DOCSLIB.ORG

No Child Left Behind: Trends and Issues by Frederick M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
No Child Left Behind: Trends and Issues by Frederick M EDUCATION No Child Left Behind: Trends and Issues By Frederick M. Hess and Rosemary H. Kendrick The No Child Left Behind Act is the most ambitious piece of education legislation ever enacted by Congress. Designed to promote accountability and prod states to increase efforts to address educational inequities, NCLB includes significant provisions regarding assessment, sanctions for low-performing schools and districts, teacher quality and standards for educational research. On Jan. 8, 2002, surrounded by members of both tive requirements of the 1994 ESEA. Eager to sup- the Democratic and Republican congressional leader- port a Republican president after two terms under a ship, President George W. Bush signed the No Child Democratic White House, conservatives on Capitol Left Behind Act—called NCLB—into law. NCLB Hill accepted requirements regarding standards, test- is the nation’s most significant federal legislation on ing and accountability that they had resisted as fed- K-12 schooling since the Elementary and Secondary eral overreaching in 1994 and 1999. Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, and the most ambi- The NCLB accountability system requires states tious federal intervention in a domain long regarded to develop content standards for what students should as the preserve of state and local governments.1 know and be able to do, as well as complementary Congress approved NCLB by large, bipartisan state assessments. It requires states to annually test majorities, with the law passing 87–10 in the U.S. students to measure competency in the core subjects Senate and 381–41 in the House of Representatives.2 of reading and math. By the 2013–14 school year, Emerging from an exhaustive year of negotiations, all states are required to have all their students score NCLB refashioned federal education policy in the proficient on state reading and math assessments. areas of testing, accountability and teacher quality. The law leaves it to the states to determine the con- tent and rigor of these standards and tests.6 From ESEA to NCLB NCLB requires states to set academic standards The original ESEA was proposed in 1965 as a pillar that define three levels of achievement: basic, profi- of President Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” and cient and advanced. For each assessment, each state included five titles. The heart of the law, and lion’s must then develop corresponding tests in reading, share of the funding, was embodied in Title I—a pro- math and, eventually, science. These assessments gram of aid for the education of disadvantaged chil- are to be administered every year in grades three dren. Over time, critics both left and right expressed through eight and at least once in high school. States concerns about the failure of Title I to improve also are required to design and administer a science achievement among low-income students.3 assessment by the 2007–08 school year and to test President Bill Clinton’s administration sought to students at least once each in elementary, middle and use the 1994 ESEA reauthorization and the compan- high school. ion “Goals 2000” legislation to require every state Adequate yearly progress (AYP) is the metric used to establish academic standards and corresponding to evaluate school and district performance under assessments.4 But given the law’s voluntary cast NCLB. The expectation is that all schools and dis- and the federal government’s lack of enforcement tricts will make AYP—or, in other words, jump over authority, most states declined to comply.5 The 2001 a ‘bar’ that represents the percentage of children that deliberations over NCLB, which technically was the must score proficient on math and reading assess- much-delayed reauthorization of the 1994 ESEA, ments. Over time, states must raise the bar so that, by represented, more than anything else, a demand the 2013–14 school year, it is set at 100 percent. For by Washington, D.C., policymakers that state and instance, a state could deem a school as making AYP local officials do more to improve low-performing if 50 percent of its students were proficient in reading schools. in 2007, so long as expectations were stepped up to 100 percent by the 2013–14 school year. NCLB Standards and Assessment Calculating AYP is not as simple as measuring The heart of NCLB is its language on standards and the percentage of students who meet the proficiency assessment, which aggressively supersized the tenta- standard. In addition to holding schools account- 476 The Book of the States 2008 Book 9.indb 1 5/2/08 11:31:18 AM EDUCATION able for the AYP of the overall student body, NCLB imposing another remedy of the state’s choosing. The requires states to make progress within particular sanctions for districts are similar in intent to those for subpopulations. Each state must calculate the AYP of schools but different in the particulars. Districts that the following subgroups within each school: major fail to make AYP for multiple