from third to eighth grade and once in high school. A recent
report by the U.S. Department of Education finds that some state tests and standards
Report, suit question teacher are too lenient, with critics charging that some states are setting the bar too low. In
qualifications addition, NCLB also calls for “scientifically-based” research to measure the effective-
By Greg Toppo ness of educational curriculum and resources; as with testing, the last five years have
seen struggles in the research arena as well. This case study addresses some of these
.....................................................................................3
controversial testing and research issues as NCLB moves towards its deadline of mak-
ing all children proficient in math and reading by 2014.
Education science in search of
answers
By Greg Toppo
................................................................................4-5 The standards complaint
Today’s Debate: But the law allows each state to chart
Improving education Data suggest states its own course in meeting those
objectives.
Our view: An illusion gains credibility
....................................................................................6
satisfy No Child law
The result, according to a Gannett
Opposing view: Key subjects get short shrift by expecting less News Service analysis of test scores, is
that many states have taken the safe
.....................................................................................7
from their students route, keeping standards low and fooling
parents into believing their children are
By Ledyard King prepared for college and work.
Letters Gannett News Service
...........................................................................................8 Federal education officials plan to
Almost ever y four th-grader in release a report today that is expected to
Mississippi knows how to read. In reach the same conclusion: Many states
NCLB is working, Massachusetts, only half do. hold students to a relatively low
but it’s ‘a journey’ standard. Critics say states are more
So what's Mississippi doing that worried about creating the appearance
Education Secretary Margaret Spellings Massachusetts, the state with the most of academic progress than in raising
..............................................................................9-10 college graduates, isn't? standards.

Setting expectations too low, critics "Ironically, No Child reforms may have
Critical inquiry say. the exact opposite effect they were
Discussion and future implications intended to have," says Bruce Fuller, an
The 2002 federal No Child Left Behind education and public policy professor at
.........................................................................................11 law was designed to raise education the University of California at Berkeley.
standards by punishing schools that fail
to make all kids proficient in math and
Additional resources reading.
.........................................................................................12

