THE EDUCATION FRONT

The Texas Education Agency announced Wednesday that one school district - the long-troubled Kendleton district near Houston - and three charter schools are losing their state accreditation because of substandard academic or financial ratings. All are expected to close by July, including the Jean Massieu Academy in Arlington. The other charter schools are in San Marcos and Houston - although the TEA noted the Houston school is not presently in operation.

"This is an extremely serious step and it is not one that this agency takes lightly," said state Education Commissioner Robert Scott. "Each of these (charter schools and district) has exhibited years of extremely poor academic performance and/or ongoing financial problems. Children and taxpayers deserve better." Two other school districts and three charter schools were classified as "Accredited-Probation," meaning they could face closure next year if they fail to improve. Among the charter schools are Metro Academy of Math and Science in Arlington and Northwest Preparatory in Fort Worth.

On the other side, nearly 1,200 school districts and charter schools earned full accreditation status, with their academic and financial health meeting minimum state standards in those areas. "An overwhelming majority of our Texas school districts and charters are providing strong academic instruction to students and are appropriately handling public funds," Scott said. That number represents about 97 percent of the school districts and charter schools in the state. This year marks the first time that school districts or campuses have been closed because of poor ratings in the three-year-old accreditation system.

To create a forum for informed debate, we need the help of people in the classroom. From that perspective, we can learn a lot about how teachers and students react to the latest school reform idea out of Austin. Or how teachers feel about the cultural changes happening in their community. Or how young people feel about the changing world and their place in it.

News pages can give us the facts, but these people can tell us what others in our community think about those facts. And they can effect change.

For these reasons, The Dallas Morning News is accepting applications for Teacher Voices and Student Voices for the 2010-2011 school year. Voices volunteers contribute a few full-length columns per semester and are the stars of our weekly Sounding Off feature on Sundays. They also participate in writing workshops and other special events with the editorial staff. To apply:

For students:

1. Write a little about yourself, including your hobbies and activities. How would others describe you? Why should we choose you to be part of this diverse panel?
2. Share samples of your writing or write something on a current topic that could be published. Letters to the editor should be about 200 words, and full-length commentary should be about 650 words.
3. Jot down three topics you would like to write about.
4. Attach a letter of recommendation from a teacher or an adult supervisor in one of your extracurricular activities. No, the teacher does not need to be a journalism adviser. Please include your reference's full daytime contact information.
5. E-mail the application to voices@dallasnews.com. Include your address and phone number. Please send the entire application in one e-mail -- with minimal attachments.

1. Write a little about yourself: How long have you been a teacher? Where do you teach? What subjects do you teach? Why should we choose you to be part of this diverse panel?
2. Tell us (in a few paragraphs): Why do you teach?
3. Jot down three topics you would like to write about.
4. E-mail the application to voices@dallasnews.com. Include your address and phone number. Please send the entire application in one e-mail -- with minimal attachments.

The Texas Education Agency issued an unusual press release Wednesday taking the Fox Network to task for what the agency said were "highly inaccurate" news reports about the State Board of Education and its current work on new curriculum standards for social studies. The TEA release came as Fox sent two news trucks and reporting teams to Austin to cover the three-day meeting of the education board, highlighted by its scheduled vote on the new standards Friday.

"The Fox Network in recent days has repeatedly broadcast highly inaccurate information about the State Board of Education's efforts to adopt the new social studies curriculum standards," the TEA said in the news release. "Here are the facts," the state agency said, citing a half dozen errors in a March 10 Fox broadcast. One of the most glaring inaccuracies was that Texas was only going to teach U.S. history from 1877 to the present. In fact, earlier U.S. history is taught in the eighth grade, while the period 1877 to the present is typically presented in the 11th grade.

Fox was also chided for reporting that George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Christmas, Independence Day and Veterans Day have been removed from textbooks by the board. In fact, the board will not adopt textbooks for U.S. history for a couple of years. Currently, the board is adopting the standards and subject matter that will have to be reflected in textbooks and classroom instruction in the future. And all of the subjects in question - Washington, Lincoln, Christmas, etc. - have been included in the standards by the board, contrary to what Fox News reported.

