Guest Post: Denise Juneau on No Child Left Behind |
14th May 2008
The following is a guest post from Denise Juneau, Democratic candidate for Montana’s Superintendent of Public Instruction. This post is part of a series designed to allow our readers to get to know Montana candidates and should not be construed as an endorsement.
U.S. Representative Dale Kildee has a terrific way of referencing the appropriate role for the federal government in education. He says that providing education is a state responsibility, a local function, and a federal interest. We appreciate the interest and assistance of our federal partners, but I argue for a federal role that is supportive of state efforts – not one that attempts to control our important work - or that seeks to simply penalize our schools without providing sufficient resources to address areas that need improvement.
Through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB), the most recent version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the federal government has a new set of requirements for public education that hopes to improve schools through a strict accountability process. Public schools that receive federal Title I funds are subject to a progressive list of sanctions based on student performance on state standardized assessments. If a certain percentage of students do not score “proficient” on the state assessment, a school is labeled as “in need of improvement” and faces increased sanctions until removed from the list for improving their test scores.
I have specific concerns with NCLB, which are detailed below, but primarily focus on the policy’s assumption that the worth of a school can be measured by the average test score of its students. Although academic achievement is a critical goal, I believe schools have a much more nuanced role for students and communities than raising test scores on math and reading. Despite its limitations, NCLB has shed light on achievement gaps between groups of students in our schools, and we must remain ever vigilant in our efforts to close those gaps through concentrated focus and support. State efforts such as Indian Education for All, Quality Educator Loan Assistance and various scholarships available for summer and postsecondary programs represent important steps towards meeting the needs of ALL of Montana’s students. I will work to continue such programs, and ensure their existence in the face of federal requirements.
I see the role of State Superintendent in relation to the federal government as two-fold: conduit and advocate. Not only will I provide strong leadership as a conduit - interpreting and implementing complicated federal legislation, but will work as an advocate to represent the needs of Montana in the creation and enforcement of federal education policies. Let me expand on these two important roles:
Conduit: The State Superintendent must have a sophisticated understanding of the complex and fluid requirements and funding mechanisms in a federal law such as NCLB, and how these requirements translate to local contexts in Montana communities. It is my job to lead the Office of Public Instruction in interpreting and implementing the law to fulfill these requirements in the ways most responsive to the needs of Montana. My experience as an attorney, teacher and state-level administrator uniquely equips me with the experience and skills needed to apply complicated legislation to local educational contexts.
Advocate: An equally important role of the State Superintendent is to be an advocate for the state when the federal government creates such legislation. NCLB is scheduled for reauthorization most likely within the next two years. Representative George Miller (D-CA), as well as the Department of Education, has already put forward a number of proposed changes and members of Congress are soliciting feedback from the states. I have developed some important recommendations for how these changes can best serve a state such as Montana. For example:
- Provide flexibility for rural states so schools can get back to their job of educating the “whole student” – including Montana’s long tradition of arts and humanities. NCLB has narrowed the curriculum and has teachers spending the entire month of March preparing students to “take the test.” We need to vitalize our schools, ensuring that learning remain joyful, balanced, and works toward a sense of good citizenship, not just high math and reading achievement.
- Develop additional ways to determine the quality of schools that go beyond a single test score, since we all understand that one test score does not paint the entire picture. For example, an evaluation of a school should consider its contribution to the growth of students in academic areas (test scores, grades, courses taken, graduation rates) and social areas (attendance, behavior, attitude towards school, civic participation, etc).
-Properly fund the legislation on the federal level so NCLB is no longer an “unfunded mandate”. NCLB includes many requirements that place additional financial and administrative burdens on both the state and districts, without providing additional resources to help school out of the sanction process.
-In addition to highlighting and working on areas of potential improvement, we need to also promote the good things that are happening in our schools every day. Montana is full of bright, capable and motivated students, teachers and administrators who deserve to be recognized for their many accomplishments.
That all sounds fair, but NCLB is not the root problem. The problem is the teachers unions. The rest of us live in a world where workers who dont perform are fired. Thats not how it works in public education where performance isn’t as important as tenure. What is your stance on that?
Where do you all get the idea that tenured teachers cannot be fired? I worked in education for three years, and the only difference between being tenured and not was whether or not they needed a reason to fire you; un-tenured teachers can be let go with no reason, tenured teachers need a reason. So if a teachers sucks, or doesn’t teach, or strays from course material, or has too many unsuccessful kids, he/she can quite easily be let go.
Another question. What about performance based salaries versus tenured based? Colorado has such a thing,
http://www.csbj.com/story.cfm?ID=10829
If it works in the market, then it will work in the schools.
Prove that. Schools aren’t light manufacturing and kids aren’t widgets to be purchased.
Yeah Killdozer, I am sure that teachers will flock to Special ed and general-level class assignments undo such a system…
The sad reality that all attempts to overhaul education have to deal with is that some kids don’t want to learn and will fail no matter what we try. Teachers can’t be held accountable for the failure of students who won’t learn, and all systems that are performance/results based fail to grasp this simple truth.
