No Child Left Behind: The Questions Remain Unanswered 1

No Child Left Behind: The Questions Remain Unanswered

Lisa Randlett Appalachian State University Reading Seminar 5710 No Child Left Behind: The Questions Remain Unanswered 2

Background

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act is an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. NCLB targets improving the education of all students nationwide especially disadvantaged students. As the research center for Education Week (2005) points out NCLB has expanded the role of the federal government in education and impacts all public schools throughout America. NCLB has many facets but the central theme is increasing testing and holding schools accountable for all students’ progress by looking at the test scores of specific sub groups of students. The sub groups are defined by race, disability, English language proficiency and socioeconomic background. Some of the highlights of this massive legislation include:  Annual testing in grades 3-8 in reading and math by the 2005-2006 school year.  Monitoring academic progress of individual schools. States must bring all students up to grade level proficiency by the 2013-2014 school year.  Increasing teacher qualifications by insuring that all teachers are qualified to teach the area they are working in by 2005-2006 school year (Education Week website, 2005). Education Week (2005) also indicated that this legislation has become quite controversial throughout the educational community for many reasons. Many schools will have a difficult time meeting the timelines established in NCLB and it has been reported “nearly 30,000 schools nationwide have been identified as not making adequate yearly progress (AYP) in 2002-2003. Many educators and policy makers have questioned the feasibility and fairness of its goals and time frames” (Education Week website, 2005). Some educators feel NCLB has political motives and the ultimate goal is to “undermine public schools” (Education Week website, 2005). Others support this law and characterize the laws accountability mandates as “vital levers for change, inclusiveness and transparency of results” (Education Week website, 2005). Some may look at the NCLB act as a good tool for forcing school improvement as Neill (2003) suggests. NCLB could possibly be used to bring about positive changes in education simply by raising expectations for all students. Often teachers have lower expectations, which result in lower achievement. Both those who support this legislation and those who oppose it make some valid points. Unfortunately as it is currently written with unrealistic and unattainable expectations and time frames I believe it will have more negative results than positive ones. Wonderfully thorough and well-supported introduction of the major issues. As the Title I Coordinator and teacher at a school with many of the disadvantaged students this act targets, I love the promises that NCLB legislation makes. As Neill (2003) says, who wouldn’t want increased funding for the education of low-income disadvantaged students? Who wouldn’t want to eliminate the “achievement gap” between different groups of students, especially those our educational system has failed in the past? Who wouldn’t want all students to be successfully educated using the best practices and highest quality teachers? Sadly, NCLB will be unable to fulfill all these wonderful promises that sound so appealing to teachers, parents, legislators and students. Once you thoughtfully consider this legislation and get past the catchy name (No child left behind) real problems and questions become apparent. These questions involve No Child Left Behind: The Questions Remain Unanswered 3 bringing about real school improvement, addressing achievement gaps realistically, utilizing the best, fairest assessments, looking at the effects NCLB has on expectations and the curriculum, asking what highly qualified teachers really means, and does NCLB treat educators as professionals?

Will NCLB Bring About School Improvement Across America?

As a member of my school’s School Improvement Team and after researching ways to bring about school improvement and instigating change in schools I have learned that real school improvement begins with changes that start with individual schools and teachers not changes that are mandated from the federal government. Some supporters of NCLB would argue that this legislation will force educators to make changes to improve the education of all students. NCLB will be unable to achieve lasting, positive changes that these supporters suggest. In the article The role of Teachers in Urban School Reform, Laura Desimone (2000) discusses teachers’ commitment to school changes and reforms. This commitment is fundamental to any school program or school improvement. The article basically states that teachers who share the vision that changes in school structure and classroom practice are necessary to improve student outcomes are likely to support implementation of a model. It also explains the benefits of teachers who see implementation of a model as a major permanent initiative, instead of just another passing reform. The punitive nature of NCLB doesn’t win the support of many teachers that I know. In fact the unrealistic expectations of NCLB is upsetting to all educators. Some teachers look at this legislation as just another passing reform that will eventually have to change because schools will not achieve 100% student proficiency, which it mandates. Others think NCLB is politically motivated to eventually do away with public education, as we know it. Either way this legislation won’t bring about real school real improvement.

Will NCLB Close the Achievement Gap?

