September 14, 2007

Five-Year Plans and Ed Trust flexibility

Trust it to AFT's Michele McLaughlin to find the hidden item in the Ed Trust statement on Miller-McKeon's draft Title I language. Like many others, I had focused on the more belligerent language earlier:

Although the staff draft creates an accountability fig-leaf by preserving the requirement that all students reach proficiency in reading and mathematics by the 2013-14 school year, the heart of the law has been hollowed out.

Sting! But McLaughlin notes the following:

"Additional funding may be included, but money is not the sticking point," says [Ed Trust VP Amy] Wilkins. "The 2013-14 deadline for proficiency is a powerful disincentive to raising standards. If we are going to ask states - and students - to climb a higher mountain, we need to give them more time to get there, and this bill draft does not do that."

McLaughlin correctly notes the hint at flexibility that I (and almost everyone else) missed. In testifying at Monday's hearing, Ed Trust's President Kati Haycock largely ignored Title I to focus on teacher issues. With the exception of data issues, the only pieces of Title I mentioned in her testimony were parts related to which teachers are where.


I'll ignore the positioning/politicking questions to focus on one thing: There appears to be one less visible supporter for the rigid Five-Year Plannish elements of NCLB.

Listen to this article
Posted in Accountability Frankenstein on September 14, 2007 9:19 AM |