In a major policy shift, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings promised yesterday to use her discretion in determining which school districts are truly underperforming under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) laws. The move, which appeared to be equal parts spin control and attempting to cut reform efforts off at the knees, was announced by Spellings at an appearance in St. Paul, MN, according to a press release from the Department of Education. (See the NY Times story here.)

Under the "Differentiated Accountability" program, up to 10 states would have additional leeway in meeting strict NCLB improvement requirements for all student groups, a major bone of contention many educators have with the law. While still stressing that no relief would be given to "dropout factories," Spellings indicated that she would work with states to find more "nuanced" ways of measuring, instead of, for example, labeling an entire school as failing because some group of students (who might be, say, 2 kids with special needs) were not meeting arbitrary criteria.

In what has to be the most blinding display of doublespeak since Colin Powell sold the Iraq War to the UN, Secretary Spellings said:

"We already have so much customization in our lives. Our computers are built to order, our eyeglasses are ready in an hour and every time I go online to buy a book, a window pops up that tells me if I like this one, then here are 5 more I should try.

If you're working on your golf swing or your tennis game, your instruction is tailored to you. Why shouldn't we do the same in education-an area that's far more critical to our long-term success as a nation?

As technology and innovation transform the way we live, work, and play, schools must become flexible and agile enough to meet employers'-and students'-changing needs. And that means tailoring instruction and using time and resources in different ways-so that every child gets the extra help they need when they need it…as well as the rigorous coursework they need and deserve.."
— via ED.gov press release

I doubt there are many educators who read that without laughing.

NCLB has been about the exact opposite: one-size-fits-all measurement and a big stick for schools that fail to hit the mark, Spellings's Orwellian spin notwithstanding. If the DOE suddenly cares about tailoring instruction to fit students, it can only be because the legislation is so broken that even they recognize they're sinking, and they're trying to get out the porthole before the ship goes under.

I'm not against rigor. Quite the opposite. To be truly rigorous, education has to first take the measure of the student, know their zone of proximal development, and devise targeted interventions. That is unimaginably rigorous work for 90,000 schools across the country to do, and it would require a step-function increase in education staffing, teacher training, and appropriate testing. But we weren't going to do that. So the Administration declared arbitrary targets, and if a few otherwise healthy schools were taken out by our attack on the dropout factories, well, that was collateral damage.

Rigorously pursuing an erroneous goal is not rigor at all, but the very essence of insanity.