The AYP Blues

A little blue this morning?

It's no surprise if you're a school official in Washington state, where this morning's headlines are peppered with phrases like "failing," "falling short" and "missing the mark."

Those characterizations spring from yesterday's AYP update from OSPI — specifically, that 628 schools and 57 districts are in "improvement" status, up significantly from last year's 280 schools and 30 districts.

But lost somewhere in much of the coverage is an explanation of why we are seeing such a drastic increase in schools "needing improvement." Consider:

• 2008 is a “step year.” According to Washington state’s stair-step approach to AYP, the percentage of students who must meet proficiency increases in three-year increments. This year, because it is a step year, the percentage of students who must meet proficiency has increased for all grade spans — elementary (3-5), middle (6-8) and high school.
  
  
• The “n size” changed to 30. Within each grade span, schools and districts are accountable for the performance of all students and several student subgroups: American Indian, Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, English language learners, special education and low-income. Before schools and districts can report on a subgroup’s performance, there must be a minimum number of students in that subgroup to ensure statistically reliable data. Prior to 2008, 40 was the minimum number of students required in the English language learner and special education subgroups. This year, however, the minimum number of students for accountability calculations is 30 across all subgroups.

Ah, the complexities of No Child Left Behind. If only the challenges we face were as simple as a short, punchy headline.

Tuesday Tidbits on Wednesday

It's just been that kind of week!

Here, in no particular order, are a few education items of note:

• U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings took time to visit with Gov. Gregoire, legislators, members of the State Board of Education and representatives from various education groups (including AWSP) today at Roosevelt Elementary here in Olympia to discuss No Child Left Behind. According to Jerry Bender, AWSP's director of governmental relations, the meeting did not afford a lot of opportunities for input, but he was able to underscore the importance of support for principals given the workings of NCLB. You can read more about the meeting---and other legislative happenings--in Jerry's blog, From Olympia and Beyond.
  
• Speaking of NCLB, you can view Washington state's achievement "dashboard" online. This PDF gives a snapshot of our progress toward the goals of the act.
  
• True Confessions: The Tacoma News Tribune reprinted this column from a senior at Puyallup (pron. Pew-AL-up) who admits he may not have given it his all as an underclassman. In the column, which originally appeared in the school's student newspaper, he encourages his fellow classmates to get more involved while they're still in school (while the support is there).
  
• Recess is big news again this year in the Legislature. Two bills have been introduced on the topic, aiming to give kids across all grades more fresh air and time to move. Our Association supports the concept, but has trouble with the implementation. You can read about one of the bills in today's Seattle Times. Has your school cut back on recess? If so, let us know. (If you've added more free time, let us know that, too!)

The End of No Child Left Behind?

Well, in name, at least.

Today's Washington Post reports that Congress is considering a new name for the now infamous No Child Left Behind Act:

One reason, said Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), a key sponsor of the original bill that transformed K-12 education in the country by ushering in an era of high-stakes standardized testing, is that "No Child" is inextricably linked to Bush. And Bush, he said, has become unpopular.

Furthermore, he said, people simply don't like the name.

"People find it an incredible insult [to suggest] that we are deliberately leaving children behind," he said.

Marian Wright Edelman, president of the nonprofit Children's Defense Fund, isn't a big fan of the name either. According to the Post, Edelman supports the change because it borrows from the CDF's own federally registered trademark, Leave No Child Behind.

Let's say Congress invited you to their focus group. What would you rename the act? And as an added bonus, they want you to name one major change you'd make to the law, on behalf of principals. What would you recommend?

Tested

Right now, educators are preparing for the first day of the new school year and the annual WASL and AYP announcements. Perhaps that's why the piece in today's USA Today jumped off the page.

The paper carries an interview with former Washington Post reporter Linda Perlstein, the author of a new book about No Child Left Behind and student testing. Curious about the real effects of NCLB, Perlstein spent an academic year at Tyler Heights Elementary, a high-poverty school in Annapolis, Maryland. Her findings are detailed in her new book, Tested: One American School Struggles to Make the Grade.

Interviewer Gregg Toppo talks with her about the book and about testing:

Q: Reading your account of a teacher dropping nonsense words into lessons to prep for their appearance on a vital speed-reading test, I thought about Thoreau's warning against becoming "the tools of our tools." What is wrong with this picture?

A: The teacher wanted her kindergartners to be prepared for their assessment, which makes sense. Kids should learn to sound out letter combinations whether or not they make actual words. But she would have preferred to use that time teaching her kids real vocabulary.

Take a look at the interview and read the excerpt from her book. Do you agree with Perlstein's analysis of the impact of NCLB on teaching and learning? Would you let a reporter undertake the same project in your school?

Spellings Holds Her Own

Forgot to follow up on U.S. Education Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings' appearance on The Daily Show earlier this week. It takes a confident person to go on a fake news show and pull it off looking relaxed and witty. Say what you will about Spellings, she did both.

You also have to hand it to the show's host, Jon Stewart, to conduct a five minute interview of any substance while talking about No Child Left Behind and the student loan scandal. It's hard to even describe NCLB in five minutes, let alone make it funny.

Not sure if she's just that affable or her handlers prepped her well but she comes off as likable and on point about the graduation rate in this country. Incidentally, according to Stewart, Spellings is the only cabinet level official to accept the invitation to appear on the show. Click here to watch the interview.

A Nation at Risk?

Here's a thought: What if "A Nation at Risk" was wrong?

That's the premise behind an article in this month's issue of Edutopia (my new favorite education magazine). Author Tamim Ansary suggests that much of this landmark report was actually "misquoted, misinterpreted and often dead wrong." He goes on to track the origins of this Reagan-era document, suggesting that Cold War rhetoric and the need for better support from women voters led to the creation of what could arguably be the origins of the WASL and NCLB.

While Ansary does his homework to support his hypothesis, it left me wondering where we 'd be without "A Nation at Risk"? Would something else have come along to incite a similar reform in the K-12 world? With many subgroups of children still in need of remediation and support, it's tough to argue that we didn't need a catalyst for reform. Whether this was the right catalyst is another matter.

What do you think?

Five Minutes on NCLB with U.S. Senator Patty Murray

Just received an e-mail from U.S. Senator Patty Murray's office regarding an exchange she had last week with Education Secretary Margaret Spellings about NCLB.

Apparently she had five minutes to question Secretary Spellings about Pres. Bush's plan for NCLB, and made the most of it, to wit:

Q: How Do You Explain that To Educators Who Are Working Their Tails Off?

SENATOR MURRAY:
So, well, the way it sounds to me is, we're making this law try to work. But you continually don't fund it. How do you expect me to do my job?

How do you say that to an educator who is working, you know, 12 hours a day, 40 kids in their classroom, working really hard to meet it and they just feel left behind by this administration?

SECRETARY SPELLINGS:
Well, I would give them that answer, and I'd also say that I think that the policy that's before us now, with more information, more data around kids and their needs has allowed us to be a lot smarter and more precise about the resources we are spending.

SENATOR MURRAY:
Well, they're feeling it out there, and the anxiety is huge. And us Democrats, we're going to put together a budget that tries to meet that better. But it's very frustrating to not have that request come from you at your department where you're the top of Education. And believe me, the people I'm talking to are at the other end of it -- it's very frustrating.

You can view the entire exchange here. Or, sign up for Senator Murray's education updates online, if you'd like to receive her e-mail updates on this issue.