As a reading teacher I have learned that students move through certain stages of literacy in a developmental progression. Students who have been read to at home and who have had lots of experiences come to school with an advantage. These students move more rapidly through these stages of literacy. They already understand the language of books, the ways to read a book and how to discuss a story. They have the background knowledge from a variety of experiences (and from books) that help them to understand the contents of many stories. These students with rich backgrounds where parents talk to them, work with them, and value education come to school already well on their ways to becoming successful readers and students. Children without the benefit of this type of early, rich environment face more difficulty. As you can see, achievement gaps begin to develop well before a child ever steps foot into a school building. NCLB will not work is because it assumes that all students come to school with similar experiences and backgrounds. All students are different with vastly different experiences and backgrounds. Children who live in poverty often don’t come to school with these types of early literacy experiences under their belts. Schools by themselves cannot overcome the educational consequences of poverty and racism as Neill (2003) No Child Left Behind: The Questions Remain Unanswered 4 points out in his article Don’t Mourn, Organize! Research by Bracey (2004) says that only 9% of children’s lives are spent in school. Poverty affects achievement and poor students are at a disadvantage. Although these students learn just as much throughout the school year as their middle-class peers, they lose what they’ve learned over the summer break and continue to fall farther and farther behind (Bracey, 2004). I’ve seen the truth in this at my school first hand. Young children (especially disadvantaged students or students with limited English proficiency) begin reading and progress very well until summer break. After two months of not practicing what they have learned in reading and writing they regress. NCLB does not offer any solution for the reality of what these children live with in their homes. They simply do not have the same type of parental support or help that other students have. Teachers and schools cannot be held solely responsible for the impact that these types of problems have on student achievement.

Does NCLB Utilize High-Quality Fair Assessments?

As Linn, Baker and Betebenner (2002) point out students from state to state are measured differently depending upon that state’s tests and standards. Each state's testing is or may be designed for very different purposes. Some states use testing to report information and others focus on outcomes or standards. It will be impossible and unfair to compare states based on this type of inconsistency. Also, teachers of disadvantaged and diverse students are punished by the NCLB act because student growth is not measured fairly. One way to level the playing field would be to use a variety of authentic assessments that measure student growth rather than the one-size-fits all standardized test. Stan Karp (2003) points out that students from poverty often do not do well on standardized tests and “research has established a strong link between student performance on standardized tests and family income. Standardized tests are scientifically unreliable and provide little real useful information about the learning needs of students”(Karp, 2003, p. 5). Assessments need to be authentic, useful tools for teachers that drive instruction and show individual student growth. Utilizing rubrics, projects, multi-genre papers, technology, portfolios and other unique approaches to assessments are not a part of the NCLB act. Throughout my teaching career I’ve learned that these types of assessments motivate students, demonstrate much higher thinking skills and raise expectations for teachers and students. Coherent argumente.

Will NCLB Raise our Expectations and Broaden our Curriculum?

Unfortunately NCLB may lead to lower expectations rather than higher expectations, especially in schools with disadvantaged or diverse students points out Stan Karp (2003). Teachers in these schools may begin (so you don’t think they already are?!) to teach the test because of pressure to do well. We know that all children need a well- rounded curriculum to be successful. Subjects that are not tested will not be taught and instruction will become no more than test-prep for some schools. Karp (2003) also notes “when tests are used to make high stakes decisions” about funding, graduation or promotion teachers “narrow the focus” and “limit the ability to serve the broader needs of children and the community” (Karp, 2003, p. 5). The education of disadvantaged and diverse students may become reduced to the basics. These are the very students who No Child Left Behind: The Questions Remain Unanswered 5 need more rather than less. They need the best well-rounded curriculum possible. NCLB does not encourage, support or fund a “rich comprehensive curriculum to prepare” students “to be lifelong learners, active participants in our democracy and successful in further education and employment” ("No Child Left Behind" is Failing Our Children, 2004).

Will NCLB Ensure Highly Qualified Teachers Where They Are Most Needed?

NCLB as it is currently written will ultimately penalize schools with diverse populations as Bracey (2004) points out in his article. These schools will probably be labeled in need of improvement because they will have difficulty showing adequate yearly progress for all the sub groups of students they serve. This will make those schools even more difficult to attract good quality educators. Having quality educators has been identified as “the single most important variable in student academic progress….” (Karp, 2003, p.11 ). There needs to be incentives in place to attract many quality educators to disadvantaged schools and NCLB doesn’t provide resources that districts need for these hard to staff areas. (Karp, 2003) Also, the NCLB rules address teacher credentials and scores on content area tests but they don’t consider classroom performance or experience. Successful teachers must have the skills to manage a classroom as well as have the content knowledge of what is being taught. As pointed out by Ernerick, Hirsch, and Berry (2004) content knowledge alone does not necessarily mean highly qualified. Other factors like the ability to use and apply various assessments, revise instruction as needed and a good understanding a student’s developmental and educational needs should be considered notes Ernerick et al. (2004)

Does NCLB Treat Educators as Professionals?

NCLB is based on the “assumption that school failure is willful” (Raspberry, 2004). This is insulting for many quality educators who spend much of their own money gaining higher degrees, attending conferences and joining organizations of professionals. These people are not lazy or uneducated. They want their schools and students to be successful. The corrective nature of this legislation does not treat educators as professionals. Educators should be encouraged to make decisions based on what is best for their students, classrooms and schools. This is called this site-based management and the idea is that educators are professionals and know what is best. NCLB assumes that most educators don’t know or do what is best for all students. This aspect of NCLB is demoralizing to teachers. The punitive and degrading aspect of the NCLB is what is so offensive to many educators. There is no other institution in society that has been as imposed upon by such federal law as NCLB does on education.

