Pull Quote, Un-Quote

The Washington Post "Outlook" section this morning includes a major piece on schools "in need of improvement" under NCLB. Taking up two-thirds of the section front page and two full pages inside, the article is entirely devoted to the voices of nine area school principals answering the question: "Why is your school on this list?"

The Post deserves a lot credit for doing this. In all the debate over NCLB, the voices of the educators and school leaders actually responsible for helping students meet performance goals aren't heard often enough. There is a lot of nuance in these responses, which are well worth reading in full; you sense resolve, committment, professionalism, some frustration, a dose of confusion, and a deep committment to the lives of children.

BUT -- you wouldn't know that by glancing at the page where these ideas are published. It contains three large-type "pull quotes," the snippets of text newspapers and magazines often display in little stand-alone boxes to give readers a quick sense of the most compelling aspects of article. Pull quotes are a tool for breaking up text visually and quickly signaling to readers what an article is about and why they should read it. The three pull quotes are:

"There is nothing positive I can say about No Child Left Behind." -- Reginald Ballard, Cardozo High School, Northwest Washington

"There is a big disparity between the haves and have-nots of education." -- Rodney Henderson, Kenmoor Elementary School, Landover, Md.

"We're doing the best we can, but if someone can do it better, let them show us how. Because we're all ears." -- Sue Dsiedzic, Oxon Hill Elementary School, Oxon Hill, Md.

In other words, NCLB is bad, unfunded, and unreasonable. By contrast, here are some quotes from the article that were not used:

"There's no question that NCLB has benefitted schools in many areas." -- Rodney Henderson, Kenmoor Elementary School, Landover, Md.

"I think what No Child Left Behind does about accountability is great. It really forces us to reassess how we are operating." -- Miriam Hughey-Guy, Barcroft Elementary School, Arlingon, VA.

"I think NCLB is basically a good law, because no school should leave any child behind. You want everybody to learn, you want everybody to make progress, you want to make good citizens, because that's good for everybody." -- Rhonda Pitts, Bladensburg Elementary School, Bladensburg."

Using these three quotes instead of the three that were actually used wouldn't have been any more fair; in nearly every case the principals display a pretty complex take on the issue. To see this, look at the quote from Principal Dsiedzic in more context:

"No Child Left Behind is not a bad law. Special ed is a long way from the days when we taught these kids to make cane chairs and brooms because we thought they couldn't learn. The law has lofty goals. It's a noble effort, but it does need to be modified. I get my satisfaction from the fact that we are growing and my teachers are working hard. There's frustration, but there's also improvement on the part of our kids. The states say that if you don't meet the standards, we can come in and take you over. But you just can't take over that many schools. We're doing the best we can, but if someone can do it better, let them show us how. Because we're all ears."

It's a shame that the Post undermined the nuance, balance, and value of its own article by falling back on the simplistic educators-as-victims take on NCLB that drives too much of the rhetoric around the law. These educators, and Post readers, deserve better.

There's also one take on NCLB that's confusing; Reem Labib of SAIL public charter school in DC says:

"Last summer, we were notified by the charter board that we had not achieved AYP because we had only 32 students in our third and fifth grades, which is fewer than the 40 required for a subgroup to be reported."

To be clear, you can't miss AYP simply because you don't have enough students to form a subgroup. As the DC Public Charter School Board Web site clearly shows, SAIL didn't miss AYP in 2004-2005; it's listed as a school for which AYP isn't applicable, because of the small number of students. SAIL was identified as underperforming in previous years, and because they didn't have enough students to test last year, couldn't come off the list.

Jay Mathews also misses the mark somewhat in his companion piece explaining how the law works, which begins:

"Even award-winning principal Marjorie L. Myers was misled about the public school labeling game launched by the No Child Left Behind Act. She thought Arlington County's Key Elementary School, which she has led for 11 years, was on the "needs improvement" list, but it turns out it isn't. She missed only one reading target for one year, which a close examination of the detailed Virginia Department of Education Web site shows is not enough to land her on the dreaded watch list. If one of the most experienced, successful educators in the Washington area can't figure out the complex law's labels, what hope is there for the rest of us?"

Later on the article he follows up:

"Remember Myers's mistaken belief that her school was on the needs improvement list? She had been told that missing AYP just one year was enough to get the label. In fact, a school must miss AYP two years in a row for that to happen, and they must miss it both years in the same subject area."

Is this really rocket science, two years in a row instead of one? The theme of the article is very much in the vein of "holy smokes this is complicated, I will help you sort through as best I can." But this lead example is really just a case of inexcusable communication, not daunting complexity.