In the first study of its kind, a pair of economists at the University of Chicago have found data which they believe indicates that NCLB has had a demonstrable effect in "teaching to the middle."

The concept--and corresponding critiques--of "teaching to the middle" are not new. In its quickest version, the theory goes that NCLB or any similar attempt to increase the number of students passing a proficiency standard will invariably shape the nature of the students upon whom teachers and schools will focus their greatest attention. If the standards are set extremely high, the schools will invariably respond by catering most closely to those students at the upper end who are nearest to meeting the standards. If the standards are set very low, the school will focus more attention on the students at that particular end of the achievement spectrum with the same hope of maximizing the number of proficient students.

The study finds evidence from Chicago Public Schools in the wake of NCLB that students in the middle of the achievement spectrum have had the greatest gains since NCLB's inception, while students at the upper and lower levels have experienced smaller gains. The implication that the researchers draw is that NCLB, which requires states to set standards that many reformers would agree are best described as middling to low, has had exactly the effect that one might expect from the "teaching to the middle theory". That is, because Illinois students are expected to reach a mid-level standard in reading, math, and science the schools have responded by focusing on those students in the middle to get them to pass, and have essentially left the high end students to their own devices (since they'll pass without much special attention) and the lowest-end students to the same (since it would take far more resources to get one low-performing student up to proficiency than a student is in the middle and just under the bar).

The irony, of course, as this Education Week article explains, is that while NCLB was passed for the ostensible purpose of defeating the "soft bigotry of low expectations" as President Bush famously declared, it is in fact by holding a lower standard that the students in most need of help will receive the most attention.

Or so the theory of "teaching to the middle" goes. The truth is, the study from the Chicago Public Schools is but one small sample in a sea of moving targets and variables, and it would be unwise to take it as conclusive proof of anything. Moreover, it's entirely possible that "teaching to the middle" and its effects have happened long before NCLB was even in the works, since it is a common instructional instinct to focus on the "low-hanging fruit" represented by mid-level students who have the potential to do better. Many young teachers report focusing on those students since they see their high-achievers as being more self-sufficient and the low-achievers as being far more difficult and requiring more time and attention than they might be able to afford.

Even if this is the case, it doesn't render the problem solved; there is still a basic fairness question here. Should students receive more or less attention depending on their achievement level? If so, who should receive more attention - those at the top who may be the future engineers and poet laureates, or those at the bottom who could also be future engineers and poet laureates if only given more support and attention in school? Even after we answer that question in principle, how do we actualize it from a policy perspective?

The best answer we have to that question, from a theoretical basis, is to begin moving from a proficiency standards based accountability system to a growth model / value-added system that more and more reformers are pushing for today. By holding schools and teachers accountable (and rewarding them) for sparking student learning gains regardless of whether those are gains with low end or high end students, policy makers have the potential to avert the "teaching to the middle" problem. The problem is, most states still lack the kind of data systems necessary to implement the growth model accountability system, and there is significant resistence from major education stakeholders (teachers unions in particular, who argue that growth model evaluation is still unproven) from having the growth model tied to any real stakes.

Got any better ideas for how to avoid the teaching to the middle problem? Feel free to share them here.