Maybe I'm Being Too Nice

The Pangloss Index isn't the first report I've written criticizing state implementation of NCLB (here's one from a few years back focused on the teacher quality provisions), and when I talk to the press--particularly at the state level--I usually get some variant on the question, "If this is so bad, why are people doing it?"

As a rule, I don't like to speculate, because, how would I know? Motivation isn't the issue, what matters is the policy. I only have detailed knowledge of one state department of education, and they're all good people, so generally I attribute avoidance of NCLB provisions to a deeply-ingrained compliance mentality combined with what Eduwonk likes to call the "dual client problem," whereby state officials are charged with looking out for the interests of both adults and children in the school children--interests which are often, but not always, aligned.

But then I read stuff like this comment on our report at This Week in Education, and I wonder if I'm being too nice. He says:

I participated in the first wave of tricks to avoid accountability. What we did was not wrong. It was our responsibility to protect schools so they could protect children. And our logic was explicit: creating loopholes to delay the damage until the Republican governors came to our rescue.

This is a widely held--if seldom so clearly stated--conceit, the idea that education officials who game the system or break the law are engaging in some kind of virtuous civil disobedience on behalf of the children. Others in the edublogosphere have correctly taken issue with sloppy use of the "children vs. adults" meme, but sometimes that is, in fact, the way it is. "Protecting" schools is not always synonymous with protecting children. Here, for example, is the first paragraph of a press release issued by the Alabama Department of Education a few months ago:

Montgomery, Ala. ─ More positive news for Alabama schools following the release of the 2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) report. The data indicates a 70 percent decrease from last year in the number of Title I schools (high poverty schools that receive federal funding) identified for School Improvement. That means fewer schools in Alabama must offer School Choice for the upcoming school year. School Choice provides parents alternatives on where their children can attend school.

The 70 drop was a result of Alabama's loophole-ridden system, not any great improvement in education. The "positive" news for Alabama schools was negative news for Alabama parents, who now have fewer options to send their students to better schools. There's nothing ambiguous about the dynamic here, the only unusual thing is that state departments are usually a little more circumspect about their intentions.

Later in the post, the commenter says:

Where we crossed a moral line was when districts adopted tricks that directly damaged children. For instance, we abruptly merged high poverty schools creating disastrously high concentrations of poor kids, in order to claim we had "reorganized" failing schools. (and by redrawing boundaries without regard to gang turf, we probably intensified gang wars, so I have to ask if one or more of my students might still be alive if we hadn't thrown the schools into complete chaos.) We forced parents to re-enroll their kids just before school - thus dropping hundreds of kids from the rolls and disrupting the first few weeks of school - so they will be excluded as highly mobile. Among the most damaging was the gutting of our attendance policies by having kids pick up trash in lieu of attending class in order to drop absences from the computer. when And, of course, we drove hundreds of students out of school by imposing high stakes standardized testing that was years over their skills.

That's reprehensible. There's nothing in NCLB that forces anyone to do any of these things, these are just immoral actions that hurt students.