NCLB White Paper Nov2011

7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011

1/38

Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 1

No Child Left Behind Waiver of Proficiency Requirements Recommendation for

Murrieta Valley Unified School District,

Murrieta, California

A White Paper

Ronald Guilliams

National University


2/38


Abstract

This paper delves into the history of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

(ESEA) and its latest/current reauthorization No Child Left Behind (NCLB), 2002 via

books, published articles, Department of Education website, and numerous online sources

to build a practical understanding of the pros and cons surrounding this highly charged

topic. The articles vary widely in their treatment of NCLB and potential courses of action

facing the educational and political communities. The three major purposes developed

include the absolute need to retain current NCLB positive attributes of Accountability

and parental school choice (Alliance for Education, 2010), recommend incorporating

continuous school improvement (CSI) (Hawley, 2006) as the fundamental guiding

directive in the next ESEA reauthorization, and energize Californias political base to

collaborate with the other states in the take-back of control of our schools from the

continuing overreach of the federal education bureaucracy (Marshall, 2011b). Todays

consensus places the teacher as the single greatest contributor to the learning successes of

American youth (Ventriglia, 2010b). Government Accountability Office (GAO) data of

2006 notes that up to thirty-five percent of the $55 Billion appropriated federal education

dollars ($19 Billion) were consumed as overhead and administrative set-asides by the

twenty administering federal agencies (Marshall, 2011a). The demographics (Capps,

Murray, Ost, Passel, & Hernandez, 2005) of a seven percent K-12 enrollment increase

since 1970, eighty-three percent administrative staff increase and nineteen percent

decline in the number of teachers points to the appalling results of public education in

2011 (Marshall, 2011a).

Keywords: accountability, parental choice, continuous improvement, local control


3/38


Table of Contents

Abstract2

Chapter One: Introduction.......5

Background to the White Paper7

Purpose of the White Paper...8

Personal Statement....9

Research Question..10

Significance of the White Paper.10

Delimitations...11

Definitions..12

Summary.13

Chapter Two: Literature Review...13

Introduction....13

History of No Child Left Behind Act 2002....17

NCLB Absolutist Requirements of 100% Proficiency by 2014.19

NCLB and Continuous School Improvement.21

Summary.23

Chapter Three: Implementation24

Introduction....24

Proposed Solution...25

Rationale/Benefits of Proposed Solution28

Limitations..31

Implementation...32


4/38


Summary.33

Reflective Essay.34

References..36


5/38


CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Our United States education system is once again at a transformational crossroads

or, as many of the educational community would say, is as many as four years past the

needed and expected reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

(ESEA), now known - No Child Left Behind (NCLB), 2002. ESEAs beginning came out

of President Lyndon Johnsons Great Society War on Poverty series of 1965

legislative initiatives. Customarily, ESEA has been renewed every four to seven years

since the initial 1965 signing. Prior to NCLB, 2002, ESEA was last reauthorized in 1994

during the first term of the Clinton Administration. As a former governor of South

Carolina, President Clintons Secretary of Education, Richard Riley, was instrumental in

laying the groundwork for the NCLB, 2002 reauthorization (Berlak, 2010).

As laid out by Jorgensen and Hoffman (2003), the 1994 ESEA reauthorization

focused on high standards for all children, linking teaching and learning, educational

community partnership, flexibility and responsibility, and targeting resources to greatest

needs. The Clinton Administration championed the movement to standards-based

education and assessment that began with A Nation at Riskwent national with the

passage of Improving Americas Schools Act of 1994 (IASA) (Jorgensen and Hoffman,

2003, p. 4) ESEA reauthorization. The experiences of the Clinton years disappointments

with their administrations perception of the states failures to adopt content standards,

states slowness to embrace accountability, and resistance to change of the educational

community (Cohen & Mofitt, 2009), served to focus a political (principally Democratic)

consensus (Hess & Petrilli, 2004). This Congressional consensus saw educators as


6/38


accepting of mediocrity and the States continuing to fail our at riskcommunities of

African American, Latino, socioeconomically challenged, and disabled children.

Hess and Petrilli (2004) posited that NCLB was the Clinton administrations

experiential assumption that state and local educational communities suffered from

political paralysis and that the only savior would be the white knight of the federal

educational establishment. Political decision makers, after years of perceived, ineffective

school reform, became convinced that high standards and meaningful sanctions were

essential to changing business as usual schooling (Hess & Petrilli, 2004, p. 3). The net

effect of NCLB was to essentially provide a Nuclear Option to school boards and

superintendents (Manna, 2011). Either get with the program in eliminating ineffective,

under-performing administrators and teachers, prioritizing spending for poorer schools,

challenging the status quo with unions, linking teacher quality and pay, and rapidly

modernizing administrative support, or they would essentially be replaced via extreme

sanctions. NCLB was described by Hess and Petilli (2004) as a splendid piece of

bipartisan sausage-making (p. 3). The Obama administrations recently advocated

NCLB waivers for all states may well serve to undermine the two salient measures of

setting and achieving high standards and the accountability of annual yearly progress

(AYP) methodology (Burke, 2011). This will be the signature event for the entire

legislative/educational community to work to modify and strengthen NCLB based on our

numerous lessons learned rather than knee-capping the many positive NCLB aspects

through executive fiat of an administration repeatedly demonstrating an affinity for

unions at the expense of our children (Marshall, 2011b).


7/38


Background of the White Paper

When able to attend any parent-teacher development committee, departmental

instructional meeting, or administrative staff meeting, invariably the conversation will

gravitate to California Standards Testing (CST) achievement results in reading and

mathematics. This discussion then naturally moves on to CSTs role in the Standardized

Testing and Reporting (STAR) programs impact on school district and individual

schools Academic Performance Index (API) and accompanying Adequate Yearly

Progress (AYP) goals attainment. The negative aspects of NCLB invariably center on the

onerous demands of the accountability phase overwhelming the purist aspects of learning

the prescribed content standards. Additionally, reading and mathematics preparation

always supersedes the value of the other curriculum areas of science, history, health, and

music.