The Dallas Morning News' Diane Rado produced an insightful story Sunday about Dallas' problem with 10 of its high schools being on the lowest rung of the No Child Left Behind ranking system. I won't re-report her details. You can read them here. But I would like to offer some ideas that readers can consider as they think about chronically failing schools, especially if they're trying to figure out how serious a district is in saving kids in those schools.

Admittedly, turning around failing schools is difficult, but there are ways to see if a district is getting after this. Here are a few thoughts:

First, what is a district doing to bring in operators of successful charter schools, like KIPP, to give the students in failing schools an alternative? I don't mean having a nice one-time talk with operators of proven charters, but a serious wooing of them to help.

Second, what are districts doing to help schools who may have a problem with a small group of students but not necessarily the entire school? What are they doing to get them over the hump? For example, what sort of reading intervention strategies are they using? Or who are they following or talking to get the best math expertise? The National Math and Science Initiative is trying to ramp up schools' ability to teach math. Are districts talking to groups like that?

Third, what kind of leader is a superintendent bringing in to fix a problem school? Hopefully, they are moving strong principals into these schools. But they don't always do that.

Now, I admit superintendents are kind of like major league baseball managers. They don't always have the best talent surrounding them. If that's the case, and they don't have enough good principals, who is the superintendent consulting for help? What educational leaders is he or she talking to for counsel?

Fourth, what kind of pressure is a district putting on its middle schools? If it is truly intervening with them so their students are increasingly likely to reach high school ready for those demanding years, maybe that district deserves a little slack in its attempt to turnaround failing high schools. But if the district is only giving lip service to middle school reform, they deserve no slack.

Fifth, where is a district recruiting its teachers? What educational schools does it seek out? Which one of the emerging teacher prep programs, such as The New Teacher Project or Teach for America, is it getting on the phone? Again, I don't mean a call here or there, but a big effort to draw in teachers who've gone through rigorous leadership training.

There is no magic way to turn around schools. But there are ways to determine how serious a district is in pursuing that goal.

(Editor's Note: As part of this blog's exploration of how progress can be spread across big urban districts, The Education Front is focusing on how districts can develop strong teachers. They, after all, are the key to progress being shared around a district. After reading Bush Institute fellow Jim Guthrie's observations about developing education leaders, Marisa Wolf, Dallas site director of the Texas Teaching Fellows Program, responded with her ideas. Below is an excerpt of her email from last week, along with an explanation of the program.)

At the Texas Teaching Fellows program, we've long grappled with your question of whether strong teachers are born or made, and have come to the conclusion that excellent teaching is a product of both talent and training. Since 2005, we've recruited over 1,000 talented career-changers and recent graduates to teach in high-need schools in Texas, over 400 of those in the Dallas area. So what does it take to prepare effective teachers?

1. Select only the best candidates. In 2009, Texas Teaching Fellows attracted 2,500 applications and accepted just 13% of candidates. They all demonstrate key traits of successful teachers -- strong content knowledge, excellent communication skills, a record of achievement, and an ability to be flexible yet proactive in the face of challenges.

Unfortunately, selectivity is the exception rather than the norm. Statewide, alternative certification programs accept 3 of every 4 teacher applicants. Our state needs to hold its teacher preparation providers more accountable for the effectiveness of their graduates. We applaud the Texas Education Agency's plan to rate Educator Preparation Programs on their teachers' ability to raise student achievement.

2. Provide intensive, relevant training and ongoing support. Texas Teaching Fellows complete rigorous pre-service training, which specifically focuses on effective teaching strategies in high-need schools. The research-based curriculum pairs instructional techniques and classroom management skills, which Fellows apply right away by leading summer school classes and working with experienced teachers. During their first year in the classroom, Fellows receive professional development and coaching from mentors while they complete their certification.

Emerging research is showing that the Texas Teaching Fellows "practitioner" model of preparation - pairing relevant coursework and classroom practice - consistently produces effective teachers. In a 2009 study, teachers certified by the same practitioner model in a sister program in Louisiana outperformed even experienced teachers in raising student achievement in the core content areas of math and reading.