© Copyright 2007 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co., Inc. All rights reser ved.
AS SEEN IN USA TODAY’S LIFE SECTION, JUNE 7, 2007
State scores misleading
The GNS analysis found that relying on
state test scores to judge students'
performance is misleading.
For example, 89% of Mississippi fourth-
graders passed the state's reading test in
2005, but only 18% passed the National
Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) test. That gap of 71 percentage
points was the widest in the nation.
Fuller's research suggests the gap
between state test scores and NAEP
scores has widened in many states since
the federal law took effect.
States that don't push students to meet
higher standards risk sending them into
the work world unprepared — even as
global competition increases. More than
half of 250 employers surveyed in 2006
said high school graduates are deficient
at writing in English, foreign languages
and math skills.
"The future U.S. workforce is here —
and it is woefully ill-prepared," the
report concluded.
State education officials deny critics'
claims that they're gaming the system by
making tests easier. They say it's unfair to
compare state tests with NAEP, which is
taken by only a small percentage of
students and often includes material
schools haven't covered yet.
They say changes in testing policies
came after careful review and federal
officials signed off on them.
"We didn't game anything," says Tom
Horne, superintendent of public
instruction in Arizona, which lowered
the passing score on several tests in
2005. "We called a task force, and the
state board decided to follow their
recommendation."
No Child Left Behind requires states to
test students in math and reading from
third through eighth grades and once in
Reprinted with permission. All rights reser ved.
high school. Ever y child must be
proficient in those subjects by 2014.
Schools that don't make "adequate
yearly progress" risk being flagged as
underperforming. Students may transfer,
or the district could be forced to use its
federal money to pay for tutoring.
Philadelphia schools chief Paul Vallas
says the answer is national standards.
Every grade in every state would teach
the same material and administer the
same test.
Vallas, who will take over New Orleans'
schools in July, says students who fled
the hurricane-devastated Gulf Coast in
2005 were stunned to find more rigorous
education standards elsewhere.
"The shocker … is how poorly the kids
have done in another state," he says. "It
was probably a wake-up call."
Focus on neglected groups
President Bush and lawmakers say the
punitive elements of No Child Left
Behind have prompted states to re-
examine standards and focus on long-
neglected groups of students, notably
minorities and students with disabilities.
Critics say the law forces schools to
drill kids and emphasize testing at the
expense of other learning.
Tiffany Collins, 12, a seventh-grader at
Robert Frost Middle School in Fairfax, Va.,
knows May is test time. "I just think it's
really a lot of pressure," she says.
States and some independent experts
say comparing scores on federal and
state tests isn't valid.
The national exam, they say, was never
designed to compare standards from
state to state. It's administered to only a
sample of students, each of whom takes
only a portion of the test.
And teachers and students are far more
focused on the state tests because those
tests determine whether their schools
make adequate progress and, in some
cases, whether seniors receive a diploma.
In Maryland, 58% of fourth-graders
passed the state reading test in 2003;
32% passed NAEP. Two years later, 82%
passed the state test; NAEP results
stayed the same.
"If it doesn't count for kids, they're not
going to take it seriously," says Dixie
Stack, director of curriculum at the
Maryland Department of Education.
Some states do take it seriously.
In 2005, Tennessee reported the largest
difference in the nation between eighth-
grade students' scores on the state's
math and reading tests and scores on
NAEP.
The state looked at its standards and
found them largely in line with NAEP,
says Rachel Woods of the state
Depar tment of Education. But the
Tennessee tests used a multiple-choice
format, while NAEP demands more essay
responses.
Now, Tennessee is rewriting its tests
and increasing requirements for high
school graduation. That will almost
cer tainly lower the number of kids
scoring in the proficient range and
increase the number of schools flagged
as poor performers, Woods says.
But, she says, "What's important is
having more kids graduate with the skills
they need to succeed."
Contributing: Greg Toppo, USA TODAY
Page 2
AS SEEN IN USA TODAY’S LIFE SECTION, JUNE 7, 2007
States get creative in minimizing law's impact
By Ledyard King
Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON — The federal No Child
Left Behind law requires that all public
school students make "adequate yearly
progress" toward mastering math and
reading by 2014. But each state defines
such progress according to its own rules.
Some states have used those rules "to
blunt the effects" of the law, said Jack
Jennings, head of The Center on
Education Policy, a Washington-based
think tank.
But, Jennings said, "The day of
reckoning ultimately comes."
One way states can postpone
committing to the goals of No Child Left
Behind is to make their standardized
tests easy enough for most students to
pass.
But there are other options as well:
