I’ve had a virtual gumbo of thoughts simmering this week, but this news piece provided the shrimp, if you will.  I’m fired up for Fred Thompson for many reasons, but this one really pleases me.  It goes back to the basic Republican philosophy of "the government closest to the people is the best."

*   *   *
The side effects being caused by the penalties for failing to meet ever-increasing standards are showing up in ways that most people wouldn’t have imagined.  For example, if Podunk School System expels Bubba for drinking moonshine in the locker room, then he won’t graduate and they might miss the ever-increasing graduation rate standard.

But they can’t take any more of Bubba’s nonsense, and have to do something.   So, they call Bubba’s folks into the office, and the conversation goes something like this:

Principal:  "Now we just can’t tolerate stuff like that going on in our school; moonshine’s a Zero-tolerance offense.  So, there’s going to have to be some serious consequences for this mess…  unless maybe you folks put Bubba in school over across the county line.  You can pay tuition and send him there, or you can move and send him for free."

Ma Bubba:  "They’ll still take him over there, even though he’s in trouble here?"

Principal:  "Well no, not if he gets expelled.  But it’ll take us a week or so to do the paperwork on that, so if he were to go over there and enroll, say, tomorrow, then we technically wouldn’t  have any record of  disciplinary action against him.

So  Bubba’s folks mosey on across the county line and enroll Bubba in a new school.  The new school calls back to Podunk County to get his records, and asks if he has any behavioral issues.  "Not that we know of" is the response from the Podunk County Principal, who then chuckles all the way to the lunchroom, knowing that he’s rid the school of its biggest troublemaker but hasn’t taken a ding on the graduation rate since he can document that Bubba enrolled in another school.

Don’t kid yourself; it’s already happening.

*  *   * 
The graduation rate bit of NCLB is one that needs to be clearly understood, for "graduation" in NCLB doesn’t really mean graduation; it means graduation in precisely four years plus a summer (if needed) with a regular diploma.

So, a developmentally disabled child who simply cannot — will not ever — perform up to the standards required to pass the gateway exams and graduate with a regular diploma, simply counts as a dropout.  Even if he or she stays in school until age 21 (as the law allows), works hard, and earns a special ed diploma, he or she is still a dropout on the NCLB scorecard.

And it’s the schools’ fault, of course, because everyone knows that every child is the same — each capable of the same mastery in the same time frame. There’s no such thing as mental retardation, after all.

Equally tragic is that a student who just screws up for one year, is denied the chance to repeat a year in high school (getting back on track academically) because he would count as a "dropout," even though he might graduate with honors (given that extra year) and go on to college fully-prepared.

The other thing that befuddles me is that a GED doesn’t count.  If it doesn’t count, why do we have one at all?  The answer, of course, is that there needs to be some avenue to demonstrate basic competence for those people who — for whatever reason — don’t get enough credits in high school.  When a student moves into a district at age 17 with only five high school credits, it’s just not possible to earn all the credits needed in the one remaining year.  But, of course, it’s the district he moves into that will suffer a hit to their graduation rate, not the school that failed him to begin with.

*   *   * 
That’s a lot of bellyaching over one pot of educational gumbo, I know.  Believe it or not, I am very much in favor of standardized testing and accountability for results.  I believe we have an obligation to provide students with the knowledge and skills to push the limits of their potential — whatever that potential may be.

Success for some will be a PhD and a brilliant research career; for some it may be certification as a plumber, and for others, simply the ability to dress themselves each morning.  People are not born with equal gifts and abilities.  To try and force all into the same mold is a gross disservice to all.

I like Thompson’s approach: get the federal government out of the way and let states and local governments do what we need to do for our students.

The Washington Post reports on proposed revisions to No Child Left Behind, the sweeping education reform initiative that was the hallmark of GW Bush’s first term.

NCLB brought to the forefront some of the closet issues in education, but as with many federal reforms of largely local initiatives, there are some problems.  Among those "closet issues" was the ability to mask the underperformance of certain demographic groups behind the overall test scores of the student body as a whole; however, the weakness in the legislation as originally passed is that states were allowed to define the size of sub-groups.

In addition, Miller proposed strengthening a rule that requires test scores to be reported separately for groups of students identified by ethnicity, race, family income and other factors. Currently, Maryland reports separate scores for groups in a given school if there are at least five students in the demographic category. D.C. schools report scores from all groups with at least 40 students in a given school, and Virginia sets the threshold at 50 students.

The proposal would require scores to be reported — and achievement raised — for all demographic groups with at least 30 students in a school. That could make it harder for Virginia and D.C. schools to reach academic targets.

Having a consistent subgroup size will at least ensure some equity in comparing one state’s progress to that of another.  That said, it’s inevitable that all states will eventually be doomed to failure under the current testing method, as human beings just aren’t 100% alike in our capacity to learn.  In particular, students who don’t speak English — the language of instruction and testing — and students with learning disabilities, may never meet the proficiency goals.

Another area that needs some work is the graduation rate standard:

Miller’s draft also puts new emphasis on high school dropouts, proposing resources to help schools with the lowest graduation rates have "data-driven decision making, improved curriculum and instruction, personalization of the school environment, staff collaboration and professional development and individualized student supports," according to a summary of the plan.

The graduation rate is defined as the percentage of students who graduate in four years.  Unfortunately, that has created an adverse side effect that is contrary to the best interest of some students.  Take, for example, a high school freshman who blows 9th grade in a big way.  Not failing, mind you, but not learning much, putting forth only the effort required to scrape by.  At the end of the year, the parents and student have a serious heart-to-heart, and both agree that repeating 9th grade would be in the student’s best interest.

So, they approach the school, which denies the request out of hand.  Why?  Because if they allowed it, then the student would take five years to graduate (even though it would be an extra year well spent), and the school would take a hit on their graduation rate.

One student can cause a school to miss the mark; it happened right here in Oak Ridge.  Not because of the aforementioned scenario, but due to a student who enrolled as a transfer but never actually attended a single class.

NCLB is a noble goal, but remains unworkable as written.  I hope that the tweaks are effective.