As for Obama’s education program-I’m sorry, but it is one of the weakest parts of his platform. He supports merit pay,privatization through promotion of charter schools, and reform of NCLB, not the abolishment of NCLB. Go to Terry Olson’s blog (Steve has a link on this site) for a discussion of these issues and who was lobbying for privatization at the Democratic Convention.
We must take action now, not after November, to stem the tide of privatization. The Chicago students who walked out enmasse of their schools today in protest of inequitable funding and other racist inequities are a good example of what needs to be done. And Obama be likely to notice that, since he is from Chicago.

One other thing that you may or may not know: NCLB requires 95% participation from each tested sub-group. So if a bunch of white kids or Asian kids or black kids opted out of the test, the school would not meet the 95% participation requirement and would, therefore, fail to make AYP. And then the force of the law begins to take effect. Year 2 of not making AYP, as you probably know, means students can transfer to another school that is making AYP. This is the major impediment to getting parents to participate in wide-scale test boycotts, i.e., opting out of testing could really hurt the school and the district. Think the Feds knew this in advance??

My argument has been that wide-scale test boycotts are one of the few the ways to get national attention paid to NCLB and to get serious changes made. You have to get parents to believe that short-term pain leads to long-term gain. If you can make this argument, you should be appointed Grand Poobah of the Universe.

This is a huge, huge, huge battle that is unbelievably important. And yet most parents I talk to are clueless. No offense to them, but they simply don’t know the details of the law.

But it’s important to note the even larger frame, which is that nearly every aspect of schools — esp. curriculum — is subject to the federal law, albeit in an indirect way and in a way that the feds and PPS officials would deny. NCLB prevents substantive change from occurring. So even if we could magically work out the transfer policy and achieve more equity in PPS, all our schools would still be subject to the test and punish regime of NCLB. And, because they would still be subject to NCLB, they would be severely limited in terms of the quality of the curriculum. The “good” schools have been lucky so far. But as the AYP requirements go up, schools will have to focus on getting their scores up at the expense of a broad-based curriculum. OR schools have, by and large, been able to avoid this problem that so many other school districts are facing because the OR Dept of Ed low-balled and gamed the AYP requirements. But now the chickens are coming home to roost. The 2007-08 AYP targets were ten points higher than the previous year, and look at the huge increase in the number of “failing” schools. There’s another huge bump of ten points in 2010-11, when 70% of all kids have to be proficient in reading and math. Then, the very next year, it goes up to 80%. Then, the next year (2012) to 90%. So from now to 2010, with the threat of even more schools being labeled as “failing,” the district will have no option but to focus on raising test scores. And raising test scores means test prep, in whatever form the district spins it. The curricula — esp. at the elementary level — are driven by skills that are tested on the state tests. Skills mastery over the year is measured in regular skills-based assessments. These assessments inform instruction. Ergo, curriculum = test prep.
We have to stand up to this nonsense and declare the emperor has no clothes.

I also agree with “anon”, with one caveat. Portland’s transfer policy (and emphasis on school choice) predates NCLB mandates and is something that needs to addressed by the board. BUT, the federal law and district policy are inextricably linked. Opposition to federally mandated transfers is a necessary step toward limiting (or eliminating) neighborhood to neigborhood school transfers.

I would also point out that board members are democratically elected (sort of) representatives of “parents, taxpayers, and voters.” In that sense, board action is effectively grassroots action.

We can dialogue with our local policy makers about whether they should pressure the feds to change NCLB by criticizing the law, or we can put our own grassroots energy into pressuring the feds to change national policy and pressuring our school board members to change local policy. I think complaints from school district officials about NCLB will actually carry less weight with the feds than grassroots pressure from parents, taxpayers, and voters anyway because of course school districts that aren’t meeting NCLB are going to criticize the law.

If PPS wants to take a stand on NCLB they should do it through local action that protects the schools from NCLB sanctions and deemphasizes testing like other school districts have done. Resolutions with “strong language” and lobbying in DC is a waste of our school board members time that would be better spent elsewhere. NCLB sucks, but don’t let it divert attention and energy from the even more extreme local policies that need to be change. Unless PPS policies change, ending NCLB will not signicantly improve our local schools.

Thanks for the suggestions on doing a resolution – again, the timing is such that changes to the law are coming soon, so a statement against the status quo is to some extent, moot until Nov. At that point we’ll know what is coming (either reform, or things getting worse) and will need to get fully engaged via our congressional delegation, continuing to work with other OR school boards as Bobbie has been doing.

I appreciate the advice and dialogue.