Changes Announced for NCLB

Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings recently announced new changes to the controversial No Child Left Behind law (NCLB) just months before the Bush administration leaves office. Among the most significant changes are a measure that requires states to adopt the same method for calculating graduation rates and a requirement for states to update their formal plans. The formal plans, or workbooks, explain how students are assessed and how states develop content standards.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) expressed his pleasure with the changes in the law, but some critics have their concerns. Usually, changes of this nature are submitted to the Department of Education in February, and the unusual timing may have consequences when the next president takes office in January.

"It's just going to create confusion and uncertainty," Joel Packer, director of education policy and practice at the National Education Association, told Education Week. With Congress set to reauthorize NCLB next year, these changes may be eradicated or amended just as states begin allocating resources for the new rules. "It creates the potential for a lot of extra work by states that may end up being a waste."

With all the controversy surrounding NCLB and an administration change occurring in the coming months, do you think adding these new requirements now is a wise move?

Comments

[David Huneycutt]

not a good idea- seems like ed secretary is trying to make a last ditch stand at the expense of the schools. She is on her way out and will likely be replaced with the new administration. Lame Duck does not mean that you make lame decisions- this is one example

[James S. Davis]

The new administration and Secretary of Education should be able to examine NCLB with the least encumbrance possible, certainly not with additional ones. Plus, states have already wasted enough time, energy, money and good will on this substantially unfunded and unwise set of mandates. My campaign butto? "Leave NCLB Behind!"

[Ronald Koblitz]

Everything USDOE has done in the past 10 years has made my job more difficult and less appealing. Spellings should stop beating up on teachers and schools and change the culture. These recent events just continue with the same poor DOE that has done nothing to help this country.

[Andrea]

Since the inception in 2002, NCLB has been a bitter, not surprising, disappointment. The States are handling education needs by providing standards based education and clearly articulating what kids should know and be able to do as they proceed. The Federal Government has no right to enlist any requirements on the states. They have ignored the "Reserve Clause" (10th Amendment) 1791 by enforcing these qualifiers. They justify their relationship with each state because monies were given to states by the Federal Government and the Government made assumptions. The worst, that we were not doing a "good enough" job. Those that voted for this Act have little understanding of the intricacies of teaching. Somehow, they forget that without us they would not be where they are. They also allow us to believe that while creating the tests, we are autonomous. That leaves the 50 states with their own measure which in turn is measured the same by the Federal government. They should do us all a favor and give us back our 10th Amendment Rights.

[Sue Kelewae]

An eleventh hour change appears as a desperate attempt to "fix" NCLB or salve her ego. The kindest thing that Ms. Spelling could do is to graciously defer the opportunity to improve, change, or modify NCLB to the next administration. Time is truly on our side on this. Education policy should be made thoughtfully, not in haste as an ego elevating move. I hope she shows some wisdom and grace on this!

[Mary]

As a past teacher-of-the-year who could never even imagine a career other than being a teacher, thanks to NCLB I would NEVER do this again; nor will I ever encourage anyone else to teach under this "reformed" system of education. Children are learning to dread school just as teachers are doing. More and more time is spent testing so that kids will, supposedly, be ready for the annual assessments. So much time is spent testing under the guise of progress monitoring that actual instructional time has been cut by at least 25%, perhaps more. You might also be interested to know, that most teachers will agree that these tests tell teachers nothing that we don't already know from working each and every day with the kids in our classes. All that lost instructional time and for what reason? Simple answer ----POLITICS.

[Chile Kid]

It's still amazing to me how much the USDOE legislates without the constitutional authority! Education is NOT a power granted to the federal government in our constitution!

[Marc]

Did any of the commenters actually read the article or did you just see NCLB and decide to go off on one of your typical "Not all kids can learn" rants? All that the secretary of ed. is asking states to do is use the same formula to calculate the dropout rate. What's the harm in that? No matter how NCLB changes, that is a good idea.
There are a couple of simple changes in describing how standards and assessments were created. Big deal.
Sorry to interrupt you as you write lesson plans that only address the top 10% of students and ignore the other 90%. Please go back to that while our kids drop out of school, China sends astronauts to the moon, and India test launches ICBMs.

[Linda Munk]

Marc: Oh how sad for you that you do not understand the reason China sends astronauts to the moon and India test launches ICBMs: we taught them. They taught their children...but only the top 10%. The rest are shoveling on the farm or cleaning the streets, or perhaps working in shops. Education is not a right in these countries: it is a privilege granted to those who pass exams at certain levels. Those who don't, don't go to college. Stop beating up on America's teachers: without them, you wouldn't be writing letters to anyone. As for NCLB, bah humbug. As for a standard graduation rate, OK, that is long overdue. But reality tells us that a large percentage of our kids either graduate early (can't bear being in high school one minute longer than necessary) or late (various reasons, all societally based) so how does that figure into the equation? All of this "stuff" is designed to blame someone for shortcomings in our society. Teachers are not at fault. Parents and politicians are. If you, in your own job, had to adhere to the draconian dictates of NCLB, you would be screaming to the high heavens about the unfairness of it all. Get a life.

[Albert R. Wight]

As one who directed a three year Office of Education program on affective learning, served as Director of Planning and Evaluation with a state office of public instruction, and taught courses in educational measurement and and accountability and goal based curriculum development I feel that any changes should be left for the next administration. Schools nationwide should be allowed to give input. There are real questions as to whether schools are being forced to teach to the test, which does not promote meaningful learning or healthy growth.

[Barbara]

NCLB has destroyed education, wasting time continuously testing, and testing for the testing, taking time away from actually teaching. How about spending all the money that goes into producing the tests and paying the extra administrators to pressure and abuse teachers on lowering class sizes, so that one human being, the teacher, can actually meet his/her students' educational needs? Large, heterogeneously grouped classes, with students running the gamut from readiness to gifted do not allow a teacher to adequately teach anyone, so the only thing humanly possible is to teach to the middle and hope for the best. I challenge anyone in any other profession to do any better, given the lack of support and the unrelenting pressure to do miracles with nothing.

[Hugh Ferguson]

When do the graduation requirements go into effect/ If it's June 2010, ok. Otherwise, yes, why not? The requirements are open and a uniform graduation policy is not a bad idea.

[Dr. Martha A. Colwell]

This is not the time to make changes in the law with a new administration coming in. It is just another example of a team of politicians who do not respect professionals.

[lisie]

I don't think that the changes proposed will make to much of a difference for teachers in classrooms, either to heighten or lessen the stress placed on us by NCLB (which I do agree is present). It will not make too much difference to most of us if states to all adopt the same method for calculating graduation rates. This is something our superiors will have to calculate. At least there are no new conditions or requirements for the classroom. As far as a requirement for states to update their explanations of how students are assessed and how states develop content standards, this also seems like a little more work for someone above the actual classroom. So, will most teachers really feel the effects of such changes going into action? Maybe if other legislation is proposed and passed which contains some requirements based on the new information gathered in this legislation.