What is the Texas Teaching Fellows program? Here is an explanation:

Texas Teaching Fellows, an initiative of The New Teacher Project (TNTP), is taking a comprehensive approach to improving teacher quality in Texas. The program works hand-in-hand with partner districts in Austin, Dallas, El Paso and San Antonio to build a pool of talented teacher candidates and provide innovative teacher training and certification. Since 2005, Texas Teaching Fellows has recruited and trained over 1,000 talented career-changers and recent graduates to teach in high-need schools. www.texasteachingfellows.org

The New Teacher Project helps school districts and states fulfill the promise of public education by ensuring that all students - especially those from high-need communities - get excellent teachers. A national nonprofit organization founded by teachers, TNTP is driven by the knowledge that although great teachers are the best solution to educational inequality, the nation's education systems do not sufficiently prioritize the goal of effective teachers for all.

In response, TNTP develops customized programs and policy interventions that enable education leaders to find, develop and keep great teachers and achieve reforms that promote effective teaching in every classroom. Since its inception in 1997, TNTP has recruited or trained approximately 37,000 teachers benefiting an estimated 5.9 million students.

TNTP has also released a series of acclaimed studies of the policies and practices that affect the quality of the nation's teacher workforce, most recently including The Widget Effect: Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Differences in Teacher Effectiveness (2009). Today TNTP is active in more than 40 cities, including Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, New Orleans, New York, and Oakland, among others. For more information, please visit www.tntp.org.

Here's an update from an earlier post this week about the second most important race in Texas, the one involving State Board of Education incumbent Don McLeroy and his Republican challenger Thomas Ratliff.

Ratliff, as you may have seen, won that race. As a result, his triumph creates the potential for a tectonic shift in the board's politics. That will be a good thing for Texas students.

McLeroy, a Bryan dentist, was a ringleader of the socially conservative faction that questioned the study of evolution, went to war over reading comprehension standards, argued for students to learn more about conservatives than liberals in social studies and generally saw the board as a place to extend fights about the culture. The McLeroy faction also made some questionable calls in hiring firms to invest the state's school money.

McLeroy's exit means the dynamics of the board should shift. Instead of eight social conservatives battling the board's seven other members, some of whom are Republicans and some of whom are Democrats, the less ideological members should have the upper hand.

I say "should" because no one really knows how Republican George Clayton will shake out. He upset fellow Dallas Republican Tincy Miller, a longtime incumbent who was part of the moderate wing.

Clayton prides himself on being a voice for teachers, who he believes are underrepresented on the panel. The North Dallas High School academic coordinator also said in our questionnaire that he believes "public education is one of the great levelers in our society. It is administered without prejudice to all who seek it."

That's good, so now take that belief and apply it for the wellbeing of Texas students. For example, he told our editorial board that SBOE members should be a voice for fighting Texas' dropout problem. Fine, now push for policies that will help curb the problem, which doesn't mean lowering standards.

In fact, the worst thing this board could do is use its power to dumb down Texas' education standards. The board sets student benchmarks, and is doing so now on social studies. Most of the heavy-lifting on standards will be done by the time that Ratliff and Clayton are likely to join the board in January (they only have nominal opposition from Libertarian candidates in November). But they will have plenty of time during their tenure to weigh in on rigor in the classroom, including in the textbooks they select for students.

Ratliff also has the skills to build broader coalitions on this board. He brings the experience of a practical parent who has served on committees at his children's schools. And he wants to steer the board away from distracting debates about creation and evolution. He also doesn't subscribe to the view that "cultural war" fights are inevitable on this board.

All in all, this panel could use some stability. And Ratliff's quiet leadership should help create it.

The Bush Institute holds its first education seminar today. The subject is educational leadership. Here is an interview I did for our Sunday Points section with James Guthrie, who is the institute's senior fellow for education studies.

I'm particularly interested in the question of whether good teachers are naturally that way, or whether they are the product of years of training. What's your thought?

Also, I'm interested in whether it's possible for a superintendent to be good at both finances and academics. What's your thought?

