An Ammunition Dump?

This year's Bracey Report begins and ends with the item that will continue to dominate education news: No Child Left Behind. TO PRODUCE last year's report required me to sift through 21/2 drawers full of materials. This year, there were 31/2 drawers. Attention is being paid to public education; much of it is not benign. On the education news front, budgets and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) dominated. Because readers certainly know the budget situation in their own states, we begin with NCLB, in two parts. NCLB: The AYP Trap Last year's report said of No Child Left Behind, [It's] a trap, a Trojan Horse . . . choose your metaphor. These days, Americans speak mostly in war images, so I now call NCLB a weapon of mass destruction targeted at the public schools in a campaign of shock and awe, which, given the incredible underreaction of educators, I must conclude is working. I first expressed that sentiment in an article that no one would publish in April 2002. (The article can be found at www.america-tomorrow.com/bracey/EDDRA.) No one seemed to believe it then. They do now. At the April 2003 meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), several employees of the U.S. Department of Education approached me to express dismay over NCLB and over working for an ideologically driven department. These are sad times, indeed. One career staffer declared that NCLB should be renamed: NCL-B.S. As all Kappan readers surely know by now, all schools must test all students every year in grades 3 through 8 in reading and math, with science to be added in 2006-07. Schools must demonstrate adequate yearly progress (AYP). For a school to show AYP, all ethnic groups, all major socioeconomic groups, English-language learners, and special education students must make AYP separately. Ninety-five percent of each group must be tested, and, if any one group fails to make AYP, the school as a whole fails. The official phrase is needs improvement, but headlines across the nation reveal how everyone actually thinks about it: Most Schools in Failing, Los Angeles Daily News, 24 July 2003; State Adds 544 Schools to Failing List -- for Now, Grand Rapids Press, 12 July 2003; It's Pass or Fail; All or Nothing, Raleigh News Observer, 13 July 2003. Schools must continue to make AYP until, by 2014, 100% of a school's students must score In last year's report, I contended that, while the law allowed each state to define proficient, that wouldn't last and that the NAEP (National Assessment of Education Progress) definition of would come to rule. I claimed that this would happen even though the NAEP achievement levels have been rejected as fundamentally flawed by everyone who has ever analyzed them. This includes the General Accounting Office, the Center for Research in Evaluation, Student Standards, and Testing (CRESST), the National Academy of Education, and the National Academy of Sciences. Even so, in his presidential address to AERA, Robert Linn, co-director of CRESST at the University of Colorado and UCLA, made no attempt to provide or use any definition of proficient other than that rendered by NAEP.1 Educational researchers now assume that proficient means NAEP proficient. Secretary of Education Rod Paige has said that he will use the discrepancy between the performance on NAEP and the performance on state tests to shame schools into better performance.2 Certainly those discrepancies will be there for Paige to point to, and in many instances they will be huge. To see why, we need only look at the Princeton Review's comparisons of performance on state tests with performance on NAEP.3 Ironically, the largest discrepancy is for Texas, the home state of Secretary Paige and President Bush. Texas declared 91% of its eighth-graders proficient in math. NAEP says only 24% of Texas students reach that level. Although there are some states where the differences are small and even four states that have tougher requirements than NAEP (Arizona, Louisiana, Missouri, and Maine), the average difference is 23%, and for 22 states, the difference exceeds 30%. …

