Dear Supporter of a Broader, Bolder Approach to Education (BBA):
We don't expect the re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (now known as "No Child Left Behind") to take place this year.
We don't expect the re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (now known as "No Child Left Behind") to take place this year.
But Congress and the Administration are working on developing a proposal, and many BBA leaders and signatories have been meeting with Senators, Congresspeople, their staffs, and Administration officials to urge more sensible approaches than those we believe are being considered seriously.
Although each BBA leader and signatory speaks only for him or herself in this advocacy, and may emphasize different aspects of our common program, we thought it would be helpful if we developed suggested "talking points" to which you can refer when you urge the adoption of a Broader, Bolder Approach.
These are the points (also attached to this e-mail, and available on our website at:http://www.boldapproach.org/20100512_bba_key_points_esea_reauthorization.pdf )
1. Neither schools nor teachers should be held accountable based primarily on test scores of students. Such accountability can lead to gross misidentification of failing schools and creates incentives to teach to the test, narrow the curriculum, and substitute drill for education.
2. So-called "growth models" that are based on student growth from one year to the next would be an improvement over accountability models based on the comparison of score levels of successive cohorts, but are still flawed. A September to June measure would be an improvement (although could still misidentify schools), but would require federal mandates for twice-annual testing and would create incentives for different kinds of gaming (to depress September scores, for example) if used for accountability purposes.
2. So-called "growth models" that are based on student growth from one year to the next would be an improvement over accountability models based on the comparison of score levels of successive cohorts, but are still flawed. A September to June measure would be an improvement (although could still misidentify schools), but would require federal mandates for twice-annual testing and would create incentives for different kinds of gaming (to depress September scores, for example) if used for accountability purposes.