u Limiting which students must
show progress. In addition to boosting
AS SEEN IN USA TODAY’S LIFE SECTION, AUGUST 22, 2007
Report, suit question teacher qualifications
By Greg Toppo
USA TODAY
A federal lawsuit and a new report
challenge the Bush administration's rules
on teacher credentials, saying they fail to
ensure that students have a highly
qualified teacher. But the lawsuit and the
report offer diverging recommendations
for fixing the problem.
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in San
Francisco by several civil rights groups,
challenges the U.S. Education
Department's regulations for "highly
qualified teachers," saying the
depar tment has watered down the
standard by allowing thousands of
Reprinted with permission. All rights reser ved.
the performance of students overall,
schools must boost the performance of
"numerically significant" subgroups of
minority and other students. Each state
decides what numerically significant
means. Maryland recognizes subgroups
made up of only five students. In
California, some subgroups must contain
100 students to count.
u Grading on the curve. States are
allowed to use statistical techniques
called "confidence intervals" to rate
students as
proficient even if their scores on
achievement tests fall slightly short of
the target. Like the margin of error on a
poll, confidence intervals recognize that
a test is only a snapshot of a student's
ability on a particular day and that the
student might score higher on a different
day.
Most states have adopted confidence
intervals between 95 percent and 99
percent. Those using a percentage on
the high end of that range can count
more kids as proficient.
teachers-in-training in California and
elsewhere to be declared highly qualified
before they even finish training.
Poor and minority students, the suit
says, are more likely to be taught by
interns; in many cases, about 12% of poor
students' teachers are interns. Statewide,
only about 3% of teachers are interns.
Amy Wilkins of The Education Trust, an
advocacy group, says the Education
Department "has failed miserably" in
ensuring that all students have highly
qualified teachers. She also says the state
of California and its school districts "have
sought to undermine the intent of the
law at every turn."
u Slowing the pace of progress. No
Child Left Behind requires that every
student perform at a proficient level by
2014, but each state defines proficiency
its own way and sets its own pace.
During the 2005-06 school year, for
example, Colorado required almost 70
percent of eighth-graders to score at a
proficient level on the state's math test,
but Arizona required only 23 percent of
its eighth-graders to do the same.
u Retesting. The No Child Left Behind
law requires that each state test its high
school students once by 2014. Many
states use their exit exam to meet this
requirement.
In a growing number of states,
students must pass the exit exam to get
a diploma, so states give them multiple
opportunities to pass. The scores from
these retests increase the overall
number of proficient students and can
be used to help a school meet the No
Child Left Behind requirement.
The Education Department did not
immediately respond to a request for
comment.
The repor t, from the Center on
Education Policy, a Washington think
tank that has monitored Bush's No Child
Left Behind education reform law, says
the law has had little effect on either
student achievement or the
qualifications of the teacher workforce.
But it recommends the federal
government give states more leeway, not
less, in how they define a qualified
teacher.
Page 3
AS SEEN IN USA TODAY’S LIFE SECTION, APRIL 11, 2007
Education science in
search of answers
Research's usefulness is called into question
By Greg Toppo
USA TODAY
The Education Department made big news last July when it
released a long-awaited study that compared the test scores of
children in more than 7,500 public and private schools. With
most other things being equal, public school students often do
better and sometimes a lot better than private-schoolers, the
research found.
But four days later, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings
stood in the expansive hearing room of the House Education
Committee to unveil a $100 million proposal to use taxpayer-
funded vouchers to send public school students to private
schools.
Spellings called the study irrelevant, saying it was small and
flawed. Other advocates of vouchers, such as Har vard
University researcher Paul Peterson, agreed. Advocates of
public schools, including teachers unions, say the Bush
administration chose to ignore a study that didn't support its
agenda.
In the end, it was a pretty good metaphor for the state of
educational research: More than five years after President
Bush's No Child Left Behind law told educators to rely on
"scientifically based" methods, the science produced is often
inconclusive, politically charged or less than useful for
classroom teachers. And when it is useful, it often is misused or
ignored altogether.
A focus on practicality
As the 88th annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association (AERA) takes place this week in Chicago,
critics say the USA's huge community of education researchers
— 14,000 are attending — often studies topics that do little to
help schools solve practical problems such as how to train
teachers, how to raise skills, how to lower dropout rates and
whether smaller classes really make a difference.
