At the outset of his Administration, George W. Bush set out to neutralize a key Democratic issue, education, with his No Child Left Behind Act. NCLB was a grab bag and not beloved by conservatives for its massive expansion in Federal spending in education, but it did insist on the vaguely conservative principle of accountability.

The merits of that legislation can continue to be debated, but one political outcome is clear. We don’t talk much about education at the federal level these days. There is a sense that the problem was “solved” by NCLB, which is now nearly a decade old. Likewise, no one will try to move welfare reform legislation because the successful 1996 reform law substantively and politically took the wind out of the sails of that issue.

Emphasis mine. The notion that there’s a perception, even a political perception, that education has been “solved” in this country, let alone by NCLB, leaves me completely bejabbered. Ruffini invokes education as the model from which Republicans might have mapped a plan to reach a more politically desirable set of circumstances surrounding health care while Bush was in office. That’s all fine and good, and perhaps Ruffini is on to something in his observation that good-faith Republican policy efforts peel away planks from the Democratic political platform. But invoking NCLB? Seriously?

For days, I’ve been wondering if anybody else caught that and whether I’m the only one who thinks Ruffini is completely nuts in his assessment. Today, Kevin Drum pulls numbers on NCLB and public opinion. Click here for the chart, which is worth the trip.

That’s pretty remarkable. Not only is NCLB massively unpopular a decade after it was passed, but it’s about equally unpopular with both Democrats and Republicans. Everyone hates it. If Barack Obama really wants to bring the nation together, it sounds like deep sixing NCLB completely might be a pretty good way to do it.

Very good, then. If by “solved” Ruffini means that no one favors the Bush education legacy, then we can all agree and call it a day.

Actually, it’s worse than that. Here’s Benson on the topic of tuition limits in the Denver Post:

“These legislators are going to have to sit down and fish or cut bait,” Benson said. “Do you want to be a Third World piece of junk or a first-class higher-education institution?”

It’s probably unfair to take the guy out of context. That said, Benson’s comment looks pretty impolitic.

Let me start by saying I think high expectations are a good thing in any classroom. That said, it’s also our responsibility to set students up for success.

On that topic, this article has been sticking with me since Friday for a couple of reasons. First there’s this:

Denver high school students have performed poorly on Advanced Placement tests during the past five years. But administrators say they’ll push more kids than ever to take AP courses next year because they improve the odds of being successful in college.

“Some kids will go out and fail; we know that,” said Antwan Wilson, the instructional superintendent for Denver high schools. “We don’t want the first time they are exposed to a class like this to be in college. That’s awful late to be learning those lessons.”

The article cites no evidence to support that students who take AP courses (and fail) are more successful in college (paragraph 1). Not sure if that’s the paper’s oversight or the “administrators” mentioned. The suggestion that students who aren’t prepared to pass AP courses should take the courses anyway because college is “awful late to be learning those lessons” strikes me as pretty weak tea. I want more about how this program will prepare students to succeed.

The article outlines the basic DPS plan: A) administer the PSAT to all 9-11 graders (and pay the testing fees with general education and stimulus funds); B) target students who, based on grades alone, would not qualify to take AP classes but whose PSAT scores show “they have potential”; and C) invite said students to enroll in AP courses.

On the surface, I think all of that is okay. By all means, it’s a good thing to encourage Denver students to believe in themselves and to give traditionally underperforming students opportunities and incentives to raise the stakes. Not sure what happens to the program when stimulus funds run out, but if it’s successful then administrators will find a way to pay for it in the future–I hope. But the article does not address what resources DPS will funnel to participating schools to ensure that underprepared or underperforming students who enroll in AP courses and struggle under the increased workload will get the extra help they need to be successful with the advanced content and coursework expectations. That’s the part that worries me.

But not all students taking AP classes are succeeding. At Lincoln High School, another pilot school, the number of students who took AP tests increased to 252 from 181 between 2008 and 2009, while the number of students who passed AP tests increased to 50 from 44.

In each of Lincoln’s 10 AP classes, except Spanish language, fewer passed than failed the 2009 tests. No students passed the AP studio-art test, and only one student each passed the AP biology, physics and calculus tests. No students passed physics or calculus in 2008; biology was not offered then.

AP exams are scored 1 to 5, with marks of 3, 4 and 5 considered passing. On eight of the 2009 tests, the majority of students scored a 1, including 28 on the AP American history test and 46 in AP European history.

Sixty-five percent of students who took AP tests at Lincoln scored a 1, and 15 percent scored a 2.

Not exactly encouraging. If my math is correct–and it’s always worth checking my work–39% more students at Lincoln took the exam in 2009 than in 2008. Overall, 13% more Lincoln High students passed. But that number is misleading. To look at it another way, 24% of Lincoln AP students passed the exams in 2008. Only 20%* passed in 2009. So what gives?

I’d be curious to learn the average AP class size at Lincoln High, and whether or not, as the article suggests, that might be a factor. Certainly, underprepared or undermotivated students may take away from the experience for others in the course. More certainly, overtaxed teachers won’t be able to offer already struggling students the individual attention they may need. We shoud learn a little more, though, about resources and classroom environments before jumping on that issue.

I’d also be curious to discover what subjects students are failing. Is it math and sciences or the liberal arts that pose greater challenges? Are students doing all right where multiple choice sections assess basic retention but tanking on the essays that call for a greater degree of expression or assimilation and synthesis of ideas? How much do writing skills figure into the challenges students face to succeed in the liberal arts courses?

Indeed, questions about student performance and additional support for AP students came up a year ago in regard to DPS testing and AP course enrollment. And to be fair, a year ago–according to the older article–DPS administrators suggested that extra tutoring would be available to help kids through.

So I think it’s worth a check-in to see how the tutoring is going, whether schools like Lincoln feel that they not only create opportunity but also set students up for success, and whether or not greater enrollment in AP courses really does improve students’ chances in college even when students fail the exams at the end of the course.

Since none of this info is readily available on the DPS website, and since it’s after business hours at the communications office, I’ll be getting back to you in another post with available data on these questions.