Additional effecters of this educational soup are the extended interactions of

groups beyond the primary student, parent, teacher, and school administrator

stakeholders. The state budget battles, union intransigence, educational thinkers, social

activists/groups, ethnic activists/groups, rampant illegal immigration, over-regulation,

global warming, and environmentalism at state and federal levels are just a few of the

many hands in the pockets of our local, front-line, stake holders (Manna, 2011).

After interviewing two, current Murrieta Valley Unified School District

(MVUSD) single subject secondary teachers, their observation of the unintended

consequences of NCLB centered on the intense focus on meeting and exceeding the ever

increasing NCLB proficiency requirements. As committed math teachers astride one the

two content areas to be tested for student proficiency (mathematics), they both expressed


8/38


anxiety and disappointment in their inability to continually use the numerous best

practice teaching methods of engagement in authentic learning projects. Instead, both

were, of necessity, forced to singularly focus on the testable areas of mathematics for

several months each year leading up to the CSTs. An unsolicited observation centered on

their feeling that they were being forced into a one size fits all (Ventriglia, 2010a)

teaching method in order to ensure that their students, their school, and, ultimately, their

jobs were sustained.

Purpose of the White Paper

The purpose of this white paper is to explore and recommend a position of

adoption of an educationally focused continuous improvement approach to NCLB rather

that the currently legislated NCLB absolutist format (Hawley, 2006). In the current

NCLB, the requirement of one hundred percent proficiency of all students by 2014 is, at

best, an admirable goal worthy of challenging. However, to invoke sanctions for failing

AYP attainment is not statistically or mathematically possible. NCLB authored this

position in January, 2002 for one hundred percent proficiency attainment 12 years later.

The game changing potential of NCLB was to immediately force the state and local

educational community to assess its readiness and to quickly develop and implement

strategies to achieve the culminating requirement or propose alternate solutions based on

the lessons learned in early implementations. From its inception, ESEA and its ongoing

reauthorizations were envisioned for four to seven year reauthorization cycles. No

legislation, not even the U.S. Constitution, was envisioned to remain unchanged with the

passage of time. The stakeholders of the educational community have known for several


9/38


years that the currently defined AYP was not attainable or sustainable and it is now

imperative that the next reauthorization incorporate the positive aspects of NCLB while

mitigating the unintended consequences. Continuous improvement methodology will be

proposed by this white paper as a viable strategy for MVUSD instead of being included

in a potential California statewide waiver whose purpose is to primarily benefit the many

urban schools who have not achieved the positive benefits of NCLB to educate at risk

children.

Personal Statement

If I had the power to ignore reality, I could probably be a California legislator. If I

also had the power to ignore the legitimate and real needs of students, then I could be an

unabashed supporter of the needs of teachers, unions, and administrators above that of

our children. Instead, I am a 61 year old semi-retired Marine officer desirous of

continuing a life of service through teaching our children, all of our children: English

Language Learners (ELL), socio-economically challenged, Latinos, Native American

Indians, African Americans, disabled, and all others in our rainbow of children.

I also know and understand that the relation of an employee to his employer is

that I must fulfill the requirements of the job I am hired to perform. Based on current

NCLB requirements, I must master the art of teaching todays youth, fulfill desired best

practices teaching methods, authentically engage students, challenge students to develop

personally and academically, but above all, I must help my students master the California

content standards of mathematics or the sciences. My personal desire is to see MVUSD

adopt a continuous school improvement (CSI) learning format within a California


10/38


continuous learning methodology. As a teacher, this would allow me to teach the content

standards through authentic learning projects and experiences to truly transform my

students learning. As a teacher, I cannot legitimately take newly arrived middle school

ELLs or immigrant children from their current proficiency all the way to 100% proficient

by 2014. What I know I can do is to challenge them to grow and improve year, over year,

over year (Hawley, 2006).

Research Question

The research question that will define this literature review and proposed

solutions section is, what does research show as a link between research on cognition and

cognitive processing enabling schools to become learning organizations capable of

continuous improvement (Hawley, 2006, p. 4)?

Significance of the White Paper

According to Dewey (1916), the broader social purpose of education is to help

people become more effective members of democratic society (p.1). Stated otherwise, a

signature purpose of education is to help students prepare for adulthood. In our

grandparents or great-grandparents more agrarian societies, preparation for adulthood

occurred at the hands of parents and grandparents in hands-on work around the farm,

ranch, or on the hunt. In todays specialized workforce, our youths preparations may be

for college or technical training, service in the armed forces, public service such as law

enforcement or healthcare, and/or as parents.


11/38


When looking at todays stories of the various Occupy demonstrations and civil

disobedience, the need for students to learn to think critically is imperative. In a way,

NCLB focuses our critical thinking development in the necessary areas of reading and

mathematics. Reading to help us explore and learn deeply of the world around us and

mathematics as a foundation of modern life extending from learning of borrowing money

to purchase a car to how to understand the taxes of the ninety-nine percent. This white

paper proposes the modification of NCLB to incorporate the values of lessons learned

rather than casually waiver out of existence the positive benefits of high expectations

complimented by accountability through improved AYP measurements/assessments

(Alliance for Education, 2010).

This white paper is further focused on all members of MVUSDs stakeholders

starting first with students and including parents, teachers, administrators, local school

board members, local community, and local and state elected officials. Teachers,

counselors, and parents must continue to challenge their students to look forward into

their lives and to personally define their learning values in terms of NCLB measured

reading and mathematics proficiency (Holden, 2010). The greater battles of whether to

waiver or not waiver NCLB requirements are far above their current learning needs. No

one can argue with the premise that reading and mathematics proficiency will help them

in their preparation for adulthood.

Delimitations

Societal impacts of progressive educational thought from President Johnsons

Great Society and its War on Poverty permutations through todays dysfunctional


12/38


political process could be considered in great detail. However, the focus of this white

paper is on the science of cognition and understanding necessary to fully consider the

opportunity of embracing continuous improvement rather than the time honored reform

or change (Hawley, 2006, p. 3). The breadth of this paper will explore the opportunities

for retaining the positive features of NCLB as the MVUSD evolves forward developing

the capacity within its member schools for the benefits of continuous improvement versus

the arbitrary (overcome by events-OBE) one hundred percent proficient by 2014.

Definitions

ESEA

Elementary and Secondary Education Act was initially approved in 1965 and variously

reauthorized through the year 2002.

