Push Me, Pull Me

In reporting on new data about the number of schools identified by NCLB as not making adequate yearly progress, Bloomberg News writes:

"The percentage of failing schools rose by one point from the previous school year. Under the 2002 law, schools that do not make sufficient academic progress face penalties including the eventual replacement of their administrators and teachers."

NCLB was enacted more than four years ago. How long must we wait for the press to report its provisions accurately? First, NCLB does not label schools as "failing." They're labeled as "not making adequate progress" or "in need of improvement." These are not semantic distinctions; the words actually mean what they mean. Second, while the "penalties" can include replacing administrators and teachers, they certainly don't have to. These might seem like fine points, but they actually go right to the heart of what the law does and doesn't do.

The story also goes on to say the following:

"The results raise doubts about whether the law is working and its results are fairly calculated, said Michael Petrilli, vice president for policy at the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, a Washington-based research group. 'Most people thought that at this point in the law, we'd be seeing these numbers go way, way up' as standards toughen, said Petrilli."

Nobody from the National Education Association is quoted here, but one assumes that their take on these numbers hasn't changed since January, when head NEA honcho Reg Weaver said:

"Four years of President Bush's signature education policy is sufficient to weigh facts, examine data and understand this so-called 'No Child Left Behind' (NCLB) Act through the experiences of millions of education professionals across America. If we distill these into one observation, it is that the anniversary marks four years of winning rhetoric and failing substance. From its inception, NCLB has been overemphasized, under funded and sugarcoated at the expense of public school children. New data illustrates our conclusion. It shows that more schools failed to achieve 'adequate yearly progress' (AYP) under NCLB in 2005-06 than ever before."

To summarize: The Fordham Foundation thinks that a small increase in the number of schools not making AYP shows that NCLB isn't working, because if it were working the actual number would be a lot higher. The NEA thinks that a small increase in the number of schools not making AYP shows that NCLB isn't working, because if it were working the actual number would be a lot lower.

If you ever wondered why the various warring factions in the NCLB debate seem to be talking past, over, through, and behind one another, this is a good place to start.