years, for example, racial/ethnic groups (white, African-American, are eventually subject to restructuring, including the Latino, Native American and so on); low-income possibility of state takeover.7 students; students with disabilities; and students with Because there is such variation among state tests, limited English proficiency. Each subgroup must the number of schools in each sanction phase var- clear the AYP bar in reading and math for schools or ies significantly across the country. California, for districts to make AYP. To protect student confiden- instance, has more than 300 schools in the restruc- tiality and heighten statistical reliability, states are turing implementation stage while Florida has none allowed to establish a minimum size for subgroups (see Table A). to be counted. NCLB’s testing requirements pose a number of Highly Qualified Teachers challenges and the legislation, and subsequent guid- Beyond its accountability and choice provisions, the ance from the U.S. Department of Education, have other radical development imposed by NCLB was sought to address these—with mixed success. The the federal mandate that all children be taught by a law stipulates schools must test 95 percent of their “highly qualified teacher.” The rule applied to core enrolled students to make AYP. It also includes a academic subjects like mathematics, science and his- “safe harbor” provision that allows schools that miss tory. Unlike the testing and accountability provisions, the AYP bar to still make AYP if they increase the the highly qualified teacher language focuses less on percentage of students who are proficient at a fast outcomes and more on inputs—meaning it seeks to enough rate. The provision also permits schools ensure that all schools have quality teachers who are and districts to exclude a small portion of special knowledgeable about the content they teach. needs students from AYP calculations. But whether To be deemed highly qualified, a teacher must these work as intended has been a subject of much have attained a bachelor’s degree, have passed the concern. state teacher licensing examination or obtained a state teaching certification, and have demonstrated NCLB Sanctions subject knowledge. Again, as with state standards The standards and testing provisions themselves con- and assessments, the law allows states to determine stitute only the first two-thirds of the NCLB account- what all this means in practice.8 That flexibility has ability system. In addition, NCLB links test results to created much concern that states have exploited loop- consequences for schools and school districts. Under holes to appease current teachers, improve apparent NCLB, schools that fail to make AYP are subject to results and reduce implementation headaches. In a series of cascading remedies, sanctions and inter- the 2005–06 school year (the original year NCLB ventions that are designed to compel the schools to sought to have 100 percent of core classes taught by improve and to grant additional options to children in highly qualified teachers), 48 states reported that at those schools. These interventions become increas- least 70 percent of their core classes were taught by ingly intense with each year that the schools fail. highly qualified teachers, and 36 states reported that If a school fails to make AYP two years in a row, it the percent of classes with highly qualified teachers enters “in need of improvement” status. Once there, was above 90.9 district and school officials must develop a school improvement plan and offer students the option of Research and Reading First transferring to a district school that is making AYP. Despite their importance, NCLB’s accountability Schools that fail for a third straight year must provide and teacher quality provisions comprise only a small supplemental education services or free tutoring. A portion of the sprawling legislation. The law encom- fourth year of failure prompts a stage of corrective passes 10 separate titles authorizing more than 50 action, which can entail actions ranging from cur- federal education programs. Noteworthy in NCLB riculum reform to the extension of the school day. is the emphasis on scientifically based research, a Finally, if a school fails to make AYP for a fifth year, phrase that appears in reference to everything from the district must restructure that school, by convert- reading programs, to teacher training, to school ing it to a charter school, replacing the majority of the safety. Scientifically based research is defined as ‘the staff, hiring an educational management company,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Board of Education Agenda Item