IASA

Improving Americas Schools Act was an ESEA 1994 reauthorization sponsored by the

Clinton Administration.

NCLB

No Child Left Behind: Elementary and Secondary Education Act last reauthorized in

2002 and predominantly developed by the Clinton Administration and completed by the

Bush Administration. Bill approved with broad bipartisan support in the House of

Representatives and the Senate.

Nuclear Option


13/38


Idiomatic description of the first implementation of significant sanctions available and

required for schools failing to make satisfactory Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) in

student achievement of proficiency in reading and mathematics.

SEA

State Educational Authority/Agency:California Department of Education.

Summary

In Chapter One, the background, purpose, significance, delimitations, and

definitions of this white paper were defined and initially discussed. In a look forward to

Chapter Two, the Literature Review will explore the various histories, expectations,

political underpinnings, lessons learned and possible solutions for the unintended

consequences of NCLB, 2002 and the subsequent executive order bypassing Congress by

encouraging all states to apply for waivers in lieu of completing the ninth reauthorization

of ESEA. This executive office over-reach includes verbiage referencing the states

having college and career ready standards (Burke, 2011, p, 2). This over-reach is

envisioned as providing the Department of Education with the opportunity to skirt every

previous ESEA reauthorizations preclusion of the federal government from involvement

in the content taught in schools (Marshall, 2011b).

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

The conundrum of todays daily educational discourse is the intractable nature of

achieving even the semblance of any lasting solutions. The following randomly selected
http://www.cde.ca.gov/http://www.cde.ca.gov/http://www.cde.ca.gov/http://www.cde.ca.gov/


14/38


example of conundrum from Merriam-Websters online dictionary highlights our

collective problem: giving parents a wealth of educational options sometimes presents

a familiar inner-city conundrum: What if all your choices are bad ones? (Merriam-

Webster, 2011, p. 1). Realizing that Boo (2001) wrote her After Welfare article almost

nine months to the day before President Bush signed the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act (NCLB) into law on January 8, 2002, demonstrates the depth of this

challenge to all educational stakeholders. To see this quote referenced today, October 31,

2011, is a jarring call for the entire educational community to reflect on what we are,

what we do, and who this is about?

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA renamed NCLB) was

signed into law in the fervor of bipartisan cooperation during Congress reflective,

cooperative period following the national disaster of the 911 terrorist attacks on the

World trade Center, New York, NY . As much as our Washington policy makers desired

the positive benefits of the re-authorization, their actions and efforts also reflected their

collective frustration with, as they saw it, the education establishments lack of

cooperation in promoting and living reform in acts and deeds. From the American

Enterprise Institute (AEI) article, Hess and Petrilli (2004) described our law makers as

ready to ruffle some feathers (p. 2), as they forced change on this same reluctant

education community. What is important to understand is the oft perceived lack of

genuine progress of educators in promoting accountability and improvement advocated

by the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA. Eight years and for all intents and purposes, it

appeared that little to no progress was made by our nations schools. The Achievement

Gap (Marshall, 2011a) continued to widen and resulted in a form of tough love (Hess


15/38


& Petrilli, 2004, p. 3) approach embraced by the leadership of both the Democrat and

Republican parties. The time for change was here.

As the preliminary 1990s (1993~2001) work progressed on the follow-on

reauthorization of ESEA, the effort was heightened by the inputs from former governors

Bill Clinton, AR (then President), Richard Riley, SC (Secretary of Education), and Lamar

Alexander, TN (former Education Secretary). The education community was asked to

voluntarily adopt stronger, assessment testing, accountability, and universal high

expectations of its administrators, teachers, students, parents, state and local elected

school boards (Jorgensen & Hoffman, 2003). In practice, the high expectations espoused

by these former governors (one now President) and the remainder of the Washington

political class was not met with the same intensity at the state and local level. This

perceived foot dragging, somnambulant pace, and apparent resistance to change served to

energize Congress to take charge of what, up to then, had been previously a state and

local issue (Berlak, 2010).

In consideration of the ultimate goal of education, it is reasonable to

reflect back on the contributions and foundations of the current Elementary and

Secondary Education Act (NCLB) of 2002. This literature review will explore the history

leading to the No Child left behind Act of 2001 (signed Jan. 8, 2002), pros and cons of

the underlying science and political motivations of NCLB, continuous improvement as a

NCLB model for the future, and current California progress on the NCLB continuum.

This vital area of teacher awareness is not more apparent than a quick search of the

Department of Education (2011a) website where the only feature item is: ESEA
http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibilityhttp://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibilityhttp://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility


16/38


Flexibility where we Find out how states can get relief from provisions of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (NCLB) (Department of Education, 2011b).

The true significance of this ESEA Flexibility initiative is that it is must be considered

in the context of this Executive Branchs ongoing efforts to work around the previous

bipartisan efforts ofour duly elected legislators overwhelming approval of NCLB Act of

2002. Where this is of further concern is in the additional language explaining ESEA

Flexibility. This additional explanation includes: The U.S. Department of Education is

inviting each State educational agency (SEA) to request flexibility on behalf of itself, its

local educational agencies, and schools, (Department of Education, 2011b, p. 1). At

face value, this NCLB waiver seems helpful; however, to an administration challenged

by continuous over-reaches of dubious value such as Solyndras Sept. 6, 2001bankruptcy

default of Department of Energy $535M loan guarantee; Executive Branch notice of

blanket Congress work-around, Sept. 15, 2001; NCLB Waiver notice (ESEA Flexibility)

of Sept. 23, 2011; Executive Branch directed bypass of Mortgage Home Loan program

requirements dated Oct. 25, 2011; Student Loan program bypass of Oct. 26, 2011and the

SIGA-HHS $433 Million no-bid contract, it is hard to understand how this will ultimately

benefit our students. The ESEA Flexibility words imply that this encouraged bypass of

original NCLB requirements will benefit our students. Even though NCLB was

considered by many to be a massive federal government over-reach of state and local

governments, it served to jump-start educational change and provided significant

sanctions for schools repeatedly failing to achieve the required annual yearly progress

(AYP). This was the first time that a schools failure to teach our youth would and have

resulted in mandatory sanctions regardless of onerous union contract protections,
http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibilityhttp://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibilityhttp://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibilityhttp://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibilityhttp://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibilityhttp://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibilityhttp://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibilityhttp://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibilityhttp://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility


17/38


ineffective administrations, weak school boards, or compromised state education

agencies (SEAs). This first time ever provision of real consequences finally provides

direct incentive to teach our youth as required by numerous laws, court decisions, and

best practices teaching standards. What is available now is a real opportunity for

segments of the education community to game the system to continue business as usual

with an administration perceived as operating as business as usual (Marshall, 2011b).