Actually Colby, on thinking about it, Killdozer may have a point. Performance based pay is supposed to be attuned to incentive, right? So, let’s pay kids to go to school and learn. Those who do well (or cheat effectively) will be compensated more than others. I can think of several truly vicious funding schemes for such a revolutionary program. Tax 100% of pay and net worth of any CEO who’s company shows red on a quarterly. That shouldn’t be a problem for anyone who believes that the market is ‘performance’ based. Or, and this is even better, we make the parents pay. Forced allowance. The better the kid performs, the more the parents are taxed. Certainly our children will begin performing like champions with such parental support behind the effort.
The more I think on it, the more I really like this idea …
In all seriousness, I was truly taken aback by Ms. Juneau’s signature on Pat William’s letter chiding Barack Obama for telling the truth. I found the letter, and those affixing their name to it, to be knee-jerk, reactionary and foolishly political. Can’t say I trust political animals all that much. I had decided at that point that she would not get my vote for OPI Super. But she did elicit a very warm and favorable reaction from the family members who have met her. I place great trust in their intelligence, so … I’m willing to listen.
One thing I can say that I am *not* in favor of are “changes” to NCLB. It needs to be scrapped in its entirety. As Denise points out in this very post, it is based on faulty premises. You cannot threaten federal sanction for arbitrary standards and expect better than arbitrary results. The logic isn’t sound.
Better legislation needs to be written. Calling it NCLB would (in my opinion) be a mistake. One doesn’t name significant items after significant failures. I do like the suggestions that Ms. Juneau proffers and hope that they are incorporated into such new legislation. But I still have a bit of distrust for the political animal at work here.
Agreed on all points. I was disappointed to see her name on that letter as well. Much like your family though, I have gotten a good feeling from any interaction I have had with her. I am willing to write off a single misstep, perhaps. I would like to hear her response to what you have said here.
For the the NCLB, I agree that it needs to be dismantled and put in a museum under the ‘What Not To Do’ heading.
HOLD THE PRESS!! WULFGAR AND I HAVE EGG ON OUR FACE
Denise points out in her comments below that she did not sign the letter in question. A few minutes on the tubes show that she is correct. We were confusing Denise Juneau with State Senator Carol Juneau. I apologize for any confusion I caused.
I do not have the pleasure of living in the great state of Montana, so it’s possible that my input here is irrelevant to Ms. Juneau and her concerns for MT. But, if you will indulge me, I’d like to add a perspective on why NCLB has failed in my corner of the world.
I live in a large metropolitan area that is highly diverse culturally speaking. Two of my close friends quit their public teaching jobs last year. They both taught in inter-urban schools where (in their words) 70% of the students spoke English as their second language. A distant second.
These women were passionately devoted to teaching, felt it was their “calling” in life. They wanted a chance to affect students in a positive way, making sure that each child felt valued and, whatever their skill level, were made to feel capable. And, well, to teach.
I watched over the last few years as that passion and vigor was drained from them, replaced with stress and frustration. All of the “extras” were stripped away. Art? No more. Music? No more. Phys. Ed? Limited.
All time was devoted to preparing for standardized tests. Their work was compounded by the language barriers. Passing rates were dismal in their respective schools, and each year pressures mounted.
So, they quit.
All of our students: In Montana, in my home state…each student in this nation deserves to have passionate and dedicated teachers. NCLB has stifled the desire to teach in at least two of the brightest and most creative people I’ve ever known.
I can only imagine what this “disease” has cost the children of this nation. I’m not sure NCLB can be reformed….
Also, Ms. Juneau- to your comments on advocacy for your state: I think my above comment is an example of how each state will differ vastly on the educational needs of students, as well as the concerns of our administrators and teachers.
I agree that, if NCLB undergoes reformations, one of the most important things to consider will be the solicitation of feedback from each state. What works for Montana, might not work for my state, and vice versa.
An excellent point; regional differences have been largely ignored by NCLB. Many of the rural Montana schools find it hard to attract employees normally, much less when those schools are suffering under the NCLB regulations…
OK – a somewhat long answer that attempts to answer all issues posted.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was enacted in 1965 to fund public elementary and secondary schools, and has been reenacted every five years. The Act has undergone many versions under different Administrations; however, we have never seen such significant changes as those that renamed ESEA as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and was signed into law by the current Administration in 2002. NCLB mandates state administered standardized testing in core areas, parental options for sending their child to a “better” school, and scripted reading programs (and now math).
It is widely agreed that No Child Left Behind has been a disaster for most teachers and has taken away their creativity and professionalism. The month of March for most teachers is now known as “test-taking month.” It is true that NCLB has narrowed the curriculum and pushed aside art, music, and p.e. classes. I meet teachers, and students, all the time who have been crushed by this law.
