|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
  Teachers I teach at Bret Harte Middle School in Oakland. Our students are about 20% immigrant, 50% African American and 60% live in poverty. Our school has seen our test scores rise from the low thirties to the mid fortieth percentile range in the last six years. We have achieved this as a result of a strong faculty led by an effective principal. Our school works as a team. 
ANTHONY CODY National Board Certified Teacher, science and math, Bret Harte Middle School Center for the Assessment and Evaluation of Student Learning participant; CAPITAL research projects (2000-02); Stanford National Board Resource Center participant (2000) anthony_cody @hotmail.com However, we are not likely to be helped by NCLB. In spite of our progress, we have not escaped the stigma of being “low-performing” and we did not qualify for any praise or bonuses from the state because not all of our ethnic subgroups improved.This vilification is likely to continue under NCLB because the legislation sets ever-increasing achievement targets based, not on any demonstrably achievable goal, but on the bold assertions that all children can achieve at high levels in spite of their circumstances. As a teacher I take seriously my responsibility to raise my students’ performance. But I feel that NCLB sets unrealistic targets for growth, and provides few tools to help schools move forward. Instead, it threatens to withhold funds and shuffle students to force reform. Our district, like others around the nation, needs stability, support and leadership at all levels in order to move beyond the chronic crises we have endured over the past few decades. It is like a garden, with some beautiful flowers, and some areas that have been neglected. NCLB looms like a bulldozer, where what is needed is a gardener, ready to provide some fresh nutrients and care. Administrators NCLB represents the most sweeping reform in federal education legislation since the inception of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. Of particular concern to K–12 administrators are the changes to the Title I program (e.g., Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged) that dramatically reduce local control of schools in lieu of federal and state devised systems of assessment and accountability.  STEPHEN H. DAVIS Stanford University Associate Professor of Education (Teaching) Director of the Prospective Principals Program SUSE PhD ‘87 shdavis@stanford.edu Many administrators fear that the specter of sanctions applied to schools that fail to meet “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) will create a culture of paranoia, a slavish preoccupation with preparing students for standardized testing and a narrowed focus on supporting teaching and learning in the core subject areas only (language arts, math, science). As a result, the ability of administrators to facilitate the development of innovative curricular structures and learning environments tailored to meet the needs of local communities and their children may become subordinate to activities that facilitate the regimentation and routinization of learning activities around tasks and processes designed to produce better scores on state and nationally devised standardized tests. In essence, school administrators may find their jobs more akin to curricular “traffic cops” and policy enforcers than educational visionaries, community builders, and transformational leaders. Despite these concerns, many educators point to the benefits of NCLB, especially in schools and school systems that serve disadvantaged students. For example, NCLB offers various incentives for schools that show consistent achievement gains and school choice opportunities for parents of children in consistently under-performing schools. Given the law’s focus on measurable indicators of student achievement growth, administrators will need to be increasingly knowledgeable about how to interpret and use student testing data to improve learning. Perhaps just as important, administrators will need to develop more effective ways to communicate such data to parents and teachers. State Leaders NCLB focused on a specific accountability approach that was generally compatible with California’s state system but caused major changes and complexity. Before NCLB passed, California established five performance levels on its state test and defined “proficiency” as the level of achievement necessary to enter a four- year college. Only 30% of California students attain the proficient level, but federal law requires all students to be “proficient” in 12 years. California did not want to lower its standards, so it opted for a “balloon payment” strategy where most students must make huge gains after 2007 in order to attain the federal standard. 
MICHAEL KIRSTStanford University Professor of Education, Business Administration (by courtesy), and Political Science (affiliated) Director, Policy Analysis for California Education Director, Consortium for Policy Research in Education Director,The Bridge Project mwk@stanford.edu California’s accountability system did break out test scores for race and ethnicity, but NCLB adds special education and English learners. In order for a school to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) under the federal law, all of these subgroups must make annual test score gains.This is somewhat like herding cats in a straight line. Estimates are that 60% of California schools will not meet AYP, so millions of parents will get letters that their local school did not meet federal education standards. How can the California State Education Department intervene to assist so many schools as the federal law requires? A major problem is a federal requirement that by the fall of 2001 all teachers hired under federal Title I must be “highly qualified,” and by 2005 every California public school teacher must be “highly qualified.” In 2001, 42,427 teachers—one out of seven statewide—were working in California without a preliminary credential that the state defined as a minimum requirement. Several California districts hired teachers who have just a bachelor’s degree and a passing score on a minimum skills test that is set at about 10th grade level.The California State Board of Education has struggled to find a solution that does more than change definitions of “highly qualified.” * In every issue, the Educator poses a question about a timely topic. Selected members of the community (alumni, faculty and students) are invited to respond. If you have a suggestion for a future Forum Question, or would like to be a respondent for a particular topic, please contact the editor at suse.alumni@stanford.edu |