Chubb, John E. (Ed.). (2005). Within Our Reach: How America Can Educate Every Child. Reviewed by Maggie Bartlett, Arizona State University

Chubb, John E. (Ed.). (2005). Within Our Reach: How America Can Educate Every Child. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Pp. xiv + 217 $19.95   (Papercover) ISBN 0-7425-4888-0 Reviewed by Maggie Bartlett Arizona State University March 19, 2006 Within Our Reach is a compilation of briefs by the Koret Task Force on K-12 Education from the Hoover Institution. The authors are visiting fellows, research fellows, and senior fellows at the Hoover Institution and one author is the Director of Education Studies at the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. Many of the authors have served in various capacities for President George W. Bush. The Hoover Institution, “is a public policy research center devoted to advanced study of politics, economics, and political economy—both domestic and foreign—as well as international affairs” (Hoover Institution, 2005). This anthology of work is a critical, yet hopeful, assessment of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Each author’s chapter tackles a piece of the legislation and proposes recommendations to ensure the law ultimately reaches the goal of learner proficiency. The prologue sets the stage quite succinctly, “Supporters of NCLB…should not rest on their laurels, for the potential of NCLB will not be fully realized if the president chooses simply to stay the course” (p. viii). The foundation is then set to provide a critical analysis of NCLB and recommendations for preventive measures. John E. Chubb’s Saving No Child Left Behind continues to define the scope of this book. Chubb’s chapter provides an overview of the contents of this book: protecting the principles of NCLB, standards and testing, accountability and sanctions, highly qualified teachers, choice and tutoring, and national goals and local control. A Historical Perspective on a Historic Piece of Legislation by Diane Ravitch provides an account of education initiatives leading up to the current adoption of NCLB. Historically, according to Ravitch, the Federal government played minor roles in education. Up to 1958, initiatives to include the federal government in education had been attempted, but failed. In 1958 the National Defense Education Act and then in 1965 the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) gave the federal government a role to play in the nation’s education. ESEA has changed just as the presidential administrations have changed. Additions to federal initiatives have occurred such as the creation of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) which provides oversight for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). According to Ravitch, this history of initiatives provided the basis for NCLB. In spite of what many believe, “the NCLB act did not spring full blown from his [G.W. Bush] head nor was it uniquely Texan in origin” (p. 35). NCLB is a culmination of previous legislation with significant changes. Ravitch maintains the changes embrace standards, assessments, transparency, and holding schools accountable for student achievement. In Standards, Testing, and Accountability, Herbert J. Walberg provides background on the effects of accountability, issues specifically related to NCLB testing, and recommendations to overcome the hurdles. The effects of testing are known, as Chubb also detailed, to positively impact achievement only when consequences are attached. Other commonalties present in high performing schools, as maintained by Walberg, are curriculum and instruction based on state standards, assessment and monitoring of student performance, interventions for students, teacher evaluation, and high expectations. According to Walberg, with the emphasis on testing, problems arise. The types of test utilized (norm-referenced and criterion reference), validity, reporting issues, and the inability to compare state results versus national results are issues that must be rectified. Walberg’s recommendations are “stay the course; increase momentum,” (p. 74) increase content areas that are tested, provide an arena to solve problems with other states, utilize computer adaptive tests, administer parent and student surveys, provide incentives, and consider NAEP as the testing instrument for all states. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is the cornerstone of NCLB, as Caroline M. Hoxby writes in Adequate Yearly Progress: Refining the Heart of the No Child Left Behind Act. This chapter examines “clumsy and sometimes unscientific” (p. 80) implementation of AYP and provides recommendations for improvement. “Boiled down, AYP is simple: every student should be on a path that, if projected forward, will lead him to be proficient by 2014” (p. 82). Based on that principle, Hoxby suggests refining AYP calculations to combat the so called “race to the bottom.” As students and schools struggle to meet the standards, districts are lowering the expectations so more can meet the goal. Hoxby maintains while more students are achieving at the proficiency level, it is in part because the state system has lowered its expectations to portray higher achievement. Hoxby and Walberg concur that NAEP should be used as a benchmark. Hoxby proposes that the attainment of AYP would be based on a “moving window” concept. Figures are provided within the chapter to illustrate the concept. The moving window would be built on the notion that to determine the