For more educational resources,
Reprinted with visit http://education.usatoday.com
permission.
"Some good work is getting done, but the balance of
influence in AERA is not with people doing rigorous, carefully
designed, obviously important research," says Rick Hess of the
American Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank.
Hess made waves last year when he and a co-writer plucked
dozens of titles from AERA's conference program for a tongue-
in-cheek National Review piece. It bemoaned the dearth of
serious work on practical matters, noting papers with "utterly
incomprehensible" titles such as "Postcolonial Reading of
Classroom Discourse on the Imperial Rescue of Oppressed
Hawaiian Women," "The Formation of the Subjectivity of Mail-
Order Brides in Taiwan and Their Educational Strategies Toward
Their Children" and "Vygotskian Semiotic Conception and
Representational Dialogue in Mathematics Education."
"It seemed useful to kind of cast a spotlight on this and hope
that it might urge the serious folks at AERA to pay a little more
attention, to be sure that they're not being tarred unfairly by
less serious work," Hess says.
Part of the problem is few researchers have the means to
conduct large-scale, long-term studies, which usually require
the cooperation of at least one school district. But districts
often are reluctant to agree to trials that could cast them in a
less-than-favorable light.
Grover J. (Russ) Whitehurst, who directs the Education
Department's Institute of Education Sciences, says researchers
are producing more large-scale studies that pose vital, practical
questions. Five years ago, his agency financed 65 research
grants; this year's budget finances 350.
But Hess has a point: "There's an awful lot that goes on that is
off-target if your target is solving problems," Whitehurst says.
Others defend AERA's work and that of researchers in general
but say the patchwork system of public schools makes it hard
even for relevant research to reach the classroom.
All rights reser ved. 7
Page 4
AS SEEN IN USA TODAY’S LIFE SECTION, APRIL 11, 2007
"We have a separation in that some of us who do the
research aren't running the schools," says William Tate, a math
researcher at Washington University in St. Louis who will take
over as AERA's new president this month.
No system for dissemination
Tate points out excellent research, for instance, on dropout
prevention, released in February by Columbia University, which
identified five cost-effective ways to boost high school
graduation rates. The study should be in the hands "of every
superintendent in America," Tate says. But they probably won't
see it because, unlike in medicine, there's no systematic way
for important research to be disseminated.
"We don't have that kind of infrastructure," he says. "It's just
not there."
A few leaders go out of their way to take in the latest findings.
Evelyn Holman, superintendent of Bay Shore Union Free
Schools in New York, says she gathers her principals every
other month for a day of training on the latest research.
"You need that incubation time to really reflect on, 'Where
are we going, what are we doing, how could we do it better?'"
she says.
Budget cuts do make it hard for many of her colleagues to
take time for such sessions. "It's seen by the public sometimes
as just a chance to go play, rather than a chance to stay up with
the latest trends in your field," she says.
Research budgets limited
Funding also limits research. As with medical research,
universities, foundations and corporations all underwrite
education research. But federal support for education pales
next to medicine.
Reprinted with permission. All rights reser ved.
Education Sciences gets about $234 million for research on
regular and special education, which is less than 1% of the $400
billion spent each year on K-12 education, according to the non-
partisan Aspen Institute. Aspen compares the funding with the
$27 billion received by the National Institutes of Health and
recommends doubling Whitehurst's budget.
Tate says he foresees more researchers focusing on the
effectiveness of programs, and cost-benefit analyses.
"We're putting a lot of money into this good called education,
and people want to know what kind of benefits they're getting
from the investment they're making."
In 2002, Whitehurst unveiled the What Works Clearinghouse,
which uses a six-point scale to judge programs available to
schools such as math and reading curricula and dropout
prevention and character education programs.
In the process, it accepts or rejects prior research on each
program. After 4 1/2 years and $23 million, it has rated about
50 products, finding 75% of studies unacceptable — and
prompting education pundits to call it the "Nothing Works
Clearinghouse."
But even this level of skepticism may not satisfy critics.
After the clearinghouse last month found the popular
Reading Recovery program showed "positive effects" on
student achievement and "potentially positive effects" on
comprehension and fluency, critics weighed in. They zoomed
in on the fine print and found the endorsement was based on
four acceptable studies out of 78.
Whitehurst says progress is slow but steady: "It used to be
that the glass was nearly empty, and now it's a quarter full."
"Some good work is getting done, but the balance of
influence in AERA is not with people doing rigorous, carefully
designed, obviously important research."
Page 5
AS SEEN ON USA TODAY’S EDITORIAL PAGE, AUGUST 6, 2007