Most of us in Texas are concentrated on the governor's race, which certainly is the most crucial contest in the primary both parties are holding tomorrow. But not far behind in importance is a race for the State Board of Education seat, Place 9. Incumbent board member Don McLeroy, a Bryan Republican, is being challenged by Thomas Ratliff, a Mount Pleasant Republican.

As readers of this blog know, the board is very crucial. Among other responsibilities, it shapes the standards the state uses to assess students, determines what goes in our textbooks and oversees the state fund that finances public schools. All three areas also have been in the papers lately.

The board's debates over standards for reading, social studies and science have been hotly contested. Its decisions about what goes in textbooks, like the teaching of evolution, have drawn plenty of attention. And its calls about what outside companies land contracts to manage the school fund have sparked controversy. Morning News reporter and Education Front blogger Terry Stutz did a good job describing those controversies in this piece.

The board's actions also have gotten attention nationally. Most recently, the New York Times Magazine wrote about McLeroy and the board. He's been a leader of the eight or so social and cultural conservatives, whose doubts about evolution, approaches to reading comprehension, inclusion of conservatives in textbooks and exclusion of liberals have been part of the brouhaha surrounding the 15-member panel.

For the record, I had no problem with the McLeroy faction wanting more conservatives included in the social studies standards. Nor did I think they were out of bounds in asking that students have a better idea about the religious influences on the country's evolution.

But the board's socially conservative wing has deserved most of the critique and attention it has received. Their questioning of what teachers suggested about reading comprehension, their skepticism of evolution, their exclusion of liberals in social studies standards and their decisions surrounding the hiring of school fund managers has caused even Republican members of the board to say enough.

Ratliff hopes to join the enough-is-enough faction, which includes Republicans TIncy Miller, Pat Hardy and Bob Craig. This race involves North Texas, by the way. Parts of Collin County are in the district that McLeroy holds.

I'd suggest paying attention to the contest tomorrow night because a McLeroy victory would continue business as usual. A Ratliff upset would mean that more pragmatic members gain the upper hand. Whichever way it goes, the outcome sure will affect a lot of Texans.

I noticed in today's paper that Bill White was down in the Rio Grande Valley talking about Rick Perry's failures. Among other things, the Democratic gubernatorial hopeful criticized Gov. Perry for agreeing to deregulate tuition policies at state universities. In other words, White doesn't think universities should be able to set their own rates.

(Update: Bill White's spokesperson has responded since this post went up. See her reply in comments box.)

I wish they didn't have to set their own rates, that's for sure. I wish the Legislature would make good on its responsibility and adequately fund our colleges.

But that hasn't happened and it is not going to happen, plain and simple. That's why the Legislature, back in 2003, broke with tradition and gave universities the right to set their rates.

Tuition shot up for a few years, but then stabilized after the public pushed back. Some schools even started granting free admission to families up to a certain income level.

That's kind of where we are now. And I understand the politics here: White thinks he can tap into public anger about tuition.

But if he's going to do that, what is his plan for making sure the Legislature adequately funds UT, A&M, etc.? If he doesn't have one, then what are schools to do?

You can look for his answer to tuition rates on our Voter Guide here. He doesn't really give a clear answer about making up for the funding difference.

President Obama made education news yesterday when he told the National Governors' Association that future federal grants to states for schools that serve largely low-income students will be contingent upon states developing benchmarks for reading and math that show whether a student is ready for college or a livable-wage post-secondary job.

Under the president's plan, states can go after this in one of two ways. They can come up with their own reading and math standards, which their local universities must attest are preparing students for college or a career. Or, states can join with the group of governors that are trying to come up with a core group of common standards in those subjects for all their states.

This proposal sounds good for two reasons, but with a caveat.

The DMN's Holly Hacker and Bob Garrett reported this week on the budget cuts that state agencies are being asked to make to help correct the state's budget shortfall of anywhere between $10 billion to $15 billion. Universities naturally were on the list, including about $26.6 million in reductions for UT-Austin, $7.2 million for UT-Dallas and $8.3 million for UT-Arlington.

We're in a hole, so everyone's going to have to live with less than ideal situations. University of Texas System Chancellor Francisco Cigarroa acknowledged that point in an editorial board interview Wednesday.

But he also pointed out something that surprised me. While the UT-System got about a 6.7 percent increase in legislative appropriations during last year's session, UT-Austin got only about a 1.9 percent hike.

That's because the state uses formulas based upon enrollment to help fund campuses. And UT-Austin has pretty much maxed out on its enrollment capacity. (UT-Dallas, on the other hand, is in a growth phase so it received a greater percentage increase in legislative appropriations.)

Cigarroa said he was exploring ways the Legislature could fund schools other than through enrollment figures. He didn't have any specific suggestions, but that seems like a plausible path to go down. Perhaps the Legislature could reward things like cutting-edge research projects.

Whatever the answer, we all have a vested interest in UT-Austin, as well as Texas A&M, climbing higher in the rankings of public universities. Students would benefit from top faculty and better student-teacher ratios. And the state would gain from the innovation that comes out of top public universities.

I pressed Cigarroa some about expanding the amount that the UT System spends each year from its endowment, which puts UT in the top five or so of university endowments nationwide. I have no desire to see UT draw it down in a way that harms future generations. Hey, I have kids that I would like to go there someday!

But UT should at least look at easing up on its yearly drawdown, which regents recently moved from 4.75 of the fund's value to 5 percent. That changed ended up flowing a few million more into UT-Austin.

So, here's my question: How much could UT-Austin get if regents voted to start drawing down some more each year, eventually reaching, say, 5.5 percent or even 6 percent? (My understanding is that Yale spends 6 percent.) And what impact would that have on the multi-billion dollar endowment over time?

I don't know the answers, but maybe a little more liberal use of the endowment could help UT get enough extra revenues without having to worry about those funding formulas.

So far, no one — not Gretchen Bataille, not Chancellor Lee Jackson, not the board of regents — has explained just why Bataille is so suddenly and shockingly leaving the presidency of the University of North Texas.

But in a letter sent Tuesday to board members of the UNT Foundation, which raises money for UNT, Bataille leaves some intriguing clues.

"I am sure that over time the reasons for my resignation will become clearer," she writes. Specific enough to say we will in fact learn the truth, yet vague enough that we don't know when or how the truth will emerge.

Jackson says they tried for over a year to improve their relationship. But Bataille writes, "Until the past week I was anticipating a long and successful tenure as president of UNT." Which begs the question: what very recent event triggered her departure?

Still no details. Bataille (who has a PhD in English) simply writes, "As many of you know, things change — or as both Chinua Achebe and William Butler Yeats wrote, sometimes 'things fall apart.'"

Read Bataille's letter and Jackson's comments below. And you can read some of our recent stories here and here and here. And here's why our editorial board thinks we deserve an explanation.

And for one UNT insider's thoughts on what really happened, check this out.
.
Bataille Foundation Letter

Jackson FacSen Speech

Is Ken Starr a good pr bad pick to lead Baylor? We had a discussion about this on the Opinion blog yesterday.

Here is my take:

We don't know yet. It depends upon how good of an administrator and fundraiser he turns out to be.

The bigger issue is whether or not he will be a good educator. He led Pepperdine Law School for a few years, so he has some track record. But I don't think we will know the answer for a while.

What's your view?

By agreeing last week to put more money in Juarez's schools, Mexican President Felipe Calderon placed a bet on his country's future. He may not have many good wagers to make given the violence along the border, but this was a smart one. The money won't turn Juarez around tomorrow, but it could later if students have an alternative to the lucrative but deadly life of a drug cartel member.

Mexico's schools have notoriously been behind others internationally, despite some recent reforms to increase standards. The unions remain strong. But the fact Calderon diverted some money from the immediate need of reining in the drug violence shows that he gets the long-term picture. Mexico can't move beyond Third World status without a better education system.

The U.S. could help with the situation, too. Thomas Friedman wrote recently in the New York Times that for every buck we spend on drones in Yemen we should spend an equal amount on building schools there. Well, the same principle applies to Mexico. For every buck we apply to fighting the narcos through military or policing means, we should give Mexico an equivalent amount in educational aid. As in Yemen, we will benefit in the long-run if Mexican students opt for a life in the global economy.

By the way, our aid doesn't have to be entirely in dollars. We could get folks involved in turning around our urban schools to share during summer trips or through video-conferences the best ways to reach students. (Numerous Americans already provide scholarship aid to young Mexican students through churches and civic organizations.)

An idea like this may sound naive, but look at it this way: Our security along the border depends upon fewer young Mexicans drifting into gang violence. Calderon's placing a strategic bet on schools being part of the answer. Why don't we do the same?

That's what KWTX in Waco is reporting.

Bill White said something interesting and different in Monday night's gubernatorial debate. Different for most Democrats, that is.

When asked about the state's school funding situation, he said that parents should be free to put what they want into their children's school after the state has met its funding obligations. At the same time, the state must make sure that kids from all backgrounds have access to quality schools.

To make sure I heard that correctly, I followed up with the White campaign. Here is their post-debate statement:

"In addressing the question posed by the Dallas schoolteacher, Bill was recognizing the basic tensions that school districts and the legislature face. In trying to create a funding system that is fair and meets everyone's needs, there are competing principles. First, that all students, regardless of their economic situation and where in the state they live, have equal access to a quality education. Second, that local communities are able to make decisions about how much money they put towards education."

This approach may sound like a no-brainer, but Democrats usually haven't been so forthcoming about letting parents put what they want into their child's school. They often focus on equalizing funding. What White is saying allows for the fact that some schools could end up with more money beyond what the state puts in through its funding formulas.

That was a clear --and politically smart -- nod to surbuban voters, who often are passionate about building up their children's schools. White, a Democrat, knows he needs some suburbanites to win in the fall.

More than the politics of his position, the state shouldn't shoo away parents who want to improve upon the state's investment, as long as they don't run afoul of school finance laws.

Make no mistake: White also is signaling that the state has a clear responsibility to adequately fund all schools. That's his way of saying to urban and rural Texans that the state can't shortchange them. (As a Dallas resident, I'm glad to hear that.)

These funding issues get quite technical, but basically the state has a legal responsibility to give all schools access to an equal amount of wealth. After that is where things can get tricky. Some don't like to think about schools being free to access other buckets after the state has done its job. But White is giving them some wiggle room.

This is both good policy and good politics.

Here's what I want to hear more about tonight in the Democratic gubernatorial debate:

Bill White, the former Houston mayor who is the frontrunner, says that he wants to "take aggressive action against diploma mills that offer a high school diploma with little education."

What does that mean?

If it means that he is taking an Obama-like line and will shut down failing schools, which is not a popular position with some educators, then that' s a great idea. He's showing a willingness to take on teachers, a traditional Democratic bloc. More than that, he's not giving schools repeated chances to fail students if the campuses don't meet the standards of the state.

But if he means something other than shutting down schools or redesigning them, two actions that have caused a stir when it comes to campuses like Dallas Spruce High School and Austin's Johnston High, then this is not good. It's easy to talk tough, but it's much harder to intervene on behalf of kids. There are all sorts of folks, from principals to teachers to parents to students, who prefer the status quo.

Which does White mean?

I hope we find out tonight.

Editor's Note: Tom Luce, the Dallas attorney who heads the National Math and Science Initiative, is the second guest blogger to weigh in on our discussion about what it takes to spread progress across a big urban school district. A former assistant secretary of education under George W. Bush, Luce had these thoughts:

The comment I encounter most often when talking about education across the country is that people say, "Oh my goodness. The problem is so overwhelming. Where do we start?" There is a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth.

But there is hope. We do have American programs that work.

I believe we are proving at the National Math and Science Initiative that one of the most effective approaches to take is to identify those worthy programs that are "tried and true" and then share them with as many students as possible in order to do the most good. We are doing this by replicating math and science programs nationally that have a documented record of success.

Since 2007, NMSI has taken a leadership role in the U.S. in identifying and replicating successful educational programs on a national scale. That is our particular expertise -- "scaling up" programs by expanding them to multiple states, across multiple jurisdictions, and at multiple universities.