yearly achievement level one must create a trajectory based on reaching proficiency by 2014. Finally, Hoxby suggests students’ test scores should only be calculated in AYP if the student has been enrolled in school for 90% of the time since the last round of testing. Eric A. Hanushek in Impacts and Implications of State Accountability Systems describes the role and need for accountability, its place in NCLB, and means of improving state systems. As the other authors conclude, accountability is equated to a positive impact on achievement if consequences are administered. Moreover, Hanushek claims that accountability and consequences improve scores and narrow the achievement gap among some minority and nonminority groups. NCLB based its “consequential accountability system” on this ground. For accountability to operate as intended, Hanushek contends states must improve their system. He continues to maintain states must improve the measurement of the impact schools have on student achievement, separating out the nonschool influences. The accountability system places emphasis on targeting students on the cusp of passing, thus possibly neglecting high and low achieving students according to Hanushek. In both cases, it is vital to track individual student achievement growth. The tracking allows for students to receive the attention needed. According to Hanushek, the single policy of accountability systems does not meet all needs and requires the system to create more policy to close the achievement gap and raise achievement levels. Fixing Failing Schools in California by Williamson M. Evers and Lance T. Izumi details how the state of California aligned their accountability system with NCLB. California had its own accountability system and then created a new system to meet NCLB requirements. The authors of this chapter claim the successes and challenges of the California system have implications for other states. These two parallel systems base findings on standardized testing results but differ in how the results are viewed. The federal system measures student achievement; the state system measures school growth. The federal system’s ratings (NCLB) and the state system’s ratings (Academic Performance Index-API) identify schools in need of improvement. To address the inadequacies of schools, as measured by the state and federal system, interventions were created. Before NCLB, California developed an intervention program. After NCLB, California has further developed intervention programs that mirror NCLB corrective action plans. These programs are intricate, but before NCLB, one main component of the program was observation teams of outside evaluators. The programs were focused on process rather than on student standards. Through research, according to Evers and Izumi, it was found that the effect of these programs on student achievement was minute. Thus, the system was revamped to include marrying interventions to state standards and the creation of School Assistance and Intervention Team (SAIT) process. The SAIT process focuses on language arts, reading, and math to improve classroom instruction and student achievement. The authors of this chapter claim implications for the California accountability system and the SAIT process can be far reaching. They further suggest it would be advantageous for other states to heed the experiences of this system. Evers and Izumi maintain unfocused interventions should be rejected while embracing, “a well-focused and sound research-based plan and a set of behavior-altering incentives that the plan can actually be implemented as written” (p.138). In Paul E. Peterson’s A Conflict of Interest: District Regulation of School Choice and Supplemental Services the consequences for under-achieving schools and how the districts’ personal interests taint their ability to follow the guidelines of NCLB are discussed. If a school does not attain the AYP target, the three consequences are restructuring the school (not yet widely done), school choice, and access to supplemental services. Peterson proposes the problem arises as these punitive measures are not adhered to by local school districts due to a conflict of interest. Restructuring the school is a consequence that has yet to be widely implemented and is not addressed in this chapter. School choice is offered to the school that is “in need of improvement” for two consecutive years. This allows students to transfer to another non-failing public school within the district. The other consequence for a school failing three or more years is that students are offered supplemental services. According to Peterson school choice has been utilized by about 1% of possible students; however 5% of families may be interested in transfers. The discrepancy, as stated by Peterson, may be a result of how local school officials promote choice. Peterson suggests combating this problem by creating a separate entity that would communicate options to parents and facilitate the process. In addition, Peterson recommends school choice should include options to attend any school within the district and non district schools (other district schools, charter schools, and private schools.) The other consequence for not meeting AYP is access to supplemental services for students. This measure is utilized by more families than school choice, but the districts have great motivation to deemphasize this service as reported by Peterson. Districts are funded for these services. However, if the monies go unused for supplemental