My favorite part of Wiener's argument is his non-sequitur blaming schools and standardized testing for how "sad and hopeless" Gen Z is. But doesn't mention phones. At all. L-O-freaking-L.
I'm just not convinced that we have really strong causal evidence here. Test scores were improving before NCLB. We could argue NCLB accelerated those gains, but the effect is pretty small. Test scores post-2015 dropped across almost the entire developed world. We can't pin that on NCLB. (And I'm still looking for a comparative study looking at the declines between different countries in a rigorous way.)
I think the best we can say causally is that NCLB caused small improvements, in particular in some areas of the k-12 system, but at a large cost. We still have some elements of that system and we have no evidence that bringing back others would cause improvement. I'm not convinced that bringing back NCLB will be net-positive because we could focus that same energy on other reforms. I also find this whole train of thought backward-looking and I'd rather we look in new directions. Two examples:
We didn't have the science of reading movement 20 years ago. It's not like 2010 was a high water mark for phonics. But I think the science of reading has huge potential to improve education outcomes.
We didn't have strong math curriculum 20 years ago. Then it was bland, poorly-designed textbooks. Now it's progressive inquiry mumbo-jumbo. Neither are very effective tools. We could choose to fund and put energy behind a new generation of practice-focused, standards-aligned math curricula with an emphasis on fact fluency, breaking concepts down into small steps, and retrieval practice.
That's just two examples, we could debate the best use of energy and resources, but broadly speaking my argument is that maybe the answer isn't to look toward what we did in the past but to look at what we haven't tried yet that has strong evidence and give that a shot.
Good points! I'm not necessarily arguing we go back to NCLB exactly the way it was, but I do suspect that some portion of the gains experienced by the "southern surge" states was due to their strong accountability systems (for both school-level performance as well as benchmarks for individual kids).
I'm also hesitant to recommend a big new federal requirement. I've seen enough to know that wouldn't be implemented well. So I'd much rather see states (or cities) seek their own improvements. I see accountability as one part of that stool, but I'm also on board with your points around curriculum and practice.
I've been struggling with Wiener's argument this week. I think you lay out a clear counter to his piece, and thank you for centering the data itself. Three other things I'd add, 1) Wiener uses a single memory of a meaningful high school experience to make a claim about elementary and middle school assessment policy. 2) There's a robust body of cognitive science research (Sweller's cognitive load theory, Ericsson on deliberate practice, Willingham on how novices and experts process information differently) showing that novices need structured, explicit instruction and frequent low-stakes feedback loops — exactly what well-designed assessments can provide. Experts can engage in open-ended, self-directed exploration because they've already internalized schema. Assessments help us measure if students are building the skills and understanding they need to take on more open-ended learning 3) As states adopt portrait of a graduate measures, I am really concerned how vague competencies will be measured. It adds a new layer of bias into the system.
Thank you, Chad, for talking about the tension in Wiener's argument...and that it shouldn't exist. Every year when we interview teachers and leaders at Bold Performance Schools in DC (those serving high proportions of students from economically disadvantaged families with achievement substantially higher than expected), they tell us about making school fun and meaningful for students, setting high expectations for their achievement, using data to monitor their students' progress, providing targeted interventions for students who need them, engaging families, and maximizing the total amount of productive instruction time received. No educator in the ten years we've honored Bold schools has ever told us that test prep helped propel their students' success.
Also, have you or anyone looked at federal spending on Title I over time, adjusting for student population and inflation? I wonder if there is an association there as well. With NCLB came higher accountability and also higher spending to support schools meeting the higher standards.
My favorite part of Wiener's argument is his non-sequitur blaming schools and standardized testing for how "sad and hopeless" Gen Z is. But doesn't mention phones. At all. L-O-freaking-L.
I'm just not convinced that we have really strong causal evidence here. Test scores were improving before NCLB. We could argue NCLB accelerated those gains, but the effect is pretty small. Test scores post-2015 dropped across almost the entire developed world. We can't pin that on NCLB. (And I'm still looking for a comparative study looking at the declines between different countries in a rigorous way.)
I think the best we can say causally is that NCLB caused small improvements, in particular in some areas of the k-12 system, but at a large cost. We still have some elements of that system and we have no evidence that bringing back others would cause improvement. I'm not convinced that bringing back NCLB will be net-positive because we could focus that same energy on other reforms. I also find this whole train of thought backward-looking and I'd rather we look in new directions. Two examples:
We didn't have the science of reading movement 20 years ago. It's not like 2010 was a high water mark for phonics. But I think the science of reading has huge potential to improve education outcomes.
We didn't have strong math curriculum 20 years ago. Then it was bland, poorly-designed textbooks. Now it's progressive inquiry mumbo-jumbo. Neither are very effective tools. We could choose to fund and put energy behind a new generation of practice-focused, standards-aligned math curricula with an emphasis on fact fluency, breaking concepts down into small steps, and retrieval practice.
That's just two examples, we could debate the best use of energy and resources, but broadly speaking my argument is that maybe the answer isn't to look toward what we did in the past but to look at what we haven't tried yet that has strong evidence and give that a shot.
Good points! I'm not necessarily arguing we go back to NCLB exactly the way it was, but I do suspect that some portion of the gains experienced by the "southern surge" states was due to their strong accountability systems (for both school-level performance as well as benchmarks for individual kids).
I'm also hesitant to recommend a big new federal requirement. I've seen enough to know that wouldn't be implemented well. So I'd much rather see states (or cities) seek their own improvements. I see accountability as one part of that stool, but I'm also on board with your points around curriculum and practice.
I've been struggling with Wiener's argument this week. I think you lay out a clear counter to his piece, and thank you for centering the data itself. Three other things I'd add, 1) Wiener uses a single memory of a meaningful high school experience to make a claim about elementary and middle school assessment policy. 2) There's a robust body of cognitive science research (Sweller's cognitive load theory, Ericsson on deliberate practice, Willingham on how novices and experts process information differently) showing that novices need structured, explicit instruction and frequent low-stakes feedback loops — exactly what well-designed assessments can provide. Experts can engage in open-ended, self-directed exploration because they've already internalized schema. Assessments help us measure if students are building the skills and understanding they need to take on more open-ended learning 3) As states adopt portrait of a graduate measures, I am really concerned how vague competencies will be measured. It adds a new layer of bias into the system.
Thank you, Chad, for talking about the tension in Wiener's argument...and that it shouldn't exist. Every year when we interview teachers and leaders at Bold Performance Schools in DC (those serving high proportions of students from economically disadvantaged families with achievement substantially higher than expected), they tell us about making school fun and meaningful for students, setting high expectations for their achievement, using data to monitor their students' progress, providing targeted interventions for students who need them, engaging families, and maximizing the total amount of productive instruction time received. No educator in the ten years we've honored Bold schools has ever told us that test prep helped propel their students' success.
Also, have you or anyone looked at federal spending on Title I over time, adjusting for student population and inflation? I wonder if there is an association there as well. With NCLB came higher accountability and also higher spending to support schools meeting the higher standards.