History of theNo Child Left Behind Act of 2002

As noted by Jorgensen and Hoffman (2003), Davis (2011), and Johnson, Musial,

Gollnick, Hall, and Dupuis (2008), the NCLB Act of 2002 has, as its roots, legislation

stemming from President Johnsons Great Society and War on Poverty series of

social legislations. Berlak (2010) noted that in 1965 the original Elementary and

Secondary Education Act was signed into law with the promise of providing educational

services to low-income children in about 50% of the nations schools (p. 1). Different

from the Federal government over-reach today, the original thirty-five page ESEA was

focused on preserving and supporting local control and programs. The law actually had

language prohibiting any federal agency or official from exercising direction,

supervision, or control over curriculum or instruction. These same restrictions are

included within the 1994 and 2001 ESEA rewrites. The problem is that successive

Department of Education bureaucracies have, over time, increasingly encroached on the

statutes non-interference language through non-challenged regulations. ESEAs original

intent was for the states and local school boards to have the flexibility to tailor their

responses to their real life, local issues such as severely handicapped, special education

students and their ability/inability to achieve 2014 proficiency standards. This recent,


18/38


unilateral encouragement of all states to request waivers of relief from provisions of

NCLB 2002, brings with them even greater federal intervention and loss of local

autonomy with the requirement to adopt college- and career ready standards (Marshall,

2011a, p. 1). The old proverb he who pays the piper, calls the tune is now truer than ever.

The NCLB Act 2001 (ESEA reauthorization) is notionally built on four national

educational reform goals (Johnson et al., 2008) of: 1) stronger accountability, 2)

increased flexibility and local control, 3) expanded options for parents, and 4) using

teaching methods that are proven to work (Best Practices). It is certainly an oxymoron to

speak of increasing flexibility and local control coupled with parental options when

schools are not able to implement vouchers or other formats. When the local school

board/administration are unable to effect needed change with their teachers and staff,

NCLB by default provides an option of last resort: the so-calledNuclear Option. Even

with the ever increasing federal over-reach into local control, the stringent sanctions

options are the truly beneficial aspects of NCLB (Burke, 2011). With the current

administrations recent embrace of the waiver for every school, there is reason for

concern that the Chrysler/GM UAW taxpayer disaster would find its way into the local

bargaining agendas as well as encourage more federal attempted involvement in content

and curriculum.

Remembering that the goal of education is to prepare students for adulthood, the

National Commission on Excellence in Education was chartered in 1981 to survey the

many aspects of teaching with special emphasis on the educational experiences of teen-

aged youth. TheNation at Riskreport was issued in April, 1983. From the commissions

findings, Jorgensen and Hoffman (2003) explored the seven risk areas and extrapolated
http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/09/nclb-waivers-with-strings-another-federal-overreach-into-educationhttp://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/09/nclb-waivers-with-strings-another-federal-overreach-into-educationhttp://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/09/nclb-waivers-with-strings-another-federal-overreach-into-educationhttp://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/09/nclb-waivers-with-strings-another-federal-overreach-into-educationhttp://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/09/nclb-waivers-with-strings-another-federal-overreach-into-educationhttp://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/09/nclb-waivers-with-strings-another-federal-overreach-into-education


19/38


recommendations for four educational process areas of: (1) content; (2) expectations; (3)

time; and (4) teaching (p2). Fundamental to NCLB were the top-down changes implied,

directed, needed as decided by the Washington political class in the prior implementation

of Improving Americas Schools Act (IASA) of 1994 (reauthorization of original ESEA)

and its companion Goals 2000: Educate America Act. The drive for improvement further

embraced the need for content and performance standards, for assessments aligned to the

standards, and accountability. Even though the various acts professed increased/retained

local control, the federal over-reach has continued into the state ESAs and local education

providers domains (Education World, 2011). In defense of the increasing federal over-

reach, many schools have continued to fail their charters: their students. From these ever

increasing expectations, our political leadership became convinced that the local

providers were continuing to fail at an even greater rate and from these frustrations came

the dictates of the NCLB Act 2002 (Toppo, 2007).

NCLB Absolutist Requirements of 100% Proficiency by 2014

As in all good deeds, none go unpunished. As we are taught today, there are few

absolute answers to todays complicated questions. According to Toppo (2007), todays

NCLB has created an intense sense of urgency to teach the invisible or previously

statistically unseen students (Toppo, 2007, Invisible Students Get Attention section,

para. 1) . The problem of the onrush of 2014 one hundred percent proficiency standards is

the standard itself. One hundred percent, although a great and challenging goal, cannot

realistically be achieved in any dynamic student population. We even teach test takers

today that the first level of inspection for a question is to challenge out absolute multiple


20/38


choice answers. We are not talking about 2 + 2 = 4, but about questions that ask only,

always, never for thought questions. The same applies to the one hundred percent dictate

for proficiency. What happens when one state clamps down on illegal aliens? The

population, unlike state lines, is fluid and moves in response to negative stimulus

(Holden, 2010). The receiving state local school statistical cohort is now altered. The

ELL subgroup just increased significantly and will negatively impact test scores and AYP

performance (Capps et al., 2005).

