has been denied an attempt to change their testing system to discount 10% of
the students presently under the system. Such discounting, based on a calendar
system that only counts students who were present at the school in the previous
year (obviously having the affect of not counting migrant students), would
potentially be a big boon for test scores. Further, other changes in the test
score system were requested to provide schools more flexibility in being
classified as having low test scores. See the Dallas Morning News story,
and the NSBA pages on the issue
(see LegalClips for the most recent story).
We all know that the national system of testing began under No Child Left
Behind was based on models from
brought with the President's administration when he was elected in 2000.
Further, it worries me little that
is seeking changes. As Kevin Carey noted from Ed. Sector, there is a race to the
bottom and of course states are going to attempt to do as little as possible
under Federal mandates; that is the nature of the system.
What is frustrating, to this Edjurist at least, is the blatant denial of the
need for changes to the legislative and regulatory structure. Even Texas, upon
which this law was based and from which both the President and the Secretary
came, has continually asked for changes, and made changes, to its system of
testing; yet, the Administration and the DOE continue to assert no changes are
necessary and are holding states to unrealistic goals and, frankly, stupid
provisions that looked nice on paper but rather ignorant in reality (ex. HQT).
We are now 5 years out from passage of NCLB, and the essential
provisions
remain the exact same, even in light of overwhelming evidence that
changes are
necessary. At this point, the only remaining conclusion is that the
Administration and Department are dug in on a face-saving campaign that
is
willing to injure whoever is necessary to save their own ridicule. This
Edjurist does not understand why they cannot admit that some changes
are
necessary, even if the essential philosophy and structure remain the
same
(this, of course, happens everyday with every law)? I think there is
little
doubt this face-saving campaign is injuring students and state
education systems. When you are looking at numbers that indicate (using
their
definitions) that 1/2 the schools and students are failing, it has to
make one
wonder whether it is the law, and not the students, that are failing.
There is
no shame in allowing some changes. Sure,
was trying to eliminate migrant students from the test, and that might be
wrong. Probably, this was the proper decision. But if the insane testing
structure was modified, perhaps
would not have to look for ways to exclude low performing children in the first
place. Mr. President and Madam Secretary, it is not an embarrassment to admit
the law needs some tweaks, you might be surprised how well received some much
needed tweaks, or at least a discussion thereupon, would be.