THE GAP is back. Actually, the differences between the achievement of white and Asian students and that of black, Hispanic, and other minority students never completely disappeared, but so much progress was made during the 1970s and 1980s that there seemed to be a tacit assumption that the gap would eventually close altogether. The standards and assessment efforts of the past decade were at least partly meant to speed up the process of closing the gap. If districts, schools, and parents are chafing under accountability measures (often hastily and thoughtlessly implemented), it is because state policy makers were under the gun to find ways to close the gap even further. Federal laws, especially Title I, said that all students were to be held to the same high standards, a mandate that rippled through state policies for all districts and schools. The requirement that assessment data be disaggregated by race and ethnicity also ensured that the problem of the gap would remain public. Indeed it did, especially in a rash of reports released as the new school year began, including the annual release of SAT scores from the College Board. One who believes, as I do, that the standards-based movement is essential to closing the gap, must conclude that not enough schools are using standards-based reforms to give low-performing students, especially minorities, access to the same curriculum as everyone else. The latest trend report from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tells the story of the gap for the past 25-plus years. And it was a good story for a long time. Between 1970 and 1988, the gap between the NAEP reading scores of black students and those of white students was cut in half; the math score gap, cut by one-third. Obviously, schools were doing something right, and black students were showing they could indeed learn when given greater opportunities to do so. Then in the 1990s, the progress stopped. Actually, it stopped for everyone (at slightly higher levels than in the 1970s), but black and Hispanic NAEP scores climbed aboard a roller coaster. They fell back, began to improve in some subjects, then regressed again. By 1999, the scores of black and Hispanic students were far below the records set in 1988. Trying to put a good face on a disturbing picture, NAEP officials and Secretary of Education Richard Riley pointed to steady improvements overall in math scores and higher rates of enrollment in more advanced math classes. The same arguments were heard with the College Board's release of the 2000 SAT scores: last year's seniors posted the highest math scores since 1969; verbal scores were unchanged. The percentage of minorities taking the SAT has increased 47% since 1987 and would be expected to pull the average scores down, so this was good news. However, the gap remains very wide, with blacks scoring 104 points lower than whites on the math portion of the SAT and 94 points lower on the verbal portion. These score gaps on the SAT actually widened during the 1990s. So what happened? At a time when state statutes, a general consensus about content standards, improved professional development, greater knowledge from research on learning, and pressure for accountability have been working more or less in tandem, why have the academic gaps grown larger? Researchers are scratching their heads on this one. David Grissmer of RAND points to the unprecedented resources made available to low-income schools by the War on Poverty as one factor in narrowing the gap and to a rising black middle class as another. However, he couldn't explain why the progress ended. His most recent research, described in Improving Student Achievement (RAND, 2000), uses the improvement of fourth- and eighth-grade NAEP math scores as the context for making state comparisons. The rise in scores in some states, he says, is a result primar-ily of both higher per-pupil expenditures and how the money is spent. …

On the failure of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) to close the “achievement gap” between whites and minorities, the Common Core State Standards were heralded as the best way of raising academic standards for all children around the country and closing the achievement gap. Numerous reports have emerged questioning the efficacy of the Common Core Standards to deliver what was promised. Public disillusion is apparent. This paper is an attempt to revisit the Common Core Standards through the lens of data generated by its implementation. Quantitative data available from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for 4th, 8th and 12th grade students and their achievements scores for mathematics and reading for the years 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2015 were taken into consideration. Results have revealed no increase, much less significant, in the average achievement scores and no indication that the achievement gap was being narrowed. Recommendations have been made for having a relook at the content and the implementation of the standards.

The Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) has been used to document and track an achievement gap between white and minority students in Texas. Some educators have credited the TAAS with fueling a drive to close the achievement gap while others suggest that TAAS scores may be misleading because of factors such as score inflation and a possible ceiling effect. The purpose of this study was to analyze the gap in mathematics achievement for eighth grade students. The study compared TAAS and National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test results to determine if the achievement gap between white, Hispanic, and African-American Students had narrowed between 1996 and 2000. Results indicate that TAAS mean scores increased significantly for all three ethnic groups between 1996 and 2000. Comparison of the TAAS test score frequency distributions for each ethnic group indicated that white students' scores shifted from the middle to the upper portion of the test score range while minority students' scores shifted from the lower to the middle and higher score range. Both white and minority students' TAAS test score distributions were significantly more negatively skewed in 2000 than in 1996. Comparisons between white and minority students' TAAS scores showed that white students had significantly higher scores than either Hispanic or African-American students in both 1996 and 2000. Comparison of mean score differences in 1996 and 2000 indicated that the achievement gap between white and minority students had narrowed. NAEP scores increased significantly from 1996 to 2000 for Hispanic students, but not for white or African-American students. However, test score distribution patterns showed small positive changes for all three ethnic groups. Comparisons between ethnic groups indicated that there were significant differences between white and minority students' scores in both 1996 and 2000. Comparison of mean score differences in 1996 and 2000 indicated that the achievement gap between Hispanic white students had narrowed slightly but that there was no change in the achievement gap between white and African-American students. Analysis of the TAAS test score distribution patterns indicated the likelihood that a ceiling effect had impacted students' scores. The evidence for a ceiling effect was strongest for white students. In 2000, 60.4% of white students had a TAAS score that fell in the top 10% of the score range. In contrast, there was no evidence of a ceiling effect for the NAEP. Mean score gains on the TAAS are only partially substantiated by the NAEP data. Furthermore, there is a very strong possibility that a ceiling effect artificially restricted the 2000 TAAS scores for white students and created the illusion that the achievement gap between minority and white students had been narrowed.

After 25 years with small to moderate gains in performance in mathematics, scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) main assessment declined between 2013 and 2015 in Grades 4 and 8. Previous research has suggested the decline may be linked to the implementation of the Common Core state standards. In this article, the decline in the NAEP composite score is shown to be driven primarily by losses in the content strands of Geometry and of Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability. A gain in fractions achievement is also evident in an item-level examination of the NAEP results, but not in reported NAEP scores. These effects are discussed with respect to the CCSS, the rationale for evaluating national progress, and a potential redesign of the NAEP assessment.

NEWT GINGRICH has suggested that Democrats run their election campaigns on a simple slogan: Had enough? (1) Bush Administration shenanigans and Congressional political ploys so brazen as to be unbelievable--for instance, tying a rise in minimum wage that would benefit millions to a reduction in estate tax that would benefit nation's 7,500 wealthiest families--had me nodding in agreement. Herewith, year in review. DESPERATELY SEEKING STRAWS TO GRASP This law is helping us learn about what works in our schools. And clearly, high and accountability are working. Over last five years, our 9-year-olds have made more progress in reading than in previous 28 combined. So said Margaret Spellings at Child Left Behind Summit in April 2006, referring to gains on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2) In statistical circles, what secretary is doing is called picking. And in this instance, careless and self-serving cherry picking, too. Those last five years Spellings spoke of span 1999 to 2004. For two of those years Bill Clinton was President, and it is possible that all that gain--all 7 points--occurred on his watch. In two of those five years, NCLB did not exist. In 2001-02, NCLB (signed into law in January 2002) would have been in existence only three months before a NAEP assessment--had there been one. And given confusion that reigned from 2002 to 2004 and hostility between states and U.S. Department of Education, it is not likely that much gain occurred then. (Remember that in 2002, then-Secretary Rod Paige accused some states of trying to ratchet down their standards and thus of being enemies of equal justice and equal opportunity and ... apologists for failure. (3) It's surprising he didn't go on to call them terrorist organizations.) Spellings' statement is true only if you start in NAEP's first trend year, 1971. Begin in year of NAEP's previous trend high point, 1980, and gain would be only 4 points. Then, too, there was no gain from 1999 to 2004 for 13-year-olds and a decline of 3 points for 17-year-olds. And why didn't she mention math trends, since 9-year-olds showed a 9-point gain and 13-year-olds a 5-point gain? Seventeen-year-olds, though, showed a 1-point decline. Spellings also said, Scores are at all-time highs for African American and Hispanic students. (4) Well, if she meant reading scores for 9-year-olds, that was true. But it wasn't true for 17-year-old blacks or 13- and 17-year-old Hispanics (13-year-old blacks were at an all-time high by a single point). The statement would have been true, too, in mathematics, except for black and Hispanic 17-year-olds. The NAEP assessment of 2005, though, proved less upbeat. The regular NAEP assessments, ones billed as the nation's report card, change items over time in conjunction with curricular shifts; NAEP that yields trends administers same items at each assessment. In assessment for 2005, fourth-grade reading reached same level as it had at onset of NCLB in 2002, and eighth-grade reading declined 2 points. In math, scores rose 3 points for fourth-graders from 2003 and 1 point for eighth-graders. In reading, proportion of students at or above proficient level was static for fourth-graders at 31% and fell for eighth-graders from 33% to 31%. In mathematics, proportion of fourth-graders at or above proficient rose from 32% to 36%, while for eighth-graders it rose from 29% to 30%. While the Administration scrambled to put best face on numbers and to defend law that some complain forces a test-driven curriculum on classroom, Lois Romano reported in Washington Post, Ross Wiener of Education Trust had a more common reaction: No one can be satisfied with these results. There's been a discernible slowdown in progress since '03, at a time when we desperately need to accelerate gains. …