The good impact of NCLB is that the school is immediately challenged to

accommodate, differentiate and teach for impact. As noted by Toppo (2007), it has

really brought the Hounds of Hell down on the schools of Prince William County

(Invisible Students Get Attention section, para. 15) to immediately assess the changing

student population, develop interventions and then execute the plan. The good news is the

razor sharp focus on the children who need the most help. Dollars, time, and instruction is

now focused on those ofneed. This is the good news; now for the law of unintended

consequences. With the ever shifting student makeup, good schools, through no fault of

their own, may be severely impacted and even sanctioned if the new students are not

immediately accommodated and even then the numbers may statistically not show the

honest effort. Even though absolutist measures have forced schools out of their

traditionally languorous approach to change, adjustments of the standards are needed to

acknowledge the realities of the changing educational marketplace. Not to ignore it, but

to further disaggregate the students to show the new arrivals as a separate group that can

not only be assessed but tracked for AYP improvements without negatively impacting the

original groups improvements. This, as in all processes, can be gamedby an


21/38


unscrupulous administration, school board, or teacher/(s). However, the four tenants of:

(1) content; (2) expectations; (3) time; and (4) teaching will ultimately differentiate the

intellectually honest Administrators/Teachers from those officials who can game the

system (GreatSchools, 2011, NCLB Prompts Protests, Revolts section, para. 6.1) .

NCLB and Continuous School Improvement

The next area of investigation involves the way forward for continuously

improving the educational cycle. Unlike manufacturing models of Just in Time, Toyota

Production System, Lean Manufacturing, Six Sigma or the many other approaches,

teaching does not offer apples to apples correlations. As noted by Hawley (2008), the

inability to create a sense of urgency for continuous improvement in schools, unlike the

private/manufacturing sector, results from several distinct differences. Education goals

are many, rapidly changing and difficult to define. Higher level thinking subjective

outcomes are harder to measure objectively. Subjective outcomes measured objectively

cannot be done; a double bind if there ever was one. Teaching, unlike building a finite

number of different automobiles down an assembly line, is intensive and constantly

changing. Sustaining continuous improvement is very difficult due to the constantly

changing inputs. Example: California Limited English Proficient (LEP) kindergarten to

5th

grade (K5) students were 14% of K5 children at the 1990 Census. By the 2000 Census

K5 LEP students had grown to 20% of all K5 students for a 44% increase census over

census (Capps, et al., 2011, p. 32). Without artful disaggregating student performance, an

otherwise higher performing school is now needs improvement due to the various


22/38


disadvantaged groups impacted by continuing arrivals. The last significant difference is

the many influences impacting the students that the school cannot control.

At the Toyota plant in Princeton, IN, all the associates are adults with adult

responsibilities, are intensely interviewed to an ideal worker template, trained in a near

boot camp atmosphere, and are free will employees and encouraged to work elsewhere if

they are not capable of fully embracing the production ethos of the Toyota system. In our

schools, the student is sometimes likened to a prisoner who is required by the state to be

in school or be deemed truant with the many negatives this implies. Automotive

production is a highly synchronized, disciplined process; school is not. Education starts

out at a distinct disadvantage from all the other student pursuits, student backgrounds,

parental support and/or student motivation.

Improvement efforts are typically unique and a reflection of a schools individual

culture and the culture of its extended community. Similar to Ventriglia (2010a), one size

instruction does not fit all students. It is the same with schools. One improvement format

will not readily fit all schools. Even in business, the toughest problem is to sustain the

culture of continuous improvement. Every implementation suffers reversals and must

recover and repair the previous improvement/(s) (Hawley, 2006). The current, evolving

educational continuous improvement approach involves developing a capacity within

schools for continuous improvement, (Hawley, 2008, p. 3).

The greatest difficulty with this continuous improvement process/concept for

schools rests in NCLBs lack of a set of common measurement standards. If a school is

graded on a content area/(s) (example: reading and mathematics), then naturally, the

focus is on teaching to the assessment standard. This becomes the greatest opportunity for


23/38


the extended educational community to comply with NCLB Act 2002s focus on fixed

accountability assessments aligned tightly with the enumerated content standards (James-

Ward, 2009). Teachers should not teach the test, but should teach the states developed

standards which the accountability assessment in turn validates learning received.

Movement to a continuous school improvement methodology begs for inclusion in the

next rewrite of ESEA (NCLB) that is long overdue. What should our federal Department

of Education be doing/have been doing for the last three years? A good start would have

been facilitating the rewrite of NCLB to mitigate the unforeseen problems that have

surfaced, otherwise defined as lessons learned, and to help develop the educational

community consensus of where we go next; continuous improvement or some other Best

Practices direction. Becoming the great waiver facilitator and blaming a dysfunctional

Congress as the cause is far below the value imputed in the Department of Education

(Burke, 2011).

Summary

Chapter Two was an intensive review of the ample literature and innumerable

findings regarding the impacts on student achievement wrought by the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act (NCLB) of 2002. Even though this act was borne of a near

single minded effort of the Washington political class (significant support of all

stakeholders), many unforeseen problems have cropped up over the years of

implementation. This literature review has developed the insight that these problems have

primarily provided numerous opportunities to improve and serve our invisible

community (Toppo, 2007, Invisible Students Get Attention section). In balance, the act


24/38


achieved its primary objectives of forcing academe to acknowledge its responsibilities to

teach all students; especially, the invisible students compromised of ELLs, LEPs,

socio-economic disadvantaged, and special needs students. Even though an extremely

painful process, schools are today laser focused and nimbly serving our disadvantaged

communities. Their opportunity now is to collectively move this body of knowledge into

the next iteration of ESEA to overcome the previously surfaced problems and to review

the possibility of embracing a continuous school improvement (CSI) philosophy as the

cornerstone of the next NCLB reauthorization.

In Chapter Three, a recommendation will be proposed to Murrieta Valley Unified

School District stakeholders on how to proceed with the Department of Educations

potentially misguided embrace of the waiver process rather than following a path of

nonpartisan development of the next ESEA (NCLB).

CHAPTER THREE: IMPLEMENTATION

Introduction

The purpose of this white paper is to provide a review of the causes and effects of

the latest Federal government (Department of Education, 2011a) over-reach into the local

school boards and state educational authoritys (SEA-California Department of

Education) areas of responsibility as provided for in the original ESEA, 1965, and every

re-authorization (including NCLB, 2002) since then. The Obama Administrations

September 23, 2011 grand plan for reauthorizing the Elementary Education and

Secondary Education Act (ESEA) invites every state to request flexibility (otherwise

stated as a Waiver) for relief from the provisions of NCLB, 2002 (Department of


25/38


Education, 2011b) by advance acceptance of new Federal requirements not negotiated

with SEAs, local school boards, parents, and community stakeholders. Additionally, this

white paper will propose a possible or recommended course of action for the Murrieta

Valley Unified School District (MVUSD) community and school board and potentially

for other local school authorities throughout California and the United States.

