Stop complaining and fix education standards

The great thing about the federal No Child Left Behind law is that everyone, no matter which side of the education debate they are on, can hate it.

It requires high standards with no model for what those standards are. That means one state can look good simply by setting low standards and then meeting them.

The federal money that was supposed to flow alongside the demands never really materialized.

And its measure of failing schools is so broad that it becomes meaningless, allowing truly struggling schools to hide among the 60 percent in Washington that did not meet adequate yearly progress under the law.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Randy Dorn singled it out for criticism last week when he released the state’s test scores.

While test scores are about the same as last year, nearly twice as many schools are listed as needing improvement, he said. And because of the way the act measures progress – or lack of progress – nearly every state school will soon be considered failing by the feds.

All that is true enough. NCLB is a one-size-fits-all response to failing schools that fits none. But because Washington state has repeatedly failed to pass its own accountability system, it is the only thing we have to force districts to address their poorest-performing schools.

Want something better? Want something tailored to Washington state, not Washington, D.C.? We could pass one. Instead the very school establishment that loves to trash NCLB – teachers, teachers unions, superintendents, school board members, parent groups – have had their feet on the creation of a state accountability system.

As envisioned by the Legislature in 1993, school reform was to have three parts. First, decide what kids need to know at each grade level. Next, create tests to measure whether they know it before they graduate. Finally, intervene in schools that continue to fail to get students to those standards.

The first two steps happened. The final one, a valid accountability system, didn’t. The last real attempt came in 2001 when the Legislature considered the report of the so-called A-Plus Commission. It proposed a system when struggling schools would get more money and more help. But if they continued to fail the state could take over.

By the time it got to through the state Senate, however, it was rendered so meaningless by the education lobby that then-Gov. Gary Locke said don’t bother.

So accountability Washington state style looks like this: The kids are held accountable, the adults are not. Kids who fail to meet standards on the WASL, who fail to pass the required courses, don’t get a diploma. Adults who fail keep their jobs.

Washington has a program for intervening in failing schools that is all carrot, no stick. Eight school districts get special attention from Dorn’s office. But if they fail to get better there are no consequences.

Dorn, one of the authors of the state school reform law of 1993, said it is time for Washington to join nearly every other state with a rigorous accountability system. He endorsed the work of the state school board which has been working on a framework for tough love for failing schools. While the board had already been at work, it was helped by the passage of House Bill 2261 last session.

The current draft creates a better index to identify truly struggling schools, not the wide net cast by NCLB. An independent audit would be conducted to look for causes and the SPI would work with the local school board to come up with an intervention plan.

The intervention would be mandatory, not voluntary, and could include changing the curriculum, changing principals and teachers, assessing the effectiveness of school staff and rewarding effective staff members.

An accountability bill will be ready for the 2010 session.

At that point the education lobby will have to decide whether it wants to keep complaining about NCLB or pass something better.

Peter Callaghan: 253-597-8657

peter.callaghan@thenewstribune.com

blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics