In the first five years of the No Child Left Behind Act, officials have been primarily focused on implementation issues such as how to manage schools in need of improvement. But author James H. Lytle says one critical element looms in the background: how states should intervene in schools not meeting AYP standards.
Typical state responses such as forming “corrective-action teams” to assess low-performing schools create a façade of intervention, Lytle writes, and there is little evidence to support an effective turnaround strategy. Lytle says the right thing to do is to slow down the sanctions timetable for NCLB and develop a more solid research base for proposed interventions.
What do you think? Should the sanctions timetable for the No Child Left Behind Act be slowed down?
A version of this news article first appeared in the TalkBack blog.