PROPOSED SOLUTION

From the initial development of the background and purpose of this white paper,

it was repeatedly established that NCLB, 2002 was yet again another massive federal

government over-reach into the States responsibilities and purview in exercising

direction, supervision, and control over curriculum, instruction, administration, and

personnel in public educational institutions and schools (Berlak, 2010). Even though

every ESEA reauthorization specifically included language limiting federal authority in

the areas of curriculum, program of instruction, direction or supervision of personnel,

administration, the Department of Educations implementing regulations invariably

strayed over these boundaries. Of necessity, the states needs for proffered federal funds

resulted in a de facto acceptance of repeated and expanded federal intrusions.

The recent executive action inviting the waiver requests from every state

(Department of Education, 2011b, p. 1; Marshall, 2011b) focused on the requirement of

states to adopt college- and career-ready (p. 1) standards language as contained in the

Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) that attempts to establish voluntary

national standards for every school. Required to adopt versus voluntary adoption is the

key concern from the state and local educational community. This Executive Office


26/38


work-around, of the needed Congressional consensus, attempts to quickly bypass the

eight plus year deliberative, development process that preceded NCLB, 2002 (Marshal,

2011a). The numerous positive and negative benefits of NCLB are beyond the scope of

this paper and are only described in the context of the recommendations that follow.

NCLBs positive benefits worthy of retention with improvements/modifications in

the next ESEA reauthorization include:

Stronger Accountability (Davis, 2011, Features section) through standardizedperformance assessments and disaggregated scoring to force school resources to be

immediately focused on disadvantaged or Invisible students (Toppo, 2007,

Invisible students get attention section, para. 15).

More choices for parents. As a final sanction value, NCLB provides parents withthe choice of moving their children when the school fails to meet AYP. This choice

brings with it the requirement for the school to advise parents and provide necessary

transportation to a school that is meeting AYP (even if out of district).

Additions needed for the reauthorization of NCLB should include the long range

view of From School Reform to Continuous School Improvement (Hawley, 2006, Part

1 section) rather than the various time worn Band-Aids applied throughout the

overlapping 150-plus federal education programs and Department of Education K-12

guidance issued over 100 occasions since NCLB enactment in 2002 (Marshall, 2011a).

According to Hawley (2006), this continuous improvement view should include:


27/38


Shift from a focus on reform or change to the importance of developing acapacity within schools for continuous improvement (p. 3).

High accountability systems need to be accompanied by high support (p. 5). changing the mindset and behavior of people while creating conditions for

collaborative problem solving or the use of professional expertise (p. 8).

Focus on sustaining improvement. Implement processes or partnerships with parents and community to lesson or

mitigate the non-school influences on students.

Develop multiple measures for assessing complex learning goals and learningtraits desired by employers and college admissions: work habits, oral and writing

skills, ability to collaborate, critical thinking, and Deweys (1916) authentic

learning.

Additional actions of parents and local school boards suggested/recommended to

move the focus back to the original intent of President Johnsons 1965 ESEA

legislations 35 pages versus NCLBs intrusive six hundred pages plus over one hundred

rulings or guidance from the Department of Education bureaucracy. By retaining the

several positive features (with modifications) of NCLB, the states and local school boards

would be prepared to assert their originally intended local role in the educational

process. The immense diversity of the American experience mitigates the central

planning focus of the ever, over-reaching federal bureaucracy (Marshall, 2011a).

Engage our Congressional representatives in reducing the severe impact and costof federal intervention on local schools.


28/38


Advocate for states to be allowed to opt out of federal K-12 programs and allowstates to prioritize funding based on local needs; not current one size fits all

approach.

Empower individual states to take over from the failed federal top-downapproaches. Eliminate and/or consolidate the one hundred fifty plus overlapping

programs and return wasted funds to the states/local level. 1998 estimate has 65

cents to 70 cents of every dollar makes its way to the classroom (Marshall,

2011a, Diminished funds section).

Request Title1 funds become student centric and portable to strengthen parentalchoice provisions

The reauthorization of NCLB must start from Congress rather than from a sleight of

hand move by the Executive Branch. NCLB, 2002 resulted from eight years of work of

the Clinton Administration (D) capped by (realistically) six months of work by the Bush

Administration (R). Public education affects virtually every person in America either

directly through our children and indirectly by the multitude of providers of services to

the educational community and users of the end product at exit from the K-12 public

school system.

RATIONALE//BENEFITS OF PROPOSED SOLUTION

The overarching significance of our current NCLB 2002 legislation is in the

school accountability sanctions required when school/(s) consistently miss achieving

required annual yearly progress (AYP). This accountability requirement provides school


29/38


administrators/school boards with the only true leverage against the bargaining power of

the various unions within the educational constituency (Hess & Petrilli, 2004). Yes, the

2014 requirement for one hundred percent achievement of reading and mathematics

proficiency is not valid and was never intended to survive past the next reauthorization of

2008 or 2009. The best intentions of the eight years of the Clinton (D) Administrations

efforts and the six months of the Bush (R) Administration were to finally provide

significant sanctions for failing schools and in the process guarantee the Invisible

students an appropriate and effective education. The results have been dramatic for these

targeted students of our big cities. In Philadelphia, the public schools CEO released 750

teachers who didnt meet minimum standards (Toppo, 2007, Invisible student gets

attention section, p. 6).

NCLBs parental choice in remedying a failing or unsafe school environment has

proven elusive as schools have disguised the opportunity through numerous means often

described as Students Caught in the School Squeeze (Holden, 2010, p. 1). Holden

describes the conundrum depicted in the documentary film Waiting for Superman

when failing schools in Washington, D.C., by default, are no better than any other

reasonably available school. What choice does a parent really have? For this sanction to

offer true relief, the dysfunctional nature of the Washington, D.C. school system will

probably require court intervention to order the placement of children in totally different

school districts with available room and boarding. Boo (2001) explains in her article,

After Welfare, that Elizabeth petitioned school authorities to get her daughter reassigned

from the infamous Shrimp Boatmiddle school, Evans, to a place where Drenika had a

better chance of getting an education (p. 4). A much better choice was a Capitol Hill


30/38


public school; however, it had seven outside applicants for every available school seat.

Elizabeths default choice for Drenika was another middle school with higher AYP and

standardized test scores. Inevitably, Elizabeth found that even though this other school

produced higher scores, it was as dysfunctional as Shrimp Boat - Evans Middle School.

This real life tragedy translated into the bad urban school Catch 22 of choice. What if

all your choices are bad ones? (p. 5). Even though Elizabeths choices were bleak to

non-existent, no choice is an even greater travesty for her daughter and the scores of other

students around the nation.

Refocusing on a Continuous School Improvement paradigm from a sanctions

based distrust of the continued resistance of the education system (Hess & Petrilli, 2004)

would be a significant change for the educational community and would complement the

retained and NCLB modified strengths of accountability and parental choice. Embracing

Continuous School Improvement (CSI) would be a great start in moving to a positive

educational outlook as the states and Congress move to redevelop ESEA incorporating

the lessons learned over the last decade. CSIs implementation would require a rewrite of

the classic Continuous Improvement model embraced by the business community

(Hawley, 2006). The educational establishment will need to redefine CSI in educational

terms and develop new views to its use and success measurements. The new aspects of

CSI will foster a positive outlook on the move away from simplistic measurements to

embrace the multiple measurements needed to assess the complex requirements of

Californias higher level thinking content standards and in turn assist our students in the

development of traits and skills desired in the college and business worlds.


31/38


The final benefit of this white papers recommendation for a turn away from the

burgeoning Educational-Government Complex to a state and local educator/parent

focus would be in the opportunity to once again focus on the most important aspect of

teaching: teachers are the greatest resource available to students today (Ventriglia,

2010, p. V). Nationally, at K-12 local public schools, enrollments have increased about

seven percent since 1970 at the same time administrative staffs increased up to eighty-

three present. Teachers have decreased from seventy percent of total school staffs in the

1950s to fifty-one percent in 2006 (Marshall, 2011a). Marshall (2011a) further explained

that this same overhead creep has defined state and federal government where their

bureaucracies siphon off up to thirty-five percent of the estimated $55.6 billion

annually (p. 1) spent by the 151 K-12 and early childhood education programs housed

in 20 federal agencies (p. 1). None of this estimated $19.5 billion is spent on one teacher

in a classroom. It is retained or set-aside for administrative expenses for research and

enforcement of the various aspects of state/federal education staffs. Our teachers are

quick to express their concerns on compensation; how much could our teachers be paid if

most of the $19.5 billion were spent on local education rather than state and federal

bureaucracy?

LIMITATIONS

The most significant limitation will be the political will (or lack) of the Democrat

and Republican congressional representatives to recover their prerogative to

rewrite/reauthorize NCLB incorporating the numerous lessons learned. The Obama

Administrations power grab inviting all states to request NCLB waivers at the expense


32/38


of adopting national standards bypasses the statutory obligation of Congress to set our

educational agenda (Hoffman & Jorgensen, 2003).

The next limitation is defined by the ability of our state and local educational

community to adequately define the positive measures necessary to implement a

Continuous School Improvement methodology taking our schools away from the

heavy-handed legislative distrusts of NCLB (Hess & Petrilli, 2004) and moving to a

Continuous School Improvement format Hawley, 2006).

Finally, do we have the collective will to demand an end to the exponential

increases in State and Federal educational bureaucracies that now consume over $19.5

billion of the $55.6 billion federal funds spent annually on public K-12 education? Do we

truly believe the teacher is the key determinant in the success of our students learning?

IMPLEMENTATION

To this point, this white paper has laid out the details and historical aspects of

NCLB as the vehicle of understanding for all federal, state, and local stakeholders. It

dares to propose new ways of doing business and challenges our belief system in the

importance of the teacher in the educational process. The administrative apparatchiks

empowered and emboldened by the imperial federal governments over-reach into the

local/state stakeholders traditional areas of responsibility have nearly strangled the life

out of schools and teachers.

Following fellow teacher peer review and continuous improvement of this white

paper product, it will be presented informally to two members of the MVUSD School

Board for suggestions and recommendations for appropriate improvements. After


33/38


resolving additional issues and suggestions, this white paper will be provided to MVUSD

Administrators and school board members for review prior to formal submission for

future planning consideration. This MVUSD school board is the first step in the process

of recovery of lost local autonomy and pursuit of the unique needs of its students,

parents, and community.

SUMMARY

In Chapter Three, a recommendation or way forward was proposed that advocates

avoidance of a waiver request for relief of the current NCLB one hundred percent 2014

proficiency in reading and mathematics requirement. This proposal recommends

retention, with modifications, of the NCLB embrace of strict accountability through

standardized testing and AYP achievement and parental choice as the best way to ensure

continued focus on the education of every student, especially the Invisible (Toppo,

2007) students of our community. Additionally, Continuous School Improvement is

proposed as a best practice way to move away from the negative aspects of NCLB and

focus on the adoption of industry leading continuous improvement (CI) methods for

application to the educational process. Finally, this white paper recommends that the

MVUSD school board avoid requesting a waiver of the NCLB accountability mandates

while it pressures our Congressional delegation to engage their counterparts in good faith

for a legislative solution rather than additional Executive Branch encroachment on the

prerogatives of Californias educational obligations and responsibilities.


34/38


REFLECTIVE ESSAY

My quest for a single subject teaching credential in Mathematics and Science has

refreshed and expanded my original engineering education skills of research, observation,

hypothesis, synthesis, and honed new skills of summarization, analysis, and best

educational practices. This capstone final paper allowed me to reflect back over the

previous courses and derive a composite teacher image as I prepare for California TPAs 1

& 2, TPEs 3 & 4 and my student teaching Trial by Student in 2012. Knowing that

knowledge and understanding is a continuous learning process, I see this paper not as a

concluding effort but as another step in my life of learning and service as I remember my

high school teachers service in 1968.

When starting this extended program of instruction, I had just been laid off the

second time in a year during the ongoing and interminable recession of 2009/2010/

2011/2012/+. Following careers in the Marines, automobile manufacturing, and

government contracting, I was now able to pursue my life-long desire to teach and inspire

as I was inspired by the teachers of my youth. As a semi-retiree, I was confident that I

would be able to commit the time and energy needed to master the art of teaching: always

changing, yet always the same.