Imagine a federal law that declared that 100% of all citizens must have adequate health care in twelve years or sanctions will be imposed on doctors and hospitals. Or all crime must be eliminated in twelve years or the local police department will face privatization (Karp, 2003, p.8). No Child Left Behind: The Questions Remain Unanswered 6

Conclusion

NCLB legislation does not answer the questions discussed in this paper positively. It will not bring about nationwide school improvement. It will not close the achievement gap between various sub groups of students. It will not allow teachers to utilize high quality, fair assessments. It will not raise our expectations or broaden our curriculum. It will not ensure quality educators where they are needed most. It does not treat educators as professionals. It has been projected by Neill (2004) that 70% of the schools in America will be declared in need of improvement. The NCLB approach of test, label and punish to bring about accountability will not be successful. It does not offer real answers to the real problems that will arise, as we get further into the NCLB timeline. Many think that NCLB “may lead to dismantling” the public school system rather than fixing the problems (Neill, 2004,p. 2). That about sums it up.

Recommendations

The biggest problem with the NCLB legislation is the fact that it tries to force all children fit neatly into a one-size fits all type of box where everyone is the same and everyone achieves the same things. Children are not like this. Obviously, the policymakers who helped write this legislation have never worked with real children on a daily basis. This law also falsely assumes that teachers must be forced or pressured to do their jobs well. Unfortunately many creative teachers will now become less than what they once were because of this kind of testing pressure. Teachers need the freedom to appreciate all types of learners and students. They should be allowed to take children from their particular academic level and move them along as far as they can. NCLB should allow a variety of assessments that show this kind of growth. NCLB should not emphasize high-stakes tests alone. I do agree that there needs to be accountability. I also agree that we need to have high expectations for all students. Expectations and standards are NOT the same thing. However, expectations need to be attainable and genuine accountability comes from authentic assessments that support good teaching practices and higher levels of learning. Wow, I wish legislators would hear this message. As informed educators we need to insist on equal (equal or fair? special ed kids get more than nondisabled kids—would you reduce their funding to make it equal?) funding for all students. NCLB should be altered to offer real solutions and resources rather than punish “schools, educators and students for problems they alone can’t resolve” (Neill, 2004, p.2). It’s a shame that NCLB doesn’t foster and encourage the idea that good schools are made up of a community of learners and professionals who work hard and use a variety of resources. I love this. As Neill (2004) indicates NCLB should encourage school-wide goals and consistent, good teaching practices. NCLB should acknowledge what schools really need: quality teachers, ample support personnel, an engaging well-rounded curriculum that is appropriate for diverse populations, useful authentic assessments, adequate planning time, good staff development, parental involvement, small class size, quality programs before and after school, early childhood education and excellent No Child Left Behind: The Questions Remain Unanswered 7 leadership. Educators need to speak up about this legislation. We must discuss and make others aware of these questions and problems that NCLB tries to answer but simply can’t.

References

Bracey, G. W. (2004, Oct ). The seven deadly absurdities of no child left behind.

No Child Left , 2. Retrieved Jan. 11, 2005, from http://nochildleft.com/2004/oct04absurd.html.

Desimone, L. (2000, July ). The role of teachers in urban school reform. World of

Education, Retrieved Feb 02, 2005, from

http://library.educationworld.net/a13/a13-187.html.

Emerick, S., Hirsch, E., & Berry B. (2004, Nov ). Does highly qualified mean high- quality?. Infobrief, 39. Retrieved Jan 11, 2005, from http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/menuitem.a63a9a34a66f240ddeb3ffdb62108a0c/

Karp, S. (2003, Nov ). The no child left behind hoax. Rethinking Schools Online,

Retrieved Jan 11, 2005, from

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/bushplan/hoax.shtml.

Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Betebenner D. W. (2002). Accountability systems:

implications of requirements of the no child left behind act of 2001. Educational

Researcher, 31(6), 3-16. No Child Left Behind: The Questions Remain Unanswered 8

Monty, N. (2003, Fall ). Don't mourn, organize!. Rethinking Schools Online,

Retrieved Jan 11, 2005, from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/bushplan/nclb181.shtml.

William, R. (2004). The punishing truth about no child left behind. The Seattle

Times, . Retrieved Jan 15, 2005, from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001918661_raspberry04.html

No child left behind. (2005). Retrieved Feb. 02, 2005, from Education Week

Research Center Web site:

http://www.edweek.org/rc/issues/no-child-left-behind/index.html.

No Child Left.com, (2004). "No child left behind" is failing our children.

Retrieved Jan. 11, 2005, from No Child Left.com Web site: http://nochildleft.com/2004/jun04fair.html.

No child left behind/esea. (n.d.). Retrieved Jan. 11, 2005, from NEA:ESEA

Basics Web site:

http://www.nea.org/esea/eseabasics.html.. No Child Left Behind: The Questions Remain Unanswered 9