The "Unlawful" NCLB Law

The Harvard Civil Rights Project's new study critiques the Dep of Ed's recent "flexibility" changes to NCLB (LEP/SWD exemptions, extra time to meet highly qualified teacher requirements, growth model pilot, and grade span methods of calculating accountability) stating that it is "unlawful" and "unravels" NCLB by eradicating a common theme of accountability by giving individual states different rules within the law.

A couple of thoughts:
1) In regards to granting flexibility and waivers, this report demonstrates the importance of striking the correct balance between widespread, consistent enforcement of the law and working with states to address their specific needs-which according to this report, the Dep of Ed has not been so successful at doing. (It's almost like the Dep of Ed is acting like one of those parents who threatens their kid with rules such as "if you come home past curfew you're grounded for a week." Then the kid comes home past curfew and the parents don't ground him, but maybe make some other lesser sanction, like mandatory taking out the trash for a week- which in the end the parents lose credibility with their kid). Following this example, the Dep of Ed is in a dangerous position of losing their credibility with the states in enforcing NCLB.

2)While the study makes excellent points and provides a great timeline of policy implementation, I am concerned with one of their concluding suggestions for the federal government: to reexamine the idea that external accountability and the imposition of sanctions will force schools to improve and motivate teachers to change their instructional practices. Now, while I agree that sanctions are not perfect, at least there are sanctions. It's not like schools dealing with poor and minority children were incredibly successful and along came NCLB with its external sanctions to mess it all up. At least external sanctions provide some sense of accountability, especially schools serving the kids who need education the most to make sure they are not slipping through the cracks like before. I would rather instead of suggesting eradicating sanctions, that there was more focus on what the federal government can do to ensure fair and consistent accountability and support while simulataneously upholding NCLB legislation.

3) As reauthorization draws near (which explains this reports timely release), it will be interesting to see what other suggestions are offered to reform NCLB and who will be the most effective at lobbying for their reform ideas (I have a hunch it won't be these guys)

Final thought: The report poses an interesting question in regards to the effectiveness of NCLB; Is it feasible for a federal agency based in Washington, DC to regulate "core education processes"? This question goes back to the debate under this administration about the role of the Dep of Ed, which basically asked...is it necessary?

Thoughts?