Home » Blog » Charles Barone

DFER's Blog - Charles Barone

FROM THE ANNALS OF ESEA HEARINGS: PART 3

The ESEA Reauthorization, named “The No Child Left Behind Act” was signed into law January 8, 2002. In April 2002, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions held a hearing on the implementation of the law. The members took particular interest on how states were going to operationalize the accountability provisions of the new law. Senator Hillary Clinton questions Under Secretary of Education Hickock how a patchwork system of local assessments could possibly result in a valid, comparable system of accountability . . . 

ESEA Aprill 2002.Senator.H.R.Clinton.pdf





FROM THE ANNALS OF ESEA HEARINGS: Part 2





FROM THE ANNALS OF ESEA HEARINGS: Part I





ESEA Infographic #1 - Time Spent on Testing

Did you know that the time spent on all student testing in grades 3-8 is, on average, less than 3% of the entire school year or that locally required tests consume 2-3 times as many classroom hours as do tests required under ESEA? All that and more in this infographic brief. 

ESEA Infographic Number 1.pdf





Annual Testing in ESEA Reauthorization: A Red Herring?

Charles Barone

December 18, 2014

When it comes to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Fordham’s Mike Petrilli is right about one thing: "Senator Lamar Alexander, Representative John Kline, and their respective staffs have successfully freaked out sizable portions of the education-reform crowd - especially those who spend our days inside the Beltway bubble - by threatening to eliminate No Child Left Behind’s annual testing requirement.”

Petrilli thinks Kline, Alexander et al. have not yet “come to their senses”. But he "expects they will." I'm more inclined to believe that annual testing is a giant red herring.

Threatening "annual testing" could be a brilliant negotiating tactic. The more freaked out the “education-reform crowd” is about annual testing, and the more singularly they stay focused on “annual testing” to the exclusion of what are equally important issues, the easier it is for Kline and Alexander to take everything else off the table.

Whether intended or not, the signals that the Kline/Alexander team is sending are having that effect. They're also doing a whole lot more. Some, primarliy on the left, are dangling out their support for doing something that, at the end of the day, could be called "annual testing” but defining it in a way that renders Petrilli’s implicit definition meaningless. Stranger things have happened.

Continue reading "Annual Testing in ESEA Reauthorization: A Red Herring?"....





Next Page