Subscribe
Jobs
Cars
Real Estate
Apartments
Classifieds
Shopping
The reality behind the No Child Left Behind Act is that it is a massive federal accountability law jury-rigged to work with 50-plus education programs. To comply with the law, students and schools must demonstrate proficiency in meeting unique state standards.
The result? Federal oversight and state standards combine to create a perverse incentive to lower standards. Set the bar high, and more students and schools will fail. Set it low, and more schools will produce the requisite adequate yearly progress. A common set of standards for all schools is the obvious solution, one President Obama’s administration is clearly seeking. But getting there is no easy task.
Rep. Mark Souder, R-3rd, is among those wary of national academic standards. At a House Education and Labor Committee hearing last month, the congressman said he was worried that common standards could lead to a national school curriculum, placing states and school districts in “a straitjacket.”
In an interview, Souder said he understands the appeal of core common standards, but he is concerned that they would lead to political battles over content – evolution and intelligent design, for example. He also expressed concern that it would restrict schools that are now defying odds in helping at-risk students, including students learning English as a second language and those who come from poverty.
“If we try to do this too rigidly, we get ideological challenges and we get creativity challenges,” he said.
Souder said he favors a personal-growth model in measuring student achievement, but recognizes that it becomes cumbersome in a large-school setting and doesn’t mesh well with home-schooling programs. He also suggests that a national standards push might be overtaken by technology as more and more students have access to worldwide information through the Internet.
The congressman is not alone in his concerns, but support on the other side is growing by bipartisan bounds. The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a conservative education think tank, supports common standards, as do former Democratic Govs. James B. Hunt Jr. of North Carolina and Bob Wise of West Virginia, both of whom are now heading up education groups.
Another push is coming from U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.
“We want to raise the bar dramatically in terms of higher standards,” he said in a speech late last month. “We have 50 different standards, 50 different goal posts. And due to political pressure, those have been dumbed down. We want to fundamentally reverse that. We want common, career-ready internationally benchmarked standards.”
There already is broad support from state-level education policymakers. Forty-six states have signed on to an effort to develop standards in math and English language arts by the National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers. The holdouts are Alaska, Missouri, South Carolina and Texas.
The governor and the chief education officers for the other 46 states signed an agreement supporting development of voluntary standards.
The District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands have also agreed to take part. The goal is to have a draft ready for review by the states in July.
Among the groups involved in drafting the standards is Achieve Inc., a non-partisan education reform organization.
Achieve has cited Indiana’s academic standards as among the best in the nation: “Indiana leads the pack when it comes to setting high standards for all students, standards that reflect the real-world demands and careers and college,” according to a 2006 report.
Souder’s reservations about Washington control are understandable, and he has a strong grasp of the challenges northeast Indiana schools, in particular, are facing with regard to No Child Left Behind. His input in the federal law’s reauthorization might slow the pace some reform advocates seek, but he’s considered aspects of the issue far beyond the current debate. His views will be helpful.
Whatever the end product, it should address the fundamental flaws of No Child Left Behind. Schools and students shouldn’t be labeled as failing if they are making progress toward high standards.
