From the New York Times
Rename Law? No Wisecrack Is Left Behind
By SAM DILLON Published: February 22, 2009
WASHINGTON — Two years ago, an effort to fix No Child Left Behind, the main federal law on public schools, provoked a grueling slugfest in Congress, leading Representative George Miller, Democrat of California, to say the law had become “the most negative brand in America.”
The little schoolhouse, front and back, at the Education Department building in Washington. A blog contest to rename the No Child Left Behind law has received entries like the Rearranging the Deck Chairs Act and the Teach to the Test Act.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan agrees. “Let’s rebrand it,” he said in an interview. “Give it a new name.”
And before Mr. Duncan has had time to float a single name, scores of educators, policy wonks and assorted rabble-rousers have rushed in with an outpouring of proposals.
The civil rights leader Marian Wright Edelman took the high road, suggesting it be called the Quality Education for All Children Act. But a lot of wise guys have gotten in on the act too, with suggestions like the All American Children Are Above Average Act. Alternatives are popping up every day on the Eduwonk.com blog, where Andrew Rotherham, a former Clinton administration official, is sponsoring a rename-the-law contest.
One entry, alluding to the bank bailout program, suggests that it be called the Mental Asset Recovery Plan. Another proposal: the Act to Help Children Read Gooder.
Part of the problem is that the law, which comes up for reauthorization every five years, became closely associated with President George W. Bush, and as his popularity slid, the law, and its name, came under attack and ridicule.
Jay Leno, for instance, pointed out in 2006 that Mr. Bush’s approval rating had dropped to 35 percent. “You know Bush’s No Child Left Behind program?” Mr. Leno said. “Now even the children left behind are going, ‘You go ahead, we’re fine.’ ”
The law dates to 1965, when Congress passed it to channel federal money to poor children in the war on poverty, calling it the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
By the early 1990s, a school accountability movement was gaining momentum. In the 1994 reauthorization, the Clinton administration required states to develop new math and reading standards, use more tests, and adopt a benchmark for school improvement known as “adequate yearly progress.” And it gave the law a new name: the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994.
Most people clung to the original name, however, until Mr. Bush signed No Child Left Behind.
The phrase appears to be borrowed from Ms. Edelman, the founder of the Children’s Defense Fund, who throughout the 1990s seasoned speeches with the phrase “leave no child behind.” In 1994, the organization registered “Leave No Child Behind” as a trademark.
But as early as the mid-1990s, Mr. Bush, then the Texas governor, was routinely using similar phrases.
In 2000, the organization reminded the Bush campaign about its trademark, but those complaints were brushed aside. After Mr. Bush’s inauguration as president, he sent Congress a thick packet of education proposals to guide the law’s 2001 rewriting, titled No Child Left Behind.
Sandy Kress, a Texas lawyer who helped compile those proposals, said the phrase nicely summarized the president’s views, especially his provision requiring that authorities publish test scores for all minority groups, shining a spotlight on the low scores of poor students previously hidden by schoolwide averages.
Just about everyone praised that feature of the Bush-era law. But other provisions aroused opposition, including the requirement that every child be brought to proficiency in reading and math by 2014, which many educators said was like requiring law enforcement agencies to end all crime.
Nicknames for the law proliferated: No Child Left Untested, No Child’s Behind Left, No School Board Left Standing.
Since Mr. Rotherham announced his contest last week, Eduwonk has received 41 entries, including: the Double Back Around to Pick Up the Children We Left Behind Act, the Rearranging the Deck Chairs Act, the Teach to the Test Act and the Could We Start Again Please Act.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
From today's Phila. Inquirer. What is this word "plan" of which they speak?
Ackerman's plan for Phila. schools
By Kristen A. Graham
Inquirer Staff Writer
From reshaping the high school experience to rewarding top teachers with tuition reimbursement and loan forgiveness, dramatic change could come to the Philadelphia School District.
Released yesterday, a report on the steps needed to achieve Superintendent Arlene Ackerman's vision for the next five years of public education in Philadelphia outlines hundreds of actions that would follow if her strategic plan is adopted by the School Reform Commission.
Much attention has been focused on Ackerman's plan to close up to 35 failing schools and reopen them under private management or as charters. But a look at the full plan shows sweeping shifts in multiple directions.
In addition to opening four new small high schools - three career and technical high schools and one to prepare future Philadelphia teachers - Ackerman wants to reimagine the high school experience for district students, about half of whom do not graduate.
High school students would get individual graduation plans in ninth grade, including career assessment. Each would have his or her own "adult advocate." There would be flexible scheduling and a credit-acceleration program so students could move through school at their own pace.
All high school students would get some kind of career experience, and students would receive formal preparation for the SAT.
The district's hiring process - long criticized as ineffective, resulting in a high level of teacher vacancies this year - also would be remade.
New teachers would be hired by June, not August. City teachers would need to signal their wish to transfer to a different school by May, and teachers and administrators who planned to retire also would need to notify the district by the spring. Those who did not would face consequences.
A pipeline to teachers from local colleges of education would begin in the students' sophomore year, with contracts offered to the new teachers by February of their senior year.
Teachers dubbed "highly effective" would be rewarded with tuition reimbursement and student-loan forgiveness. Teachers with five or more years in the system would be recognized with funded opportunities for professional development, sabbaticals, and networking forums.
Highly effective teachers and other staff also would get greater pay for working in tough schools and filling hard-to-staff jobs, such as math, science, and world languages.
There would be smaller class sizes at the elementary level - 20 for kindergarten, 22 for first through third grades - and more guidance counselors for middle and high school students. An early-warning system would monitor all students' attendance, behavior, and achievement in math and English.
Intramural sports programs and student-government programs would be offered at every middle and high school. Students would have more summer, after-school and Saturday opportunities in music, visual arts, dance, and drama.
Students returning to traditional classrooms from alternative-education settings would receive a six-month reentry program and a separate counselor to help them. In-house suspension would be reinstated, keeping suspended students off the street.
The district also would create an Office of Institutional Advancement to formally curry private and public support. Officials hope to beef up partnerships with businesses and universities, and to create a district-wide alumni association to engage in networking and fund-raising.
A separate specialized curriculum would be developed for English-language learners, and the district would open three "newcomer welcome centers" throughout the city to provide intensive transitional support for up to a year.
Schools that implemented "with fidelity" the individualized, detailed plans each special-education student received would get some sort of incentive from the district.
Top-performing schools that met annual targets would be rewarded with "autonomy agreements" allowing them flexibility from district requirements.
Another group of schools would be closed in order to "embrace bold new educational approaches with proven track records for success." Ackerman has said that the first 10 new schools - operated as charters, or by outside providers - could open in September 2010, after a transition year preparing the new providers.
The criteria for selecting the failing schools have not yet been drafted, district officials said.
All the steps are necessary, the plan says, given the district's stark realities: 57 percent of all schools were dubbed "failing" by state standards.
And large gaps still exist between white and minority students - white students scored 23 percent higher than black students in reading, and 25 percent higher than Hispanic students.
Post a Comment