Today’s Debate: Improving education

An illusion gains credibility

Our view: And if your child attends a school in a high-pover ty
A step forward on ethics, but the first or the last? neighborhood, chances are the school needs to zero in on
basics. According the "nation's report card," as the National
At the recent CNN/YouTube debate among the Democratic Assessment of Educational Progress is known, the reading gaps
presidential candidates, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was between low-income schools with mostly minority children
asked about education. and middle-class schools with mostly white students are
unacceptably wide.
Richardson replied that he'd scrap the No Child
Left Behind law in favor of "a major federal program If children aren't solid readers by third grade
of art in the schools." Much applause from the Reading gaps — the time students go from "learning to
audience. "Music, dancing, sculpture and the arts," Fourth-graders reading read" to "reading to learn" — their chances of
he continued. More applause. below the basic level:
becoming successful students are limited. And
African-American
59% high school math is the key to learning
Richardson was tapping into a misleading story sciences in college, according to a study just
White
line that's increasingly taken for conventional 25% published in Science.
wisdom. Poor
54% Some schools in low-income
The stor y line goes like this: Schools are Non-poor neighborhoods have indeed gone too far in
abandoning such courses to focus relentlessly on 23% focusing on math and science to the exclusion
only two subjects, math and reading, because those Source: 2005 National
Assessment of Educational
of other subjects. But it doesn't have to be
are what get tested as part of the federal No Child Progress, Education Department. that way:
law. As a result, the theor y says, children are By Alejandro Gonzalez, USA TODAY

