“Now, the Obama administration has handed states a responsible framework in which they can exercise the flexibility they said they wanted. It’s time for them to stand and deliver — on behalf of all students, but particularly those who are farthest behind.”
From The Education Trust Sept. 23.
It’s pretty clear that the federal No Child Left Behind Act isn’t living up to its name, despite good intentions. Too many children are still being left behind in our public schools.
That’s an intolerable situation in this day and time when Georgia and the rest of the U.S. are competing with the entire world for economic success. Coming away from that ongoing struggle with a sufficient level of job-producing economic growth requires in good measure a workforce that’s fit and ready for the 21st century and what it will demand of workers. That’s where schools come in.
So, it is a given that change is needed — now. Congress, mired in an ongoing and unproductive partisan wrestling match, hasn’t come together to update the law.
Thankfully, states and the U.S. Department of Education have come up with a workable Plan B. This workaround, announced late last month by President Barack Obama, lets states apply for a waiver from NCLB’s accountability provisions. In effect, the feds have offered an open mind; now it’s up to states such as Georgia to show they can get the job done in their own ways.
Georgia was one of the first states to rap on the Education Department’s door. State School Superintendent John Barge and U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) hand-delivered a waiver request to Education Secretary Arne Duncan on Sept. 20.
The state’s outline proposes use of a new, multifaceted College and Career Ready Performance Index to gauge how well our schools are faring in the vital work of educating students and closing stubbornly persistent gaps in achievement.
Rather than placing a misguided over-reliance on the snapshot provided by a single test, the proposed new index relies on factors such as college entrance exam scores, performance on Advanced Placement tests, reading levels in elementary and middle schools, progress in technical career classes and performance in “dual enrollment” classes where students can earn both high school and college credit. At first glance, Georgia’s new metrics would seem to do a much more comprehensive job of assessing student academic progress and success.
That seems a more commonsense approach than relying almost solely on this state’s Criterion-Referenced Competency Test to determine whether schools are meeting the “adequate yearly progress” mandated by NCLB. Over-reliance on the CRCT and pressure to make AYP numbers fueled the cheating conflagration that swept over many Atlanta public schools and, to a lesser degree, scorched other districts around the state.
If nothing else, relying on multiple elements to determine schools’ progress should help reduce any incentive to cheat. Using a multipart measurement tool should give the state, local school districts, parents and taxpayers a much more thorough and detailed measure of how our schools are performing.
And therein lies the challenge for Georgia.
The vaunted flexibility sought by state officials will work only if we implement the new index with fidelity that’s backed by sufficient resources to get the job done. Georgia hasn’t suffered from a lack of innovative concepts in education. Where we’ve faltered is in finding the political will to allocate sufficient money to make needed changes fully blossom, rather than wither away after the initial excitement of launch announcements.
As the Education Trust warned above, flexibility comes with the responsibility to use the new metrics to really drive transformative improvements into each school and classroom in the state. We must find adequate — not extravagant — resources to make that happen.
That’s the only way to ensure that our children are truly college and career ready. If we achieve that admirable goal, then we’ll be a more prosperous state that will put more people to work in better jobs.
Andre Jackson, for the Editorial Board.
About the Author