The fourth-grade 2019 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Reading assessment shows that 34% of the nation’s students perform below the NAEP Basic level. However, because there is no achievement-level description for below Basic, educators and policymakers lack information on the nature of the reading difficulties that these students face. To help fill this gap, we analyze data from the 2018 NAEP Oral Reading Fluency study. We find that, compared with students who perform at the NAEP Basic level and above, students who perform below NAEP Basic level are much more likely to have poor oral reading fluency and word reading skills.

Given the policy imperative of using multiple measures for state education accountability under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), this study examines similarities and discrepancies between the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the states' own math assessment results in Kentucky and Maine, with a focus on 3 major academic performance indicators: proficiency level, achievement gap, and achievement gain. Using meta-analytic techniques, the study synthesizes multiple measures from the two states over the periods of 1992–1996 and 2000–2003. It pinpoints the areas and degrees of the discrepancies and explores contributing factors. It also reports emerging convergence of the NAEP and state assessments under the NCLB.

THE FEDERAL journey into public has followed a long and winding road. Most educators know that the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act is simply the latest version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which dates all the way back to 1965. In the years since its initial passage, the ESEA road has taken a number of turns and has been reauthorized many times, in various forms, under various names. The 1994 reauthorization, for example, was called the Improving America's Schools Act. In the past, ESEA was seen as a positive, supportive law, designed to help local school districts provide equitable and adequate to children who face challenging and expensive hurdles to learning. This segment included students with disabilities, poor children, and children whose first language is not English. About five years ago, ESEA reached a fork in the road, and the decision was made to go down the very different NCLB road. This new path was carved out of the landscape by the kind of high-stakes accountability that is based on inexpensive standardized tests and comes with an extremely narrow focus on low-level knowledge and skills. In addition, NCLB replaces decision making by those closest to the students in the school community (e.g., teachers, parents, school boards, and site-based councils) with rigid control by the federal government. The NCLB path has been fraught with numerous unintended consequences. Most fundamentally, NCLB fails to address the needs of the whole child and reduces the guiding purpose of public from the development of effective and contributing citizens to an unending quest for higher scores on tests that cannot assess what we value most in a democratic society--things like critical and creative thinking, problem solving, effective and persuasive communication, cooperation, perseverance, caring, respect, and appreciation for diversity. These qualities empower citizens to thrive in a democratic society and in our complex, ever-changing world, and they cannot be measured on the easy-to-score, paper-and-pencil tests that are the centerpiece of NCLB's accountability policy. The good news, however, is that these important qualities can be demonstrated by means of 21st-century, real-world, authentic performance assessments and that our schools can be encouraged to foster them through rich, meaningful, empowering learning experiences in caring, high-participation learning environments. The bad news is that NCLB's focus on once-a-year, multiple-choice tests--until 2007 in just two subjects--actually works against such a learner-empowering approach. In other words, the aspirations of Sen. Kennedy and the other architects of NCLB that our public schools would guarantee every child in America, regardless of race, economic background, language or disability, the opportunity to get a world-class have deteriorated into the pursuit of a single reading score and a single math score per year on low-level, paper-and-pencil tests. NCLB's advocates call this achievement--as if there were no other indicators of student learning and performance. Why this profound reduction of aspirations? Because NCLB's accountability provisions mean that the test scores themselves have become the motivators and chief driving force of the system. Educators, students, and their schools face stiff consequences if these predetermined test-score standards are not met every year. Hence, in too many U.S. schools, education for life has been reduced to preparation for tests, and as a result the teachers in those schools are witnessing the serious discouragement of their students and colleagues. The more teachers are compelled to focus on producing scores, the less time they have to focus on the learning that they feel will most benefit their students in the long run. …