deprived of well-rounded educations. u Nearly 600 public schools using the

The perception is widespread. Other leading Democrats,
including Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., have echoed Richardson.
And the nation's largest teachers' union, the National Education
Association, raises "narrowing of the curriculum" as one of its
many objections to No Child, a law designed to bring
accountability into the classroom.
innovative "Core Knowledge" program wrap reading and math
skills into an unusually rich curriculum that teaches elementary
students about everything from Egyptian culture to the Italian
Renaissance. At P.S. 124 in Queens, near New York's JFK Airport,
97% of the students are minorities and 90% live in poverty. And
yet this school turns in math and reading scores that rival
schools in middle-class areas.

Critics point to a recent survey of mostly urban school
districts by the Center on Education Policy; 62% reported
increasing time for literacy or math at the expense of history,
music, art, social studies or recess.
There is, however, more to the story.
If your child attends a successful school in a well-to-do
neighborhood, chances are the curriculum hasn't narrowed.
u At KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program), operating 57
charter schools in 17 states, literacy skills are part of every
subject, which helps explain KIPP's high reading scores.
The "narrowing of the curriculum" line is one you'll hear
often in the presidential race. It isn't entirely without
foundation. In general, however, if students are getting more
math and reading instruction, it's because they need it.

Reprinted with permission. All rights reser ved. Page 6

AS SEEN ON USA TODAY’S EDITORIAL PAGE, AUGUST 6, 2007
Today’s Debate: Improving education
Key subjects get short shrift
Opposing view:
Mandates prevent students from getting a well-
rounded education.
By Reg Weaver
Many school administrators now view time spent on the arts,
social studies and science as a waste of time. With a federal
mandate to improve test scores in reading and math, and
demonstrate "adequate yearly progress" under No Child Left
Behind, public schools are giving other subjects short shrift.
Unlike reading and math, science and civics don't count toward
a school's evaluation.
The irony? The very students NCLB is most aimed at helping
— those who are low-income, minority and academically
struggling — actually stand to gain most from a well-rounded
education, as studies have consistently shown.
In our effort to narrow the achievement gaps, we are
narrowing the opportunities for our most disadvantaged
students by depriving them of the broad curriculum available
in affluent schools. In a national sample of school districts,
about 62% have increased time for English or math in
elementary schools, while 44% cut time from non-tested
subjects in the quest for higher test scores.
Reprinted with permission. All rights reser ved.
These findings confirm what the nation's educators have
experienced firsthand since NCLB was passed five years ago.
According to the theory behind the law, the increased pressure
to raise test scores would force schools to improve. The reality
is quite different. It turns out that while pressure cookers are a
great way to make a tender pot roast, they are a poor way to
improve learning.
The Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State
University found that increased testing pressure did nothing to
improve fourth- and eighth-grade reading scores or eighth-
grade math scores on the widely used National Assessment of
Educational Progress. Yet there are measurable unintended
consequences: dropout rates have increased, and school
administrators make more time for test preparation at the
expense of other important subjects.
We must arm children with critical thinking and problem-
solving skills to survive and thrive in the 21st century. History,
science, art and music build the knowledge to do this. It's
shortsighted to push these subjects to the back burner when
we need to provide students with a diverse curriculum for
future success. Let's keep the pressure cooker in the kitchen
and out of the classroom.
Reg Weaver is president of the National Education
Association, the nation's largest teachers' union.
Page 7
AS SEEN ON USA TODAY’S EDITORIAL PAGE, AUGUST 13, 2007
Letters
Achievement gap is narrowing
I want to commend USA TODAY for its editorial "An illusion
gains credibility" (Our view, Improving education debate).
Unfortunately, in his opposing view, Reg Weaver, president of
the National Education Association, enlarges the education
illusion (“Key subjects get short shrift,” Opposing view,
Improving education debate, Aug. 6).
Weaver claims dropout rates have increased in the wake of
the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), but this isn't what the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) says.
In its Digest of Education Statistics: 2006, NCES says the
percentage of high school dropouts among people 16 through
24 years old dropped from 10.9% in 2000 to 9.4% in 2005.
The four-year graduation rate of freshmen increased from
71.7% in 2000 to 74.7% in 2005.
Weaver claims math and reading scores on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) have not improved
since NCLB.
But according to the Nation's Report Card, the rate of
improvement in fourth- and eighth-grade math and fourth-
grade reading has accelerated since 2000. Improvement for
African-American and Hispanic students has generally
Reprinted with permission. All rights reser ved.
exceeded that of whites, who also improved. Thus, the
achievement gap is narrowing after years of widening.
Weaver claims NCLB has narrowed the curriculum. Despite
abundant anecdotes suggesting the contrary, the Digest of
Education Statistics: 2006 shows the following: High school
graduates in 2005 took more courses in history/social studies,
science, foreign languages, arts and computers than did
graduates in 2000.
As for the elementary grades, a recent NCES study of first
through fourth grades shows that the percentage of the school
week used for teaching the four core academic subjects of
English, mathematics, social studies and science has not
changed significantly between 1998-99 and 2003-04. Children
had about a third of their school week to spend on other
subjects and activities.
Indeed, because the length of the student school week has
increased a full hour since 1987-1988, and the total time spent
delivering instruction is up 1.7 hours a week, it could actually
be that more time is being spent broadening students'
education.
Sandy Kress, former senior education
advisor to President Bush
Austin
Page 8
AS SEEN ON USA TODAY’S FORUM PAGE AUGUST 30, 2007
NCLB is working, but it’s ‘a journey’
The ambitious and oft-assailed law is set to expire. Education Secretary
Margaret Spellings takes on critics' concerns while arguing that No
Child Left Behind should be fixed — not upended or abandoned.
The No Child Left Behind education law is about to undergo the
most intense congressional scrutiny since its passage in 2002, as
lawmakers will consider whether to renew it. The most prominent
domestic achievement of the Bush presidency has been criticized for
being heavy-handed and underfunded, and for ultimately driving
standards lower. Though the law requires all students to be
"proficient" by 2014, proficiency is measured by 50 different state
standards, and some states game the system to produce "better"
scores. Even so, the law has produced dividends. Independent studies
have shown that students are performing better, and perhaps most
significantly, minority students have seen gains. Congress will be
working on a short timeline over the next few weeks, as the law is set
to expire at the end of September. Education Secretary Margaret
Spellings discussed the law with USA TODAY's editorial board. Her
