In the New York Times last week, Tom Loveless of the Brookings Institute and Michael Petrilli of the Fordham Institute, responded to a study that found that the test scores of high achieving kids improved as a result of No Child Left Behind. They make short work of the study's methodology and maintain that high achieving kids have only made tepid progress.
They write,
So what does all of this mean? It is clear that No Child Left Behind is helping low-achieving students. But it is also obvious that high-achieving students — who suffer from benign neglect under the law — have been making smaller gains, much as they did before it was enacted. Alas, this drug is producing no miracles.
No doubt, some will claim victory: We are closing the achievement gap between our top and bottom students! But is that our only national goal in education? What might happen if federal law encouraged educators to improve the performance of all students? Our analysis of the federal data identified tens of thousands of high achievers who are black, Hispanic or poor. They are excelling at their studies, often against great odds. Shouldn’t we be addressing their educational needs?
As we look for ways to improve No Child Left Behind, we must recognize that our top students still have much to learn.
If the research does show that this program has helped low-achieving kids, then shouldn't we cheer? I'm confused by the authors' conclusions. If NCLB helps the kids from Newark, then that's a great thing. Let's keep funding it and improve it. Yes, we need something to help my kids, but that's another policy and another day.
My oldest kid needs a rigorous curriculum. Please stop the trend towards group work in the classroom. Please stop assigning him novels for third graders, when he's going into fifth grade. My youngest needs classroom aides that are trained in ABA therapy and aren't just some moms from down the block. My kids definitely need attention, but addressing their needs should fall into a different program. Let's not muddy up NCLB with too many goals.
. Steve and I have been working our way through various shows that we missed when they were first on TV. After the kids go to bed, we'll watch an episode or two and stagger to bed after midnight. We're squeezing years of shows into a few weeks of intense gorging. Now that we're done with 
. He does a great job of finding that middle ground between popular non-fiction and academic work. He talks about Aristotle's belief that workers should not be citizens alongside a description of the thrill of fixing motorcycles. Sure, he glamorizes blue collar work and fails to mention the female equivalent of blue collar work - housewifery. But I dare you not to get carried away by his intoxication with his work. 
Recent Comments