The education landscape is changing as a result of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). But how is it changing, and who is most affected? These reports examine the impact of NCLB.
From the Capital to the Classroom
The Center on Education Policy's fourth annual report on NCLB,From the Capital to the Classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act, explores the legislation's effects, highlights educators' concerns, and recommends improvements. The report's findings are based on a survey of the 50 U.S. states, a nationally representative survey of 299 school districts, case studies of 38 geographically diverse school districts and 42 schools, six special analyses of crucial NCLB issues, and three national forums.
Taking Stock
- Teaching and learning are changing. Some results are positive. Schools are trying to align curriculum and instruction with state academic standards and assessments. Test data are proving helpful in targeting instruction to meet student needs. And districts are becoming more serious about monitoring teaching practices in their schools, encouraging teachers to use pacing guides and hiring instructional coaches to observe in the classroom. However, 71 percent of school districts reported that their elementary schools had reduced instructional time in at least one other subject to focus more narrowly on reading and math. Some respondents viewed this as necessary to help struggling students; others believed it was a disservice to both teachers and students. NCLB has also influenced teacher qualifications by requiring teachers to obtain a degree in their subject and complete additional coursework. Most district officials surveyed expressed skepticism that these requirements are improving teacher quality.
- Scores on state achievement tests are rising. The majority of respondents found that adequate yearly progress (AYP) requirements were responsible in part for these gains but that school district policies and programs played a larger role. It is unclear, however, to what degree rising scores reflect increased student learning. Many states are making policy changes that result in higher numbers of students being classified as “proficient.”
- The effects of NCLB are holding steady. The number of schools identified as in need of improvement has changed little from the previous year, due in part to changes in federal and state rules that have made it easier for schools to make AYP. The percentage of eligible students taking advantage of school choice (2 percent) and the percentage of students participating in tutoring programs (20 percent) have also remained steady.
- NCLB is having the greatest effect on urban school districts. Fifty-four percent of Title I schools identified as in need of improvement and 90 percent of the schools in restructuring are in urban districts. Several factors are responsible for NCLB's greater effect on urban schools. Greater diversity in urban districts means that additional numbers of subgroups must make AYP; urban districts often include dozens of schools, unlike smaller districts that might have only one school for each grade span; and urban schools often have high numbers of students living in poverty, which affects achievement. On a more positive note, the percentage of urban school districts reporting that their teachers are highly qualified (88 percent) and the percentage reporting an overall increase in student achievement (85 percent) are similar to the percentages reported by suburban and rural districts.
Although respondents recognized the strengths of NCLB—high learning expectations, the focus on subgroups that have traditionally lagged behind, improved alignment, and better use of data—they also pointed to the legislation's negative aspects. These include lack of funding, lack of staff necessary to carry out NCLB's accountability requirements, teacher stress, and low morale. Many expressed concern about the accountability requirements for certain subgroups and about bringing 100 percent of students to proficiency by 2014.
Looking Forward
- Provide greater transparency in state accountability.
- Monitor the effects of allowing schools flexibility in how they meet AYP (confidence intervals and safe harbor provisions, for example).
- Implement rules for using modified standards to assess certain students with disabilities.
- Provide adequate funding for NCLB.
- Support school improvement through additional funding and other assistance.
- Give states and school districts authority to oversee supplemental service providers.
- Enable schools to reverse the order of school choice and supplemental services.
- Provide a balanced curriculum.
From the Capital to the Classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act was published in March 2006 by the Center on Education Policy. The full report is available atwww.cep-dc.org/nclb/Year4/Press/.
More Reports on No Child Left Behind
Hot Air: How States Inflate Their Educational Progress Under NCLB.
Education Sector research and policy manager Kevin Carey observes that under NCLB, “states are largely free to define the terms of their own educational success.” As a result, many states are manipulating the system to make their schools look better than they really are.