comments were edited for length and clarity.
Question: NCLB has elicited frequent criticism from school
administrators around the country. What are you hearing, and
what is the best way to ease these concerns?
Answer: We're shining a bright spotlight on under-achievement
in this country, and it makes a lot of grownups uncomfortable. No
doubt about it. But that's the point. And, you know, the law is really
very simple on its face. Test every kid every year. Disaggregate the
data. Get them on grade level by 2014.
Q: Many educators view the testing regimen required in the law
as onerous and responsible for creating a teach-to-the-test world.
Are these criticisms fair?
A: We passed the best law we could five years ago. We had
about half the states doing annual assessments, and everybody
else was doing a snapshot -- third-graders, eighth-graders, 11th-
graders. We didn't know very much. There's no way to chart
progress over time when you're measuring third-graders, eighth-
graders and 11th-graders. We can now do a growth model (that
compares kids year to year). Everybody's whining about too much
testing, but let's have more testing.
Q: With those five years of experience, what do you see as the
primary problems of the law and the areas that could be
improved?
Reprinted with permission. All rights reser ved.
A: We have about 90,000 schools in this country; 70% are
making the NCLB requirements. But 2,300 out of 90,000 are
chronically underperforming. I mean, that doesn't seem like an
unbelievably high amount to me, knowing that half our minority
kids are getting out of high school on time. This is about finding the
right balance and peeling the onion and telling states, "You need to
do this work in exchange for federal dollars."
Q: You mentioned the 2,300 chronically underperforming
schools that have gone five years without meeting the NCLB
standards. Yet it seems that all they're doing is swapping an
assistant principal in and out or shifting the curriculum a bit.
Meanwhile, the states are throwing up their hands and saying,
"We don't have the money to fix this," and daring the feds to come
in and do something. So in the end, nothing happens, right?
A: That's one of the big issues in NCLB reauthorization. For those
schools, right now the menu and the statute of what constitutes
restructuring — real restructuring — is hugely anemic. It says
charter, re-establish, anything else you feel like. So the
accountability trajectory in NCLB actually gets less robust than
more robust. The things that happen in the early years are more
vigorous than the anemic options later, which is why we need to
change it.
Q: So what should change?
A: We need more intensity around these chronic
underachievers. The president believes that ought to be real school
choice, tutoring, charter schools. … I mean, serious, serious
intervention. So more intensive resources, not only for those
schools, but also for those schools at risk of drifting that way.
Q: One radical fix hasn't been tried: cross-district transfers.
Should the reauthorization include this as a way of helping these
trapped kids?
A: I think that would be certainly allowable under the president's
concept. But the budget also includes parochial schools and other
sorts of educational offerings. We must give states more vigorous
tools to confront the chronic underperformers.
Page 9
AS SEEN ON USA TODAY’S FORUM PAGE AUGUST 30, 2007
Q: Can a school district be required to take a child who is seeking
a transfer?
A: These are decisions that would be made locally. But we're
going to say, OK, real school restructuring has to happen. This is the
menu. And these are some resources.
Q: Will the reauthorization consider new ways to measure
school performance?
A: This law can be made a lot worse, and I'm not interested in
that. I hear people say, "Let's have a lot of measures, let's use
teacher grades, let's use somebody's opinion, let's use a parent
survey, let's whatever," and so on. No. That is not valid, reliable,
comparable accountability. Do you let your employees rate
themselves for their performance reviews? Can we make this law
better? Can we improve it to the good of minority and poor kids?
Yes, we can. But it can also be watered down, and we cannot have
that.
Q: The reauthorization effort is occurring in the middle of the
2008 presidential election campaign. That can be a political high-
wire act. How are you handling this?
A: The politics of education are fascinating because the civil
rights community and the unions — both core Democrat
constituencies — find themselves at odds with one another (over
NCLB). The good news is we got a very strong statute on the books
right now. And if we can improve it, we're for it. They're for it.
Q: Why not push the date back if nobody really believes all the
kids will be at grade level by 2014?
A: I reject that. There's plenty of flex and give in this law. I am not
willing to say that all of the kids who are left as a part of the
accountability system, that they cannot read on grade level. We're
not asking people to be rocket scientists. We're asking the schools
to have our children read on grade level. I mean, what do you want
for your own kids?
Q: If students are allowed to transfer from a non-performing
school to a high-performing school, often the only children who
benefit are the ones with highly motivated parents. As a result,
aren't we merely skimming the cream away from poorly
performing schools?
Reprinted with permission. All rights reser ved.
A: The parents have every right to seek a high-quality
educational option for their kid, irrespective of whether highly
motivated, low motivated, rich, poor, whatever. So that's what
they've done; that's what the law says they can do. Every kid on a
campus, whether they're a failing kid or just a regular kid in a
failing school, has that option. Fine and dandy. That's their
prerogative. But as far as the creaming issue, I don't think the
intensity to improve that school is likely very acute, and that's the
point of No Child Left Behind. That's why we need $500 million to
intervene and get resources for those schools. I mean, this is a
walk-and-chew-gum deal. We ought to improve those schools. But
I don't think the three or four kids who were on grade level and left
the school pose a huge impediment for improvement at the
school.
Q: What's your response to folks who say that NCLB is confusing
the standards movement and ultimately giving educators less
useful information than they had before?
A: I reject that. We had the ostrich approach five years ago. We
didn't know anything. And I guess we thought we were
complacently happy about how it was going. But now we know
that yes, some people are gaming the system. Anyway, no, I don't
think it has set the standards movement back. I think the
transparency has moved it forward. The very idea that we can
even have this conversation is huge progress.
Q: But is the federal government simply winking at the low
standards that states are using and saying, "It's OK with us"?
A: People in those states are smart and well-motivated, and
they're going to act on them in due course. I believe that. But you
can't just say, "You know what, we're not going to graduate any
kids in Texas this year from high school, not any of them. No one in
Houston will get a diploma this year because we're not suddenly
going to have national high standards." You have to bring the
system along and move it forward over time. And that's something
that state officials calibrate. But they're paying the bills. And you
know, we've got some powerful tools on the transparency side
that I think are having a good effect. But this is a journey.
Page 10
 1. Make a chart listing the similarities and differences of
CRITICAL INQUIRY the NAEP test and those tests administered by the
states. Is it fair to compare these different types of
assessments? With a peer share your list and opinions.

