I will confess to being somewhat confused by all the rhetoric around the new accountability framework that the Obama administration is considering for the NCLB law. This Washington Post story makes a big deal about possible flexibility for the 2014 deadline, at which states' proficiency targets must reach 100 percent, and about the idea of intervening differently based on how far schools miss their targets.
But isn't the idea of everyone graduating "college" and "career ready" still pretty much a "universal goal," and a harder one at that, if our current tests are really as crummy as everyone asserts?
Perhaps this is where scrapping 2014 and focusing on growth instead of absolute targets would provide some flexibility. NEA President Dennis Van Roekel, quoted in the WaPo story, sounds thrilled by the potential for changes. But it's possible that standards for college- and career-readiness, coupled with the proposed changes to Title II I wrote about yesterday, will push the bar for quality instruction even higher.
