NCLB (R)Evolution?

The SCOTUS desegregation decision sucked up all the ed policy air last week, but other issues still moved ahead, e.g. NCLB reauthorization (subject of today's lead WaPost editorial), to which Sec. Spellings added some new ideas as reported by USA Today's Greg Toppo:

U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings on Wednesday proposed "a more nuanced" way of evaluating schools under President Bush's No Child Left Behind school reform law — one that would differentiate between schools that are close to meeting state math, reading and science standards and those that are "chronic, chronic underperformers."

Under the proposed change, public schools with just a few struggling students could help students without being labeled underperforming. In the bargain, they'd avoid sanctions that can include firing staff, privatizing or even closing their doors.

A lot of the discussions around changes to the core AYP formula have focused on the "growth model" concept currently being piloted in some states, whereby schools are rated not by the percent of students meeting an absolute standard but by the percent of students on a growth trajectory to meet the absolute standard at some point in the future. The idea is to give schools credit for making a lot progress, even if the end result is still below par.

Spellings is talking about a different idea: creating nuance around the degree and scope of underperformance. A common--and essentially correct--criticism of NCLB is that it treats schools that miss the bar by a little with a few students in the same way as schools that miss the bar by a lot with a whole bunch of students. This proposal would make life easier for schools in the former category.

Probably a good idea, as approving quotes in the article from various NCLB proponents suggest. However -- We need to make sure that achievement gaps for vulnerable student subgroups -- low-income, minority, special ed, and LEP -- can't be tolerated indefinitely. Moreover, if we're going to go down this road, there should be a corollary: if we're going to go easier on the schools that miss by an inch, we need to do more, sooner, for students in schools that miss by a mile. If a school is far below the proficiency line with little growth for nearly all of its students, then there's no point in waiting six years to take action. Those kids need something different and better today.

.