2. Evaluate the findings of Department of Education’s report (and Gannett News Service’s analysis) on state testing. Can
you think of any other factors not mentioned in the case study that might be relevant? Write a 2-3 page report evalu-
ating what the analysis found in regards to state testing and the NAEP test, citing examples from the articles in the
case study as well as current articles from USA TODAY.

3. What else, aside from making tests easier, does this case study describe states as having done to minimize the impact
of NCLB? Do you agree or disagree with these methods? Write a quick 3-minute persuasive essay defending your
position and engage in a class discussion on the validity of these methods.

4. What is the status of educational research today as mandated by NCLB? In small groups of 3-4 students, list the issues
involved in creating valid educational research. Discuss as a group and decide which issue is the most critical and why.
Share your results with the class as a whole.

5. Bruce Fuller, education and public policy professor, states, “Ironically, No Child reforms may have the exact opposite
effect they were intended to have.” Divide your class into groups of three or four students, and list the arguments from
the case study that support this statement and those that refute it. From this case study, which arguments are more
compelling? As a group, discuss whether you agree or disagree with Fuller’s statement.

1. Do you believe states should be responsible for their FUTURE IMPLICATIONS

own standards and testing or should we have national
standards and tests? Using the articles in the case study
as well as current articles in USA TODAY, write a persuasive essay defending your position. Conclude this activity
with a class debate on the issue.

2. How do other countries test their students? Choose a country and, using current issues of USA TODAY and other
resources, research how the country measures student achievement and compare these methods to the U.S.
Prepare a 2-3 minute oral presentation for your class.

3. Research test results in your own state. Compose five questions based on issues from this case study and interview
a local or state education official. Do their responses shed new light on the case study? Did you uncover addition-
al issues? Write up your interview and findings in a 2-3 page report.

4. Describe the differences between medical and educational research. Do you think the amount of federal dollars
allocated to each is equitable? Compose a 2-minute quick write defending your opinion, then discuss with a peer
who has the opposing view.

5. What are the latest initiatives from the federal government and the states to improve student achievement? Do
you agree or disagree that these initiatives are enough to meet the deadline of making all students proficient in
math and reading by 2014? Use current issues of USA TODAY to conduct your research. Present an oral report to
the class.

For more information, log on to www.usatodaycollege.com Page 11

 Additional Resources

v NAEP Report, “Mapping 2005 State Proficiency
Standards Onto the NAEP Scales”
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/stud-
ies/2007482.asp
v Gannett News Service coverage
http://gns.gannettonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Catego
ry=NCLB
v Gannett News Service NAEP Test Interactive Map
http://gns.gannettonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20
070606/GNSVIDEO50/70606002/-1/NCLB
v US Department of Education: NCLB
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml
v AERA (American Educational Research Association)
http://www.aera.net/
nstitute of Education Sciences
v In
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ies/index.html
v “Are They Really Ready to Work” Partnership for 21st
Century Skills
http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/FINAL_REPO
RT_PDF09-29-06.pdf
v Center on Education Policy “Answering the Question
That Matters Most: Has Student Achievement Increased
Since No Child Left Behind?” http://www.cep-dc.org
/index.cfm?fuseaction=document.showDocumentByID&no
deID=1&DocumentID=200

For more information, log on to www.usatodaycollege.com Page 12