One major problem with NCLB (and certainly not the only one by far) is the lack of adequate funding to implement the law. When the goal is to reduce achievement gaps between groups of students (in our state, the gap is primarily between poor and non-poor students), but there is no money to assist schools to truly do what they need to do in order to close these gaps, it remains a goal unattained. In fact, under NCLB, schools and teachers are held accountable to have all students become proficient on a single standardized test by 2014, despite students’ individual differences. When they fail to meet these testing targets, they are then faced with a system of penalties and are denied the resources necessary to remedy the problem. I can tell you that schools that will have all students pass the test at the proficient level by 2014 will be few and far between.
This brings us to another interesting point about NCLB. What does “proficient” mean? There are four categories a student can test into: 1) Novice; 2) Nearing Proficient; 3) Proficient; and 4) Advanced. When the aim is “proficient,” what happens to novice and advanced? Where does the teachers’ focus and attention go? It goes to bringing the students scoring ‘nearing proficient’ to ‘proficient’. Think about what that does to our education system. If no child gets ahead, then no child gets left behind.
Finally, there are the “choice” provisions. If a school “fails,” they must send a letter to the parents stating the school has failed and they have an option to send their child to another school. So, in many of our Montana towns where would that be? This is one of many reasons that the law does not fit Montana and why changes specific to rural states must be incorporated into the law.
So, if no school is going to “pass” by 2014, and adequate money is not going to be provided to assist their efforts, and parents can opt to send their children elsewhere, what happens to “public” education? President Bush did not have a dream – he had a scheme.
I believe that the current rendition of the ESEA known as NCLB should go away and we should put in its place an ESEA that supports schools and teachers, allows for more curriculum areas to once again be included in our schools, and that adequate funds be provided to help schools close the achievement gap. It is true that every state has different educational needs that will need to be addressed – ours is primarily a rural state issue. The new rendition will need to include flexibility and support for both state educational agencies and local schools so we can get back to doing our job of education the whole child.
I was in Butte today and gave my stump speech to an auditorium full of teachers asking for their support to become the next State Superintendent. They were actually gathered to discover which classes they would be teaching next year. Although they were beat down by the punitive measures, the bad press, and daily negative comments, they showed up for yet another round. They showed up because they love what they do and they know that their work means something to their community and to the individual lives they stand in front of everyday. I respect that. And I believe that their work is already performance-based – it is just more of a long-term performance measure. The true measure is what their students do later in life – not how they perform on a single standardized test. Every good teacher knows this – and that is why they continue to show up. It surely isn’t for the pay.
As far as the signature on a political letter regarding Senator Obama’s remarks, I think you should look at it again and you will notice it is not mine. If that is your only reason for not supporting my candidacy, then I expect you will trust your families and friends, and agree with their intelligent decision and warm and favorable reactions.
Thanks Montana Netroots for offering this forum on this most important race.
My deepest apologies. I will do my best to get that word out, because I know many who are laboring under the same mistaken impression. And thank you for your clarifications here, all of them.
Another dirty little secret of NCLB is that your lowest performing students determine whether your school flunks or not. You can have a bunch of Einsteins to your credit, but if the low performers don’t test “proficient”, the whole school flunks. Low performing students includes special education students. That’s why you see in the papers that many AA schools in MT flunked NCLB. The program isn’t designed to encourage good teaching or create proficiency, it’s designed to flunk schools and make public education look bad.
Clarification: I’m not blaming special education students, I’m just pointing out the way NCLB makes them be the convenient factor to flunk a school.
How do I know this? On an NCLB testing day, I spoke with a special ed teacher. I asked if the students were taking a modified test to deal with their many handicaps. The teacher said no. I said I assumed that the tests were not counted the same at regular students. Again the answer was no; their tests counted the same as regular students. Everyone sure tried their best to make sure those kids had a good testing day, free of distractions.
Denise Juneau rocks!
I did not know this. If true, poor areas are doubly hit because children born into poverty are more likely to have learning disabilities for a variety of reasons. Not only do they have the problem of being underfunded because of the nature of property tax based school funding, so this is a double whammy. The very communities that need us the most are getting the double whammy.
Read this. It’s true.
” Since its passage, NCLB has been criticized for a number of reasons. One of the criticisms is that it is unfair to include special education students and students with limited English proficiency in the accountability system and judge them by the same standard used for all other students. In the past, special education students and students with limited English proficiency were often excluded from high-stakes, large-scale assessment because educators believed it was not in the best interest of students to take the tests. For many opponents of the law, it makes no sense to expect students in these groups to perform and progress at the same level as other students.”
http://www.newhorizons.org/spneeds/improvement/jewell.htm
Note to site admin: How about a post exposing the forging of Denise’s signature on that letter?
Ms. Juneau:
Thank you for your comments. I think the citizens of Montana would be lucky to have you on their side, on the side of their children.
This struck me: “When they fail to meet these testing targets, they are then faced with a system of penalties and are denied the resources necessary to remedy the problem.”
How can anyone but the best, the better funded, succeed? Like Shane said, “The very communities that need us the most are getting the double whammy”.
It seems to me that the only children “not left behind” are the ones that are advantaged to begin with.