Each biannual release of fourth-grade scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading brings a new round of claims that a large majority of U.S. students are performing below grade-level expectations—a national reading crisis. In this commentary, we interrogate these claims, concluding that they represent a misreading of the data. In addition, we discuss how NAEP scores should, instead, inform conversations about achievement and equity.

Control over education is a power that the Constitution reserves for the states, not the federal government. But, for the reasons Ms. McColl explains in this article, answering the question she raises in the title is not such an easy matter. THE No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, has become a symbol of all things good and bad in education. While the basic concepts of the legislation -- accountability for results, research-based education programs, increased parental options, and expanded local control and flexibility -- have wide support, some critics have argued that NCLB has failed to deliver.1 Others have focused on how best to implement its provisions.2 Although this scrutiny of the requirements and outcomes of NCLB is crucial to the policy debate, the law has largely escaped a more fundamental review, and answers to the following questions are needed: Has Congress overstepped its legal authority with No Child Left Behind? Is NCLB a constitutional exercise of congressional power, or does it infringe on states' rights? What is the role of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) in addressing ambiguities in the law? Answering these questions requires a close examination of federalism as it is expressed in the U.S. Constitution and interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. call to examine the law in this light comes with a warning: reaching conclusions about whether Congress acted within the limits of its constitutional authority may cause some discomfort. Liberals may find their customary inclination to favor a more expanded role for the federal government to be in conflict with their concern about the substance of NCLB. Conservatives may similarly find their general bias in favor of states' rights to be in conflict with their support for the accountability and school-choice elements of NCLB. And if the courts ignore, as they should, both the politics surrounding NCLB and its education reform goals, the results of a legal challenge could be interesting, indeed. A conservative Supreme Court may ultimately conclude that President George W. Bush's education agenda exceeds constitutional bounds. Is There Constitutional Authority for NCLB? There is little dispute over whether NCLB represents an unprecedented level of federal involvement in the affairs of our public schools. However, there is disagreement between the law's supporters, who hail this federal intrusion into state and local education as effective national reform, and its detractors, who argue that the intrusion consists of a set of politically motivated mandates that are detrimental to our schools. language of NCLB speaks to the sweeping authority intended by its passage: The purpose of the title is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments. To accomplish this, NCLB sets extensive requirements for states, including establishing an accountability system and staffing schools with high-quality professionals. This level of federal intrusion into a domain typically under state control raises legal questions because Congress must act within the limits of federal authority established by the U.S. Constitution. Constitution reflects a careful balance between the powers of the federal government and those of the states. James Madison argued, The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.3 Constitution defines this balance in the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Past court decisions, most notably San Antonio v. …

