In The News Issue Review: No Child Left Behind Act
Written by: Deborah Binkley-Jackson, Gifflene C. Charles and Danny Johnson
National Impact
The NCLB Act will affect public school accountability on the basis of national and state assessments, at least once every two years in reading and mathematics in grades four through 8 (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). The only area where teachers and each respective school will be critiqued is on their ability to teach students at one level of proficiency. If students in one of the subgroups are not learning to read or do math at a proficient level, this outcome will affect the accountability of that school.
Proponents of NCLB indicate that regulated recordkeeping allows for better national research in attempts to find out what works best in elementary education and lead to changes in what does not. Opponents on the other hand argue that while special education law provides for testing with “accommodations,” in practice it has pushed educators to focus more on procedural compliance (Wenning, 2003). Other arguments discuss testing frequency inconsistencies. Some states test reading and math every year, while others test those same subjects at three or four-year intervals and still others test a variety of subjects in a variety of grades. Definitions of “proficiency” can also vary from state to state. Beginning in the 2002-2003 school year, every state had to participate in biennial assessments of fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics under the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). Further, NAEP data was used to compare results on state tests with performance on NAEP assessments (U.S. Department of Education, 2003).
Beginning in 2007-2008, every state must also include science assessments at least once during each of these three grade spans. So, by 2007, students will be tested annually from grades 3 to 8 in reading and math, tested twice in the elementary grades in science, and then in reading, math, and science at least once in grades 10-12 (U.S. Department of Education, 2003).
Areas of Concern
In the four years since its implementation, the NCLB Act has garnered nationwide interest and controversy. Many people believe that although well-intentioned, it contains many flaws, falls short of its promise and is beyond the capacity of schools, districts and states, to carry out (American Federation of Teachers, 2006; Wanker & Christie, 2005). In anticipation of its reauthorization in 2007, several organizations are working on solutions and recommendations that they feel will help the act fulfill its original promise. One such organization is the Aspen Institute. It is an independent, bipartisan group which has created the Commission on No Child Left Behind, to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the NCLB Act and to make bipartisan recommendations to Congress, Administration, State and local stakeholders, parents and the general public (Aspen Institute, 2006). Two other influential groups, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the National Education Association (NEA), have been active in seeking solutions and have been part of a series of hearings by the Aspen institute. The findings that they gathered reflect our views and the views and those experiences of frontline educators and concerned citizens who attended their town hall meetings. The main areas of the act that we and most other people believe need improvements are:
- Assessment and Accountability - The law’s mechanism for holding schools accountable—the adequate yearly progress (AYP) formula—does not fully recognize gains in student achievement that schools starting furthest behind are really making, and labels them as failures for not reaching an arbitrary proficiency level.
- School Improvement Interventions - NCLB’s current sanctions are not research-based and, to date, have generally proven to be ineffective and unworkable.
- Staffing Schools - To fulfill NCLB’s promise of closing the achievement gap, the law needs to improve teaching and learning conditions.
- Funding and System wide Accountability - NCLB essentially allows 50 different systems of standards and assessments, with little transparency or quality control (American Federation of Teachers, 2006)
Conclusion
The job of closing the gap between minority students and their peers along with overall student academic performance improvement is at the heart of what the NCLB is working towards. Various avenues to achieving that goal are supported by the OET, WWC, and recommendations from the NEA, NECP, DOE and other organizations. There are still issues that will always remain a concern, as this paper has pointed out. Reg Weaver, the president of the NEA (Gonzalez, 2006) stresses that it is critical for educators, policymakers and others to work together to provide schools with the resources they need to get the job done.
1.:. 2.:. 3
|