As a prior National University MBA graduate (1985), I knew this Masters of

Education/credentialing program would be ably represented by instructors with real life

teaching experience in our California public schools. In this belief I was not disappointed.

Every instructor has been a current teacher or recently retired teacher/administrator with

tremendous insight, tips, recommendations and shared practical experiences in todays


35/38


challenging classrooms. They have inspired as they conspired to right-size my view of

todays student.

This white paper has allowed me to give flight to the many memories (good and

bad) of my high school, U.S. Naval Academy, military schools, National University

graduate business school and this education program. I will be able to use this lifetime of

accumulated successes as well as failures to guide my understanding of my students

when they timidly stick their heads into my classroom on the first day. As a teacher new

to teaching, I will rely heavily on challenging my students to teach themselves. From

experience, as a battalion commander of over 1500 Marines and Sailors in combat, I

know that I must build teams, develop team leaders, inspire individual effort, expect the

highest standards, and leave no student behind.

My success as a teacher will be built around this papers recommended ESEA

principles of accountability, parental choice, continuous school improvement (CSI), and

local control through committed parents, visionary school boards, determined teachers

and inspired students. Will there be setbacks, student failures, my teacher mistakes? Yes!

Will my students and I reflect, learn, and redo the learning? Yes, for it is through failing

forward (Maxwell, 2000) that we learn and through learning we succeed.


36/38


REFERENCES

Alliance for Excellent Education, (2010). Don't Leave Accountability Behind A Call for

ESEA Reauthorization.Alliance for Excellent Education, Commission on No

Child Left Behind, 1~9.

Berlak, H (2010). Prelude to 'Race to the Top': a Short History. Retrieved October 31,

2011, from

http://www.educationanddemocracy.org/Resources/NCLB_history.htm

Boo, K (2001). After Welfare. The New Yorker, Section: A Reporter at Large (Pg. 93),

1~12.

Burke, L (September 23, 2011). Obama's Ill Advised NCLB Waiver. Retrieved October

31, 2011, fromhttp://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/278184

Capps, R, Fix, ME, Murray, J, Ost, J, Passel, JS, & Hernandez, SH (2005). The New

Demography of America's Schools Immigration and the No Child Left Behind

Act. Retrieved November 4, 2011, from

http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=311230

Cohen, DK, & Moffitt, SL (2009). The Ordeal of Quality: Did Federal Regulation Fixthe Schools. United States of America: Harvard University Press.

Davis, S (2011). History of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved October 28,

2011, from http://www.ehow.com/print/about_5085381_history-child-left-behin...

Department of Education, US (2011a). ESEA Flexibility. Retrieved October 31, 2011,

from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml

Department of Education, US (September 23, 2011b). Obama Administration Sets High

Bar for Flexibility from No Child Left Behind in Order to Advance Equity and

Support Reform. Retrieved November 1, 2011, from

http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/obama-administration-sets-high-bar-

flexibility-no-child-left-behind-order-advanc
http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/278184http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/278184http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/278184http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/278184


37/38


Dewey, J (1916). Democracy and Education. United States: Macmillan and Company.

Education World, Staff (2011). No Child Left Behind: What it Means to You. Retrieved

October 28, 2011, from http://www.educationworld.com/a_issues273.shtml

Great Schools Staff, (2011). What the No Child Left Behind law means to Your Child.

Retrieved November 4, 2011, from

http://www.greatschools.org/improvement/quality-teaching/61-no-child...

Hawley, WD (2006). The Keys to Effective Schools: Educational Reform as Continuous

Improvement. United States of America: Corwin Press.

Hess, FM, & Petrilli, MJ (2004). The Politics of No Child Left Behind.American

Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1~6.

Holden, S (September 23, 2010). Students Caught in the School Squeeze. Retrieved

October 31, 2011, from

http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/movies/24waiting.html?pag...

James-Ward, C (2011). What Every Educator Should Know About No Child Left

Behind and the D. Retrieved October 31, 2011, from

http://cnx.org/content/m19509/latest/

Johnson, JA, Musial, D, Hall, GE, Gollnick, DM, & Dupuis, VL (2008). Foundations of

American Education: Perspectives on Education in a Changing World. United

States of America: Pearson Education, Inc..

Jorgensen, MA, & Hoffman, J (2003). History of the No Child Left Behind Act od

2001. Pearson Education, Inc., Assessment Report, 1~8.

Manna, P (2011). Collision Course: Federal Education Policy Meets State and Local

Realities. United States of America: CQ Press.

Marshall, JA (April 6, 2011a). Freeing Schools from Washington's Education Overreach.

WebMemo: Heritage Foundation, 3214, 1~5.

Marshall, JA (September 23, 2011b). NCLB Waivers with Strings Another Federal

Overreach into Education. Retrieved November 3, 2011, from


38/38


http://heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/09/nclb-waivers-with-strings-another-

federal-overreach-into-education

Maxwell, JC (2000). Failing Forward: Turning Mistakes into Stepping Stones for

Success. United States of America: Thomas Nelson.

Merriam-Webster, M-W (2011). Examples of CONUNDRUM. Retrieved November 8,

2011, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conundrum

Toppo, G (2007). How Bush Education Law has Changed Our Schools. Retrieved

October 28, 2011, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-01-07-

no-child_x.htm

Ventriglia, LD (2010a). Best Practices Differentiated Instruction The Rule of Foot.

Mexico: Litografica Ingramex, S.A. de C.V. Centeno.

Ventriglia, LD (2010b). Best Practices Motivation & Student Engagement Creating

Power Learners . Mexico: Litografica Ingramex, S.A. de C.V. Centeno.
http://heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/09/nclb-waivers-with-strings-another-federal-overreach-into-educationhttp://heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/09/nclb-waivers-with-strings-another-federal-overreach-into-educationhttp://heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/09/nclb-waivers-with-strings-another-federal-overreach-into-educationhttp://heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/09/nclb-waivers-with-strings-another-federal-overreach-into-educationhttp://heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/09/nclb-waivers-with-strings-another-federal-overreach-into-education

NCLB White Paper Nov2011

Documents

Transcript of NCLB White Paper Nov2011