THE National Education Association (NEA) has been asked whether we endorse petition (see page 273) being circulated by Educator Roundtable that calls on members of U.S. Congress to vote against reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. The short answer? Absolutely not. While initiators of petition are well meaning and share many of same concerns NEA has about NCLB, petition does not represent our views. For example, it calls for dismantling of NCLB and does not propose any positive changes or alternatives, such as those articulated in our own document, ESEA: It's Time for a Change: NEA's Positive Agenda for ESEA Reauthorization. The NEA agrees with many of 16 reasons articulated in petition that argue why law cannot be salvaged. However, association disagrees with petition's conclusion--that NCLB should be repealed. Instead, we believe that several substantive changes that overhaul statute would produce a far better result. In addition, there is no chance that Congress will repeal NCLB. Those who do not articulate a positive set of changes to law will simply not be at table in negotiating any improvements to it. Furthermore, NCLB is current version of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), so it's not clear what repealing NCLB would actually mean. Eliminating ESEA and its important programs such as Title I? Reverting back to 1994 version of ESEA, which would eliminate key provisions added in 2002, such as strengthened rights for homeless children? Or eliminating law's negative features, such as adequate yearly progress (AYP) and annual testing provisions? Among positive provisions mandated by NCLB is disaggregation of student data. That requirement alone has highlighted deficiencies in educational opportunities for several groups of students. In addition, NCLB has good intentions--closing achievement gaps between various groups of students, raising overall student achievement (at least as measured on statewide tests in reading and math), and ensuring that all students have highly qualified teachers. However, NEA has long argued that law's good intentions have gone seriously awry. While Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings has said that NCLB is like Ivory Soap; it's 99.9% pure or something ... there's not much needed in way of change, reality is that it is not working. Among its myriad flaws and negative outcomes are a narrowing of curricula and projection that virtually all schools will eventually fail to meet its one-size-fits all, all-or-nothing AYP mandate. There is also little evidence that NCLB has directly contributed to its own major goal--raising student test scores. In addition, law has significant flaws in how it tests and counts test scores earned by both English-language learners and students with disabilities. And its regimen of consequences, sanctions, and punishments has no research base and has not been shown to help close achievement gaps. Finally, NCLB is seriously underfunded--with cumulative shortfall between amounts actually appropriated and amounts authorized in law exceeding $56 billion over six years. The NEA is not alone in calling for fundamental changes in law. A coalition of more than 129 national groups--including NAACP (National Association for Advancement of Colored People), Children's Defense Fund, National PTA, National Council of Churches, and National Alliance of Black School Educators--has called for 14 changes to law, noting that the law's emphasis needs to shift from applying sanctions for failing to raise test scores to holding states and localities accountable for making systemic changes that improve student achievement.(1) Let's take a look at some of these flaws and failures in more depth. …

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the policy process that led to the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in the United States and the Bush Administration's role in this process.Design/methodology/approachThe research design is historical and archival. A description of the NCLB Act is given and the major provisions and implementation are focused upon. How the Bush Administration helped create the opportunity to pass the NCLB Act by building coalitions, and how public opinion affected the evolution of the policy process is focused upon. Finally, a description is given on how policy ideas like the concept of “accountability” shaped the policy process, and both inspired and constrained the Bush Administration.FindingsThe paper argues that the Bush Administration helped create the opportunity to pass the NCLB Act by building coalitions, and public opinion affected the evolution of the policy process. Policy ideas like the concept of “accountability” shaped the policy process, and both inspired and constrained the Bush Administration.Research limitations/implicationsThe case is limited to the United States and NCLB, although those cases are particularly important in North America and in evaluation‐based research.Practical implicationsThe paper shows how a policy designer can be limited both by political initiatives and his or her own conceptual grounding.Originality/valueThis paper is one of the first to connect the policy process that guided President Bush's design of the NCLB legislation with the concept of “accountability”. Accountability is a foundational concept in the design of quality assurance systems.

