Interesting commentary on The Heritage Foundation website about how things have gotten worse, not better, under federally-set standards and NCLB, and how perhaps locally-set standards would be an improvement. The premise is that schools are receiving the federal funds promised to them by President Bush, but in return are fudging the test results and fiddling with the standards:
Consider the case of Wilfredo Laboy, superintendent of the Lawrence, Mass. school district. For three straight years, Laboy has failed a basic literacy test that the state requires of all educators. He’s the only superintendent in Massachusetts who hasn’t passed, although a number of teachers statewide have also failed...Laboy...said that, as a non-English speaker, the test is especially difficult for him.
But high-school students across the state, even non-English speakers, are now required to pass a standardized test before they can graduate. How can Laboy possibly demand that the students in his charge pass a required test while he consistently fails one? Interestingly, Laboy’s district had the state’s highest number of seniors fail the required Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System test last year...
So the state ignores its own testing requirements, and Laboy remains on the job. But at least it hasn’t changed its requirements. That’s what Texas did.
Texas Board of Education members gathered last fall to learn the results of a new statewide achievement test, reported The New York Times. It wasn’t pretty. “Few students did well,” board member Chase Untermeyer said. “Many students got almost no answers right.” So board members opted to lower the standards...
Then there’s Michigan, where standards were once especially stringent. Until last year, a school was listed as “needing improvement” if less than 75 percent of its students passed a standardized English test. Under those standards, more than 1,500 schools were sub par in 2002. How did Michigan solve the problem? By changing its standards...
Education isn’t “one size fits all.” We must set demanding standards, but for those standards to be effective, they have to come from local school boards.
Hmm. I'm not sure if this conclusion follows logically from the facts. The author, Edwin Feulner, is saying that schools will do anything to get federal money except improve education. They'll fudge scores, they'll lower standards, but they won't actually use the money to make changes that will raise test scores.
I agree that demanding standards must be set, but I don't agree that moving the standard-setting back from the federal government to the local school boards will be better for students. The point of the federal control, and federal funding, was to prevent school boards from setting laughably-low standards, so low as to disguise the fact that they weren't educating their youngsters. Mr. Feulner points out that this isn't working in some places, but that doesn't prove that it's an overall failure, nor does this show that returning control to the local level would improve the educational quality in schools.
Posted by kswygert at August 21, 2003 10:53 AM