The results of a recent United States Department of Education report showed some large gaps in minimum proficiencies needed between states, according to a recent New York Times article. By comparing each state standard to the National Assessment of Educational Progress test, and creating a score for comparison, we can now see just how different state minimum standards are. For example, in Mississippi, a fourth-grader could score an equivalent of 161 to the NAEP test for reading and pass, while a Massachusetts fourth-grader needed to score an equivalent of 234.
This is the cause of two major concerns. First, are students in states with lower minimums being short-changed? Say, for example, there is a school in Mississippi that is not meeting minimum Adequate Yearly Progress, and much effort is put forth to increase test scores. Even if the scores are raised to above minimum, according to the DOE study, the Mississippi kids still may not be reading as well as kids passing minimum Massachusetts’ standards. Even more problematic is how funding is tied to No Child Left Behind. Again, if fourth-graders in Mississippi are scoring an equivalent of 190 on their state tests, they are passing AYP, and their school doesn’t have the threat of lost funds. But if a school in Massachusetts has fourth-graders scoring an equivalent of 215 on their state tests, they are failing AYP, and may lose funding, even though, as a whole, they are doing better than their counterparts in Mississippi! It just doesn’t make sense.
There are two possible solutions that I can think of. The first is national standards, or at least a national standard range. For example, if all the state fourth-grade reading standards were averaged out, and the equivalence number was 195, then the law could say a state test minimum score must have an equivalency between 180 and 210. This would create national standards, and allow for some local control. The other solution is eliminating the tie between NCLB and funding. But of course, without the threat of lost money, NCLB has no teeth.
NCLB is only five years old, and the underlying purpose of the bill is admirable. I don’t know, however, whether it is rational or feasible to implement. I don’t think NCLB is a lost cause, but it needs some tinkering. I’m hoping our politicians can come up with a way that at least makes NCLB fairer, which will be beneficial for everyone.
First of all I would like you and your readers to know that NCLB is just what the current president Bush has named it. This is really ESEA which has been around since the early 1960s and was the result of Bush senior and Ted Kennedy trying to find a way to help close the achievement gap between the haves and the have nots. Both political parties were frustrated because after years of pouring money into the proverty stricken schools the results were still dismal.
The theory of every student in the nation (even Special Day students and non English speaking students) being at grade level by the year 2014 is mathematically impossible. By being designated Special Day Student one must be limited in their ability to achieve at the same rate as their peers.
The fact that the states set their own standards make it impossible to compare the scores from one state to another. If there were national standards, then we could compare one state to another and say which states are doing a good job of educating their students and which are in need of improvements.