Principals Uneasy About Classifying Students

Excerpts from a recent

Howard County Times article written by Jennifer Broadwater:

New federal guidelines for reporting students’ race, which require a principal to identify a child’s race if the parent refuses to do so, have some school officials, principals and parents uneasy.

The federal government and the U.S. Department of Education requires states to collect information about the race and ethnicity of public school students. The data is linked to the disbursement of federal funds and also to reporting requirements under the No Child Left Behind legislation that analyze student achievement.

The government has compiled race data since 1977, revising the standards in 1997. The newest standards will take effect in the 2010-2011 school year.

However, Howard County schools and other public school systems in Maryland will begin collecting students’ race data under the new standards beginning this month.

Also included in the guidelines is a new requirement called “observer identification,” in which someone other than a child’s parent identifies the child’s race if the parent or guardian refuses.

In Howard, school officials have decided the “observer identification” responsibility will fall to principals.

Tom Saunders, principal of Elkridge Landing Middle School, said there’s been some buzz about the new requirement among principals since the information was presented at a county-wide administrators meeting in November.

Although it gives him an “uneasy feeling,” he said he was hopeful parents would work with him if the new requirement was explained to them. If a parent is unwilling to identify a child’s race, Saunders said he would make the selection to the best of his ability.

“I would have a conversation with the parent, explain the dilemma and hope they would pick,” he said.

To read the entire article, click here!

Author of NCLB Questions Law's Implementation!

Reform NCLB or Go Back to the Drawing Board?

In a recent National Review Online editorial, Michael J. Petrilli, the chief architect of the No Child Left Behind legislation, reviews the impact of the law after 8 years of implementation. He said,

"I can’t pretend any longer that the law is working, or that a tweak and tuck would make it work."

"NCLB is the embodiment of the 1990s era education reform playbook. Educators,
policymakers, think tankers, and activists who support NCLB are saying I’m part of the education reform team. But does that mean that they necessarily agree with the machinery of the law itself? Speaking personally, I’ve gradually and reluctantly come to the conclusion that NCLB as enacted is fundamentally flawed and probably beyond repair. "

He points out two major flaws with NCLB:

• Narrowing of the curriculum: "Surely schools would respond thoughtfully to the law’s incentives to boost achievement in reading and math, and would understand that providing a broad, content rich curriculum would give them the best shot at boosting test scores, right? Yet the anecdotes (and increasingly, evidence) keep rolling in of schools turning into test-prep factories and narrowing the curriculum."

• Not enough good schools for school choice: "Surely if those of us at the Department of Education pushed hard enough we could get districts to inform parents of their school-choice options under the law, and ensure that kids trapped in failing schools have better places to go, right? Yet, hard experience has shown that stronger implementation would only make a difference at the margin. It cannot solve the fundamental problem: in most of our big cities, there are too few good schools to go around. Uncle Sam can’t snap his fingers and make it otherwise. Furthermore, while it’s hard enough to force recalcitrant states and districts to do things they don’t want to do, it’s impossible to force them to do those things well. And when it comes to informing parents, creating new schools, or implementing almost any of NCLB’s many pieces, it’s not enough for states or districts to go through the motions. They have to want to make it succeed. If they don’t, Washington is out of luck. It has no tools or levers to alter the situation. That’s why I’ve called much of the law “un-implementable.”

Many education advocates and reformers point out that NCLB is a worthy goal, but unattainable. According to Kati Haycock, the President of the Education Trust,

"NCLB has changed the conversation in education. Which is good! Results are now the coin of the realm; the “soft bigotry of low expectations” is taboo; closing the achievement gap is at the top of everyone’s to-do list. All for the good. More than good. But let’s face it: it doesn’t help the dedicated principal who is pulling her hair out because of the law’s nonsensical provisions — the specifics that keep NCLB from achieving its own aims."

To read more of Michael Petrilli's editorial in the National Review Online, Click Here!

Should NCLB be "tweaked and tucked" or should education policymakers go back to the drawing board?
Please share your thoughts...