    Board of Education Agenda Item Item: G. Date: May 25, 2005 Topic: Report on Status of Proposed Waivers/Amendments to Virginia’s Consolidated State Application Accountability Plan Required in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Presenter: Dr. Patricia I. Wright, Deputy Superintendent Telephone Number: (804) 225-2979 E-Mail Address: [email protected] Origin: __x__ Topic presented for information only (no board action required) Board review required by __ State or federal law or regulation ____ Board of Education regulation Other: Action requested at this meeting ____ Action requested at future meeting: (date) Previous Review/Action: No previous board review/action x Previous review/action date January 19, 2005/April 20, 2005 action Board approved proposed amendment/waiver requests Background Information: The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), which is a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), requires all state educational agencies (SEA) to submit for approval to the United States Department of Education (USED) individual program applications or a consolidated state application. A major component of the consolidated application is Virginia’s Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook that describes a single statewide accountability system for the commonwealth. The accountability workbook that describes the policies and procedures that were used to determine Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) ratings for the 2003-2004 school year are described in the amended workbook dated May 26, 2004. At its January 19, 2005, meeting the Virginia Board of Education adopted proposed waivers/amendments to the Consolidated State Application Accountability Plan (amended May 26, 2004) required in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Education
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 400 Maryland Avenue SW 20202 phone 401–3000, fax 401–0596, http://www.ed.gov MARGARET SPELLINGS, Secretary of Education; born in Ann Arbor, MI, November 30, 1957; education: B.A., University of Houston, 1979; professional: education reform commis- sioner under Texas Governor William P. Clements; associate executive director, Texas Associa- tion of School Boards, 1988–94; senior advisor to George W. Bush during his term as Governor of Texas, 1994–2000; as senior adviser, Secretary Spellings created the Texas Read- ing Initiative, the Student Success Initiative to eliminate social promotion, and the nation’s strongest school assessment and accountability system; Domestic Policy Adviser, 2001–05; one of the principal authors of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act; first mother of school children to serve as Secretary of Education; children: Mary and Grace; nominated by President George W. Bush to become the 8th Secretary of Education on November 17, 2004; confirmed on January 20, 2005. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Room 7W301, phone 401–3000, fax 401–0596 Secretary of Education.—Margaret Spellings. Chief of Staff.—David Dunn, 205–9694. Interim Director, Public Affairs.—DJ Nordquist, room 7C105, 401–8459, fax 401–3130. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY Room 7W310, phone 401–1000, fax 401–3095 Office of Educational Technology.—Susan Patrick, 205–4274. OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS 550 12th Street SW, Room 5000, 20202–1100, phone 245–6800, fax 245–6840 or 6844 Assistant Secretary.—James Manning (acting). Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement.—David Black (acting). Special Assistant / Legal.—Kimberly Richey, room 6142, 245–6819. Director of: Enforcement, East.—Susan Bowers, room 6094, 245–6798.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut State Board of Education Dr
    CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DR. BETTY J. STERNBERG, COMMISSIONER January 14, 2005 Secretary-Designate Margaret Spellings United States Department of Education Washington, DC 20202 Dear Ms. Spellings: Please accept my congratulations on your nomination and certain confirmation as secretary of education – arguably one of the most challenging and rewarding positions in the president’s Cabinet. The opportunity to affect the lives and futures of the nation’s schoolchildren must be extraordinarily exciting. I and the members of my staff look forward to working with you and all those in the U.S. Department of Education who share our passion for this critical work. I was very pleased to read some of the comments you made at your confirmation hearing last week before the United States Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, noting the states’ need for flexibility and “to be trusted” in carrying out the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). As one who works regularly with those “on the front lines,” I particularly appreciated your comment that “. we in the administration must engage with those closest to children to embed these [NCLB] principles in a sensible and workable way.” Certainly, NCLB is a set of responsibilities to which educators in the states and districts have been responding and will continue to respond with energy. We all share the experience-based belief that it has some fundamental strengths but also areas where improvement is needed if we are to truly increase the achievement of all students. We in Connecticut appreciate the changes in interpretations in a number of areas that have happened since the arrival of Raymond Simon as assistant secretary in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Consolidated State Application Workbook (PDF)
    VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION Consolidated State Application Amended Accountability Workbook for State Grants under Title IX, Part C, Section 9302 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Public Law 107-110) Revised: September 10, 2003, Based on USED Conditional Letter of Approval, July 1, 2003 VBOE Letter of Response, August 20, 2003 Section 7.1 and Related Sections Revised: May 26, 2004, Based on USED Letter of Approval, May 25, 2004 VBOE Letter of Response, June 8, 2004 Revised: Based on VBOE Actions through June 22, 2005, and USED responses on June 13, August 5, and August 11, 2005 Critical Elements 1.6, 3.2, 3.2(b), 3.2(c), 4.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 7.1, 8.1 Final Information U. S. Department of Education Office of Elementary and Secondary Education Washington, D.C. 20202 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION 227 North Main Street Post Office Box 130 Thomas M. Jackson, Jr. Hillsville, VA 24343 President (276) 728-3737 (276) 728-3133 (FAX) August 16, 2005 The Honorable Henry Johnson Assistant Secretary Office of Elementary and Secondary Education United States Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20202 Dear Assistant Secretary Johnson: I am responding to your letter of August 5, 2005, notifying the Virginia Board of Education of the United States Department of Education’s (USED) decision on proposed amendments to the Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook required in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Enclosed please find Virginia’s amended accountability workbook, as directed in the letter and authorized by the Board of Education.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond NCLB: Fulfilling the Promise to Our Nation's Children
    BEYOND NCLB: NCLB: BEYOND THE COMMISSION ON N O C H I L D L EF T B E H I N D Secretary Tommy G. Thompson Governor Roy E. Barnes Co-Chairs F It’s time to take a bold step forward and to ulfilling the Promise commit to significantly improving NCLB. We must insist on high achievement for all students. Our nation’s children deserve it. O ur N ation’s Children ation’s THE COMMISSION ON Fulfilling the Promise to Our Nation’s Children N O C H I L D L EF T B E H I N D Beyond NCLB: Fulfilling the Promise to Our Nation’s Children The Commission on No Child Left Behind Secretary Tommy G. Thompson Governor Roy E. Barnes Co-Chairs The Commission on No Child Left Behind is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Spencer Foundation. This document is published to communicate the results of the Commission’s work. The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in the Commission’s documents are entirely those of the author(s) and should not be attributed in any manner to the donors. Copyright © 2007 by The Aspen Institute The Aspen Institute One Dupont Circle, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 Published in the United States of America in 2007 by The Aspen Institute All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 0-89843-467-X 07-003 Table of Contents List of Commissioners and Commission Staff 6 Acknowledgments 7 Foreword 9 Introduction: A New Day in American Education 11
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Education
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 400 Maryland Avenue SW 20202 phone 401–3000, fax 401–0596, http://www.ed.gov MARGARET SPELLINGS, Secretary of Education; born in Ann Arbor, MI, November 30, 1957; education: B.A., University of Houston, 1979; professional: education reform commis- sioner under Texas Governor William P. Clements; associate executive director, Texas Associa- tion of School Boards, 1988–94; senior advisor to George W. Bush during his term as Governor of Texas, 1994–2000; as senior adviser, Secretary Spellings created the Texas Read- ing Initiative, the Student Success Initiative to eliminate social promotion, and the nation’s strongest school assessment and accountability system; Domestic Policy Adviser, 2001–05; one of the principal authors of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act; first mother of school children to serve as Secretary of Education; children: Mary and Grace; nominated by President George W. Bush to become the 8th Secretary of Education on November 17, 2004; confirmed on January 20, 2005. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Room 7W301, phone 401–3000, fax 401–0596 Secretary of Education.—Margaret Spellings. Chief of Staff.—David Dunn, 205–9694. Interim Director, Public Affairs.—DJ Nordquist, room 7C105, 401–8459, fax 401–3130. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY Room 7W310, phone 401–1000, fax 401–3095 Office of Educational Technology.—Susan Patrick, 205–4274. OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS 550 12th Street SW, Room 5000, 20202–1100, phone 245–6800, fax 245–6840 or 6844 Assistant Secretary.—James Manning (acting). Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement.—David Black (acting). Special Assistant / Legal.—Kimberly Richey, room 6142, 245–6819. Director of: Enforcement, East.—Susan Bowers, room 6094, 245–6798.
    [Show full text]