While there have been a host of pilot programs focused on the math and science achievement gap, NMSI is one of the few organizations that has rigorously researched and then replicated programs that have produced immediate and sustainable results. We then organize public-private partnerships and coalitions to fund the expansion of the programs, including corporate and foundation donations as well as federal and state funding.

At this moment, NMSI is implementing two "lighthouse programs" that are showing the way ahead. Last year, our AP Training and Incentive Program to help students succeed in college-level classes produced a 52 percent increase in the Advanced Placement courses passed. That is nine times greater than the national average. Just as importantly, this program can help reduce the minority achievement gap - our participating schools showed a 71 percent increase in AP courses passed by African American and Hispanic students.

We also are training a new generation of skilled math and science teachers through the UTeach program. This popular program is now being expanded to 20 universities around the country. Enrollment has nearly doubled. But we have dozens more universities on our waiting list.

Both of these programs were commended in the 2005 National Academies' report "Rising Above the Gathering Storm" for having 10 years of data showing they produce positive results. Both of these programs are proving that you can take a good idea and make it even better by sharing it. "Scaling up" is the kind of commonsense approach that can make a real difference in our country's math and science gap. It's not just hopeful, it's do-able if more people pitch in.

You could see this move coming a long time ago.

A few years back, as states started getting nervous about No Child Left Behind holding them responsible for their students meeting the educational standards of their own states, their officials started fiddling with their collars and asking for more breathing room, even weakening their standards. Now comes the Obama administration, and its education secretary Arne Duncan is floating the idea of giving up on No Child's goal of seeing how many students in each school are making significant progress each year. He's also suggesting Congress give up on the goal of children being proficient in their subjects by 2014, calling that part of No Child "utopian."

If the administration has its way with these two changes, let's just be honest: We as a nation will be giving up on kids, especially the many poor and minority children who are stuck in failing schools. We as a nation will be saying, we don't think you can learn at grade level. And we don't think we should ask you to achieve at an academic rate that will prepare you for a complicated world. That's the hard, cold reality, so if we decide to go down that road, let's just be realistic about what we are doing.

Now, with that said, there are certainly ways and places to improve upon No Child Left Behind, which was passed nine years ago with overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both houses. No law is sacred, and there are ways to improve upon this bill.

Here are a few:

1. Allow states to show progress with their students, even if not all are proficient. In short, let them distinguish between the improving ones and the terrible ones.

That's called "differentiated consequences," and it's a concept that Bush Education Secretary Margaret Spellings used to let states show they are making some progress, just not enough progress. The idea allows schools to keep working with struggling students without being put on a black list.

2. Make sure the standards of each state prepare kids to graduate from high school with the skills for either a good trade job or college. Duncan talks about college/career readiness being a new goal, so pursue it, much like Texas did in adopting a new school accountability system in 2009.

But let's be specific about what these terms mean and what we expect kids to do to earn that recognition. Fuzziness will not help them compete in a world where others are rushing to become the next global economic powers.

3. Give states more money to improve low-performing campuses. This is a no-brainer, as long as the concept is more money-and-strong standards. If it is more money and less accountability, then this reform will make no sense at all.

4. Extend the date that states must have their students learning at grade level. I liked the 2014 goal because that let states take their entering kindergarteners in 2002, when the law kicked in, and get them at grade level by the time they walked across the stage and collected their high school diploma in 2014.

If Duncan and Congress think that's too hard, kick it back a few years. Just don't give up on it.

Duncan talked about some of these changes in a recent New York Times article. But he really didn't give many details. Evidently, he thinks that's something he and Congress will work on over the next few months.

What we need to hear next are precise details. This isn't about No Child per se, but the concepts in the landmark bill. If there's a way to build upon the idea of measuring students annually and seeing whether they are being left behind, then let's do it. But if that's not what's going on here, let's be honest with the students in Dallas, Los Angeles, Chicago and everyplace else.

Whether the answer is yes or no, I'd like to know the reasons behind your decision. It's for a story I'm working on today. Feel free to post a comment or e-mail me directly. Thanks!