services, the districts may allocate the funds elsewhere. To promote more compliance with the stipulations of NCLB, the multiple recommendations of Peterson are that certified providers should be administered by a state agency other than the department of education; a new agency should be in charge of certifying, contracting, and evaluating multiple service providers; parent advocates should become involved in identifying and evaluating service providers; service providers should be held accountability for student achievement; and funds not spent for supplemental services should return to the federal government. In A Highly Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom, Terri Moe points out, as did the other authors, that for this legislation to realize its goals, modifications are needed. The revisions must be made to ensure that a “highly qualified teacher” is in every classroom. NCLB, and its stipulations, are a top down policy. As presented by Moe this approach has brought to light three problems: measuring teacher quality, politics among stakeholders, and lack of information on teacher qualifications. In an attempt to rectify some of these problems, the U. S. Department of Education has created a new model for teacher certification. Although the model has been proposed, it is not mandated. To spur states to adopt the policy and embrace its intentions, Moe suggests that modifications must be made. Moe purports that the criteria to determine if a teacher is highly qualified should include a bachelor’s degree and any one from a three-item list: college major in their teaching field, passing score on an externally evaluated rigorous competence test, or proven ability to raise student performance. These requirements should be applied to all teachers, not just new ones according to Moe. The author continues that the highly objective uniform state standard of evaluation (HOUSSE) provisions that provide only lax requirements for veteran teachers should be abolished. Meeting the provisions spelled out above should be all that is needed to be a highly qualified teacher, Moe contends. It is not necessary to graduate from an education school. To meet the expectations of this new model, Moe declares that guidance should be provided to help states obtain the goal and to create a moderately uniform system nationwide. Moe maintains these modifications are based on the assumption of the continuation of top down policy. That assumption, according to Moe, could be a fallacy. The logic that competition stimulates hiring of competent workers, dismissing ineffective workers, and running an efficient operation should be the basis for education reform in this author’s opinion. Moe indicated creating more rules and policies should not be the direction of the government, but it should be to move to a more competitive system with charter schools and vouchers. While it may not be practical to implement this system, Moe suggests it is desirable. Within Our Reach: How America Can Educate Every Child provides readers with an account of the history of education legislation and pinpoints areas of concern in NCLB. In addition to identifying weaknesses, the authors go one step further presenting recommendations to fix the weaknesses in the legislation as they see them. The impact of this text could be far reaching, particularly considering the influence the Hoover Institution has on our current administration. This book is written from a thoroughly conservative perspective. While it is readily comprehensible, it does leave the reader wondering about issues strikingly absent. The authors’ writings are devoid of two-sided perspectives, the “how” of implementation of the recommendations, and the human face of student achievement. The Hoover Institution is widely known as a conservative think tank; its fellows are known for working with the current administration. The ideology of this organization is obvious in this work. Critiquing NCLB based on this ideology is not negative per se, but critiquing without illustrating the entire picture, leaves the reader questioning arguments and recommendations. The essays provide recommendations for each weakness in NCLB. These recommendations fail to address the biggest challenge: implementation. The feasibility of such recommendations seems not to be considered. The financial costs and the implications at the state and local level all seem to go unmentioned. In one case Walberg does discuss the feasibility of testing costs and computer adaptive testing. Conversely, and more often, the feasibility of policy recommendations such as increased responsibility of state agencies as recommended by Peterson are not addressed. Finally, this anthology is devoid of human faces. Education requires interaction among students, teachers, parents, and other stake holders. The authors seem to have boiled NCLB and student achievement down to numbers, test scores, and punitive measures. To omit the human side of student achievement may in the end prove to have left out the most critical element in education reform. Reference Hoover Institution (2005). Retrieved March 19, 2006, from http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/homepage/about.html About the Reviewer Maggie Bartlett is a doctoral student in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Arizona State University. Formerly a special education teacher, her research interests focus on special education policy in developing countries. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.