Swift & Change Able

At this writing, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) is at about 211 degrees Fahrenheit.

The debate, on Capitol Hill, on the web, in newspapers, and sometimes even at Starbucks, is at a fever pitch. Some have been referring to the law as “No Newspaper Left Behind”. One could swap out the word “newspaper” in the previous sentence for many other nouns: “blog,” “lobbyist,” “former government official turned education reformer,” “Democratic freshman member of Congress.” You get the idea.

The latest incarnation of ESEA, aka “No Child Left Behind” has become a Rorschach, the ink blot test that psychologists use to elicit their clients’ perceptions of the world and themselves.

Libertarians see a conspiracy to have government take control of every aspect of American citizens’ lives. Conservatives see a federal government overstepping its Constitutional boundaries. Liberal academics see John Dewey turning over in his grave. Teachers see a gigantic two-by-four headed for their kneecaps. Freshman members of Congress see a November 2008 that doesn’t work out as well for them as November 2006.

Some words you see very little of in this debate: “student,” “children,” “reading,” “writing,” “mathematics,” “college,” “job-training”, “citizenship”.

Some readers may know that there is very large body of research that suggests that people change not only what they say but what they actually perceive and believe according to the expressed opinions of those around them. A social psychologist named Solomon Asch found in the 1950’s that people even changed their perceptions about something as simple as the length of a line drawn on a blackboard if they believed that those around them saw it differently than they did.

Not too dissimilarly, when children being sent to schools outside their neighborhoods was called “desegregation” in the 1950s and sanctioned by a left-of-center Supreme Court, liberals liked it and conservatives hated it. When it was called “public school choice” beginning in the 1990’s and sanctioned by a Republican Congress and a centrist President (Bill Clinton), everybody pretty much switched sides.

When children getting tutoring outside of regular school hours was called “21st Century Learning” or “after-school” and was pushed by a centrist President (Bill Clinton) and a liberal Congressman (David Obey) liberals loved it and conservatives hated it. When it was called “supplemental educational services” (SES) beginning in 2001 with passage of NCLB, everybody pretty much switched sides.

When only children of the elite took SAT preparation courses or the New York State Regents Exam, it was considered prudent and pragmatic. Now that participation is more egalitarian, somehow the very people who enjoyed the benefits of SAT prep and the New York Regents are the ones crying the loudest about the poor children who are being taught to learn what they will be tested on.

If everybody keeps listening to the same group of people they always have listened to and believed, nothing in NCLB (or the world, for that mater) will change for the better. The ESEA law is not, as initially asserted and then later qualified by Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings (who, imho, does not live in a box and is someone who judges the length of a line according to what she sees, not what others tell her they see) “99%” pure.

Case in point: The multiple-choice assessments that states have put into place as part of their accountability systems after receiving billions (yes, billions) of federal dollars for this purpose beginning in 1994 are indefensible. It’s hard to see how a student demonstrates that they can spell in any way other than putting a sequence of letters together, or that they can do math in any way other than adding two and two and getting four. But in this age of blackberries, ipods, and Xboxes, there has to be a better instrument for assessing student knowledge than a number two pencil.

So why are critics of tests some of the most vociferous opponents of a reauthorization that has been six years in the making and that is looking like the best opportunity in years to push for big changes in how we assess children? They are listening to misinformed people who are telling them that they have to wait for the next President Clinton, or President Giuliani, or Speaker Boehner, to come charging in to save the day from (take your pick) liberal or conservative conspirators.

Don’t believe the hype. Accountability in education was fifty years in the making. It has been endorsed by Republican and Democratic Presidents, by liberals and conservatives. It is, in fact, the middle way. It is not a fad. It is here to stay. In a country of 300 million people, it is the only (and admittedly imperfect) way to get a handle on how we are doing in preparing the next generation – rich and poor, white and black, Anglo and Latino - for productive lives as workers, providers, and citizens.

We suggest that as the debate goes on, readers try to get information about NCLB from sources from which they don’t usually get information. We know the media is not making it easy. And we know that the President and other supporters of NCLB have done a very poor job of showcasing its upsides to the American people. Still, there are opportunities.

One example: ABC News has done a series of pieces on a school in Boston that has risen to the accountability challenge (click: here). The school has improved student test scores but, more important, it has given students hope and opportunity. We suggest you set your tivo or dvr or set-aside some time to view the series on ABC’s webpage. And then come to your own conclusions about how 21st century education can be improved both for children AND for the adults who will eventually hand them over the reins of government, commerce, and society.