Carey analyzed data from the March 2006 annual reports that states were required to submit to the U.S. Department of Education describing their progress on 11 measures, such as the percentage of schools and districts making AYP, high school graduation rates, and teacher qualifications. He found little correlation between the states' “optimistic” self-reports and more objective measures, such as the scores of students in each state on the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
According to Carey, states' reports are rendered almost meaningless by variations in the statistical methods used to determine AYP, in the rigor of state standards, in the criteria used to determine whether a school is “safe,” in the method for determining high school graduation rates, and so on.
For example, 97 percent of Oklahoma's schools and 95 percent of Rhode Island's schools met AYP standards in 2004–2005, whereas only 28 percent of Florida's schools did. As a result, many teachers and students in Florida are under pressure to raise test scores or face NCLB sanctions, “while almost everyone in Oklahoma and Rhode Island is off the hook—not because their actual performance is different, but because the state-defined rules of the game are different.”
The report is available atwww.educationsector.org/usr_doc/Hot_ Air_NCLB.pdf.
Smart Testing: Let's Get It Right
With NCLB's emphasis on test-based accountability, states' assessment practices have become more important than ever. In this study, the American Federation of Teachers reviewed reading, math, and science standards and assessments in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. A majority of states (31) now have detailed, specific grade-by-grade content standards in all three NCLB-related subjects. Many states, however, continue to struggle in aligning their tests with their content standards. Only 11 states—California, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia—show that their tests align strongly to standards in all NCLB-required grades and subjects. A table included in the report shows the status of each state.
The report is available atwww.aft.org/presscenter/releases/2006/smarttesting/Testingbrief.pdf.
Reality Check 2006: Is Support for Standards and Testing Fading?
This is the third report of findings from Public Agenda's ongoing survey of public opinion on education issues. The majority of educators, parents, and students surveyed expressed support for the concept of raising academic standards through standardized tests and exit exams.
However, teachers expressed significant worries about elements of the law's implementation: 71 percent said that students in their schools take too many standardized tests, 70 percent indicated that NCLB is “causing problems” in their local schools, and only 15 percent believed that NCLB is “improving local public education.” All stakeholders surveyed maintained that other education issues—specifically lack of funding, student behavior/classroom management, and class size—should be more urgent priorities than raising academic standards.
School administrators surveyed had divided opinions on the ultimate effect of NCLB. Forty-four percent of superintendents and 42 percent of principals maintained that NCLB will eventually raise standards and student achievement, but 17 percent of superintendents and 23 percent of principals said the law will lead to schoolslowering standards so they can more easily show student progress.
The findings derive from focus groups with parents and teachers and telephone interviews of a national random sample of parents, public school students in grades 6–12, teachers, school principals, and district superintendents.
Jean Johnson, Ana Maria Arumi, and Amber Ott authored the report, which is available at www.publicagenda.org/research/pdfs/rc0603.pdf.
The Reading First Program's Grant Application Process: Final Inspection Report
No Child Left Behind's Reading First program is designed to ensure that states and school districts use literacy programs based on “scientifically based reading research.” In addition to providing a detailed explanation of what it means by “scientifically based,” NCLB specifically prohibits the U.S. Department of Education from endorsing, approving, or sanctioning any curriculum. But according to a new report from the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Inspector General, those administering Reading First have flouted that prohibition.
The report found that the process the department used to approve state Reading First applications was neither objective nor impartial. For example, the department did not create balance in its Reading First expert review panels as NCLB required, and it failed to effectively screen panel members for conflicts of interest. The report quotes internal memos that document how the Reading First director and his staff violated the law's review requirements, pushing for programs that matched their own ideas about effective reading instruction and effectively blackballing other programs, such as Reading Recovery and Rigby Literacy. The report includes a series of responses from U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. She asserts that Reading First has been successful in improving student literacy, but she promises to correct the problems identified by the Inspector General.
The report is available atwww.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/aireports/i13f0017.pdf.
PDK/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward Public Schools
Nearly 60 percent of a random sample of 1,007 adult U.S. citizens surveyed last summer believed that NCLB either has had no effect on U.S. schools or has actually harmed them. Many responses show skepticism about NCLB's strategies. For example, 81 percent of respondents said that standardized tests covering only English and math cannot provide a fair picture of whether or not a public school needs improvement.
Results of the poll are available atwww.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0409.pol.htm.
