May 2007
Collision or Collaboration? No Child Left Behind and America's International Competition
Amid rising concerns about America's international competitiveness, increased attention has been paid to serving high-achieving students and to improving math, science, and technology instruction in K-12 schooling. Some proponents have been quick to suggest that this effort readily complements the emphasis of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) on addressing "achievement gaps" in math and reading. They believe that resources can be channeled to low-achieving students without short-changing high achievers or impeding America's ability to develop the scientists, mathematicians, and engineers crucial to international competitiveness. In a recent article, AEI's Frederick M. Hess and Education Sector's Andrew Rotherham questioned this conventional wisdom, arguing that in a world of finite resources and limited attention, these two agendas are more likely to collide than coexist.
At a May 2 AEI panel discussion, Hess, Rotherham, David Dunn of the U.S. Department of Education, and David Goldston of Princeton University addressed whether the NCLB and the international competitiveness agendas are complements or competitors in the realm of K-12 schooling, and what this tension means for schooling and public policy going forward.
Frederick M. Hess
AEI
The debate over equity and competitiveness highlights a natural and underlying tension. No easy solution will reconcile these two forces at a time when the necessary political will to effect meaningful change in instruction is lacking. Shortsightedness and the failure to address fundamental issues such as day-to-day technical challenges and faulty assumptions about teacher effectiveness aggravate these problems. The notion that teachers are a fungible resource producing constant results regardless of the population served is misguided. Policymakers who advocate such reallocation may push teachers out of the field and hinder recruiting efforts, thus shrinking the total pool of human capital. Instead, programs that are helpful and complementary, such as Teach for America, should be encouraged.
Furthermore, the idea that increasing competitiveness necessarily requires addressing the achievement gap is fallacious: it does not discuss science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines, resource tensions, the fungibility of high quality teaching, or university preparation. Focusing on basic mastery of skills in grades 3-8 is important in NCLB, but the educational conversation has been watered down by a failure to set up a serious discussion of the challenges ahead and use our intellectual energy to marshal large-scale future improvements. Efforts should be made to raise the performance of low-achieving students, but increasing the number of National Merit Scholars and students attending top-tier institutions should be a priority, especially when--in this sense--we can improve marginal numbers without such difficult changes.
Andrew Rotherham
Education Sector
There are tensions between equity and competitiveness, but the immediate challenge the country faces is equity. Theoretically, the two concepts fit hand in glove, but they diverge in practice. This offers tough choices to policymakers. The data show that minorities are more at risk for a NCLB backlash that emanates from the suburbs. Furthermore, new solutions are difficult to come by because the public embraces add-ons instead of restructuring and changing routines. General changes are easy, but significant reform ideas upset vested interests, as evidenced by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
The challenges are many in a world where the human capital of teachers is finite. Even with an incentive structure to encourage more people to become teachers, other problems arise. Teacher training is terrible, and decisions about resources need to be made at both the state and federal level. We must develop a defined curriculum and encourage highly qualified teachers to teach at low-income schools. We should seek the difficult and elusive third way between equity and competitiveness.
David Goldston
Princeton University
The tension between equity and competitiveness may be exaggerated, although a tension exists between top students and those who lag. Efforts should be taken to lift up our lowest students. A compelling case for the need of a complementary workforce can be seen in Japan, whose competitiveness for decades has been attributed to the high quality of the bottom 50 percent of laborers. Structural change is required for improvements in the top areas of science and math. Top students in the United States are shying away from entering these important fields, and even those who enter them are not performing as expected. The solution is not as easy as giving top performers more resources, such as new computers or lab equipment, because teachers are often not trained to use them effectively. Unfortunately, the tendency is to focus on the tangible.
The resources we do have should be directed toward teacher training, and then the discussion can center on where to place them. It cannot be assumed that a good teacher in one place will be good anywhere, but the federal government can use incentives to encourage a certain direction. We especially need to recruit more teachers into the field. Furthermore, the bottom achievers do deserve more attention--the top achievers can take care of themselves. At a time when resources are limited, choosing between equity and competitiveness is a naturally reinforcing mistake. We can find a middle ground in training.
David Dunn
U.S. Department of Education
Tension clearly arises between equity and competitiveness, and this tension will always exist and present tough choices because of finite resources. At the same time, such a tension should not be exaggerated as a battle between two diametrically opposed forces. Proposals from the president and the Department of Education, such as the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), have targeted both excellence and equity. Other programs include the preparation of 70,000 more teachers in the fields of math and science, the Math Now program, and continued research to adjust curricula. Tensions are greatest in teacher allocation, and the best solution is to provide more incentives to attract teachers ready for the challenge of tougher students and circumstances.
Little focus is given to high schools when, in reality, the 2008 budget included $1 billion to support assessment and instruction. In a day when high schools receive only 15 percent of Title I funding, we should align high school standards with those identified as required skills for success by businesses and universities, and we should award academic competitiveness grants. The 2008 budget calls for a 50 percent increase for ACI. These steps should help combat the surprising lack of rigor in state curricula. Finally, we must not discount the fact that although resources may be limited, they are not insignificant: $3 billion a year is spent on teacher development in a $500 billion a year education industry. The country has valued education with significant investment.
AEI intern Shane Wilson prepared this summary.
