…What I don’t understand is why anyone is at all surprised by this. As I pointed out last week, life (and economics) is all about choices and the classroom isn’t any different. Eduwonk puts it well……

On the one had you have the Jonathan Kozol group of individuals who make the case that no “suburban” school system would ever allow the rote type of policies that NCLB has influenced many urban school systems to implement into their particular school systems. Kozol even makes the case about how instruction was better prior to NCLB. In his recent book he told of a group of 3rd graders who he followed up to their present 7th grade status. He blamed NCLB for their inability to hold an articulate conversation with their teacher. The fact that she had to “teach to the test” eliminated valuable time in which they used to form bonds via classroom conversation between teacher and student….again in the narrative put forth by Kozol and others.

Now you have a group as we see here claiming that NCLB has caused damage to the high performing students. Is NCLB - this UNDERFUNDED Federal Program which has been implemented in the context of a Federal government that still only contributes between 7 and 8% of a public school’s funding responsible for the damage that this group claims?

How can this same program be sub-comprehensive and yet domineering both at the same time?

There is little doubt that NCLB is used as the political whipping boy per one’s interests in advocating some other set of policies that they find more desireable.

Now we have the Fordham Executive Summary vs. the Fordham main report. Its not unusual for a press release to spin a study’s results as to make them incomprehensable, but this Fordham vs. Fordham dueling manifestos is in a new league.

The Main report explains the difference as it explains the definition of NCLB period. The NCLB period for Math and elementary Reading was defined as 2000 to 2007. This means that NCLB gets credit for producing gains that occurred before NCLB. Those gains slowed after NCLB.

Because of timing of NAEP testing, 8th grade Reading is defined as 2002 to 2007, which has the benefit of being a reality-based definition. So, Reading scores of the bottom 10 percentile decreased by 3%.

If the purpose of NCLB is gaming the system, then numbers for the bottom 10 percentile show success. If the purpose is increasing elementary test scores, then its a success. If the purposed is real learning that persists into middle school at least, then the jury is out. Given the sorry state of math teaching skills of high poverty elementary teachers over the generations, it is no surprise that all of the extra funding and energy has shown some results.

But the real test should be the Reading scores of middle schools and above. To get an honest though disappointing appraisal, you have to read the main report, not the Executive Summary.

WASHINGTON (June 18, 2008) – A national study released today by the Fordham Institute confirms our nation continues to neglect the learning needs of gifted students. Joyce VanTassel-Baska, Past President of the National Association for Gifted Children and member of the study’s peer-review panel issued the following statement:

“As our nation makes significant gains boosting the performances of low-achieving students, we continue to shortchange our gifted students. Settling for stagnation or modest learning gains penalizes gifted learners, especially underserved students whose needs continue to go unmet, and jeopardizes our nation’s future as we struggle to compete in the global economy.

“Especially alarming are findings that our nation’s teachers do not consider themselves prepared to meet the unique learning needs of gifted students, nor do they feel encouraged by the system to focus on cultivating the talents of our gifted learners. While no one will dispute the critical need of increasing proficiency for students at the lowest levels, doing so at the expense of high-performing students – especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds – only perpetuates the cycle of inequality and results in continued underperformance in the classroom.

“I hope this study serves as a wake-up call if we as a nation are truly committed to leaving no child behind and investing in students from all ability levels to maximize their potential. Nothing less than our future is at stake.”

In order to show gains on these tests, students must know things. And there simply isn’t enough time in a day to cram enough knowledge into high achieving students to make gains equal to that of low achieving kids. I mean, these high achievers already have the capacity to know a lot. Once they are taught all that, then they can make gains.

With low achievers, there’s simply more room for them to grow. Now that teachers are paying attention to them, rather than ignoring them, they are learning.

This either/or sense of education is a smokescreen. It’s not either or. There’s room for learning and instruction for all students. Please don’t buy into the rhetoric. It’s incorrect.

Here’s something: how come the nation’s most elite colleges are suddenly flooded with more qualified applicants than ever? How does this square with the claims by Fordham?

Don’t get me wrong, I am not a lover of the status quo by any means. Not at all. But Fordham, usually an ally in the fight to improve education, has backed a silly report here. Too bad.