This chapter seeks to examine the impact of two federal policies, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), on educators in the USA during the past decade of reform. NCLB was signed into law in 2002 and is having a profound effect on the education of all students, including students considered at risk for academic failure, such as students with disabilities, students from diverse racial and ethnic minority groups, students from low socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds, and students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP), better known as English Language Learners (ELLs). NCLB “moved the federal government’s role in education from being primarily a source of funding—now about 9% of every public school dollar—to being a major factor in shaping the substance of P-12 curriculum and instruction” (Lieberman, 2008: 1). The most central requirements of NCLB relate to accountability and raising academic expectations. This law mandates that all students (including those from the aforementioned groups) must make adequate yearly progress (AYP). The overall goal is that all students should be achieving reading and math at grade level by the end of the 2013–2014 school year. NCLB establishes that all students must be taught core academic content by teachers who are highly qualified. A 2007 report by the US Department of Education (USDOE) states NCLB requires states to set standards for all teachers to be considered highly qualified and districts to notify parents of students … if their child’s teacher does not meet these ­standards. The requirements apply to all teachers of core academic subjects: English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography and the requirements also apply to teachers who provide instruction in these subjects to students with limited English proficiency (LEP) and students with disabilities. (USDOE/www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/teaching/nclb/execsum.html)

Today's educators live in fear of draconian consequences of to make yearly under No Child Left Behind Act. Mr. Popham offers sage advice on how to comply with law and not get hurt. ONE OF B. F. Skinner's little-known principles of reinforcement states, If any organism, human or subhuman, discerns prospect of impending pain, that organism will attempt to avoid such This principle, often shunned by strict behaviorists because it seems corrupted by cognitive overtones, was first articulated in 1965 in an unpublished essay. The essay is known chiefly because of Skinner's concluding comment that inside every fat rat is a thin rat yearning for food pellets. Skinner's pain-avoidance principle was somewhat unimaginatively identified by Skinner as pain-avoidance principle. In referring to it, reinforcement theorists typically use its initials: PAP. Pain Potential of a Federal Law PAP, then, describes proclivity of organisms to avoid upcoming pain. And if ever there was a law that possessed enormous potential for inflicting pain, it is surely No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. Signed into law in early 2002, this federal statute is thought by some analysts to be, in fact, an enormous pile of pap. The NCLB pain to be avoided, of course, is associated with formidable set of aversive consequences that kick in when a public school fails to get its students to make adequate yearly progress (AYP), as measured by improvements on approved achievement tests. At best, a school that fails to make AYP is merely regarded by public as ineffectual. However, those failing schools that receive Title I funds are placed on an improvement track that, in time, can improve a school right out of existence. In following analysis, I offer guidance to my public school colleagues who, yearning to dodge distress brought on by NCLB, sometimes operate solely on basis of PAP. First, I will identify a number of tactics currently being employed to escape pain of NCLB and then describe a set of tactics -- not yet widely in use -- that show considerable PAP potential. Following inspirational insight of Stephen Potter, who in 1947 introduced us to gamesmanship as the art of winning games without actually cheating, I shall refer to all of these tactics -- sometimes psychometric, sometimes psychological, sometimes psychotic -- as ploys. More specifically, I will dub them NCLB PAP Ploys. I won't spend much space on array of NCLB PAP Ploys that are already in widespread use. Clearly, word is getting around regarding which tactics can help evade AYP-induced failure. As more educators learn about these federally sanctioned schemes to avoid pain, we can safely predict that education profession's mimicry machine will kick into high gear. My chief purpose here is to introduce educators to a set of inchoate, innovative tactics that, if employed adroitly, will stave off a great deal of suffering. NCLB PAP Ploys Now in Use 1. Challenge chopping. Because a state's yearly NCLB tests must, by federal law, be based directly on a state's challenging goals, and because students' low scores on those tests will lead to AYP failure, some states have tried to minimize NCLB-induced casualties simply by lowering challenge levels of their state curricula. Many educators have already learned to their distress that -- from a public relations perspective -- such wholesale reductions in a state's aspirations must be labeled with consummate care. For obvious reasons, these sorts of endeavors should not be described as expectation lowering, standard softening, or dreaded dumbing down. Indeed, there is even some risk in referring to such an overhaul of state as curriculum revision. Revision, after all, could go either way. The best label for such challenge chopping currently appears to be curricular refinement. …