No Child Left Behind:
Grading the Four Areas of Education Reform
Dan Fennerty
Central Washington University
Introduction
The No Child left Behind Act (NCLB) was signed into law by President Bush on January 8th, 2002. The overall goal of NCLB, according to U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, is to have every child “learning on grade level by 2014.” NCLB amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in four principle areas: accountability for results, more freedom for states and communities, encouraging proven education methods and more choice for parents (U.S. Department of Education). The following is an analysis of how the four principle areas have impacted student learning through 2007.
Accountability for Results
According to the U.S. Department of Education, under NCLB, states are required to make sure all students achieve academic proficiency. Progress needs to be measured through annual state and school district report cards that inform parents and communities about state and school progress. The report cards must include information on how students in the district and in each school performed on state assessments. The report cards must state student performance in terms of basic, proficient, and advanced levels of academic achievement. Under NCLB, all students have to be proficient, which generally means working at grade level, in reading and math by 2014. The student achievement data must be disaggregated according to race, ethnicity, gender, English language proficiency, migrant status, disability status and low-income status. The report cards must also state which schools have been identified as needing improvement, corrective action or restructuring. The state assessment results determine the “report card” data required under NCLB. An analysis of the assessment practices of the states is necessary to determine how accountability is measured.
Under NCLB, states are required to establish their own assessments aligned with state standards for grades three through eight, and once during high school, to measure how successfully students are learning what is expected by the standards. There are no national standards; states set their own standards and their own assessments. No two states have the same standards and no two states utilize the same type of assessment. For example, twenty-six states require, or plan to require, students to pass a test to graduate from high school. Even though all twenty-six states require an exit exam, no two states utilize the same exam, test the same subjects, utilize the same type of test, and have the same grade level of alignment.
Each state has a different exam that measures different subjects. Subjects tested range from reading, written language and math to science, social studies, government, arts literacy, computer skills, and a student selected area. Types of tests utilized include standards based, end of course, and minimum competency. Grade level alignment data range from none, varies, or various grade levels from 6th through 11th. Since each state can determine accountability and how to assess it, proficiency of academic achievement is determined by each state. A study by the Washington based children’s advocacy group EdTrust showed discrepancies between student scores on state assessments and the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
When the goal of No Child Left Behind is for all students to be “learning at grade level” and grade level criteria is extremely different from state to state, accountability through academic proficiency needs to be interpreted cautiously. No Child Left Behind legislation is not creating “proficient learners,” it is creating state determined “proficient learners” that data has shown to be interpreted in different ways state by state.
More Freedom for States and Communities
The second principle area that No Child Left Behind legislation addresses involves more freedom for states and communities. The legislation specifically identifies three components; local control and flexibility, safer schools, and faith based and community efforts.
As discussed above, No Child Left Behind gives states the flexibility to establish the standards and assessments used to provide the data for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Definitions of advanced, proficient and basic achievement levels are also under state control. The law also gives states flexibility in determining the elements of the AYP definition and how states are addressing AYP accountability, issues involving students with special instructional needs, AYP and unique schools, definition of “persistently dangerous,” and highly qualified teachers.
Under No Child Left Behind, states are given the flexibility as to how annual yearly progress is determined. States have the flexibility to determine minimum group sizes, whether or not to use a confidence interval, defining what a full academic year means, determine what constitutes a major racial or ethnic subgroup, identify the timelines for how often their intermediate goals will increase and how many years of data will be used. Local control and flexibility in determining adequate yearly progress is determined by how states interpret and implement the elements of AYP. Interpreting the state data must reflect the unique way each state utilizes the elements. Comparing data state by state should be done with the knowledge that no two states are determining AYP progress in the same manner.
States are allowed to use alternative achievement standards for students with the most severe cognitive disabilities. Up to one percent of proficiency results may result from assessments based on alternative achievement standards. Most states have chosen to utilize the one percent flexibility while some states are holding all students to the same content and achievement standards. States using the alternative standards are assessing proficiency with a variety of assessment tools. States also have flexibility in determining how to assess their students with Limited English (LE) abilities. States can decide how best to test LE students, which accommodations to use, how long to use the alternative assessments, and how to transition LE students into the English versions of statewide assessments.
Regarding unique schools, states have flexibility in determining the methodology for small schools and schools without tested grades AYP determination. For example, if a school has a kindergarten through second grade population, some states assign third grade scores back to their K-2 school. Not all states utilize this method, but are required to make an annual AYP determination for all its public schools.
Students must be able to transfer to another public school when their current school is determined to be “persistently dangerous.” States have the flexibility for establishing the criteria for identifying dangerous schools. Most states report that they do not have any dangerous schools.
NCLB requires that each teacher must have a bachelor’s degree, have subject matter competency, and be a fully licensed teacher. States set their own standards on how well teachers must do on the state tests to demonstrate subject matter competency, degree standards are established by each state and higher education training program, and licensure procedures are reserved for each state.
No Child Left Behind requires states to report on school safety to the public. The law also protects educators from “frivolous” litigation when they take reasonable actions to maintain order and discipline in the classroom. School district personnel are also required to establish a plan for keeping schools safe and drug free. Each state is also required to have a policy that allows students the choice to attend a different public school within the district if he/she attends a public school deemed to be “persistently dangerous” or if the student becomes a victim of a violent crime in or on the school grounds.
No Child Left Behind encourages local faith based and community organizations to assist local school districts in educating all students. Local organizations that become involved are eligible to apply for certain grants through the Department of Education and their local schools. Local organizations can also provide supplemental educational services to students who attend schools in need of improvement.
In summary, states have similar flexibility in defining and reporting Adequate Yearly Progress data as they did in defining and reporting data under the accountability provision of No Child Left Behind. States and local communities are also “free” to set their own standards for defining “safe schools.” NCLB also encourages local districts to utilize community support to assist them in helping students attain the established standards. As discussed previously, when analyzing the data from states, one must be aware that state standards are not uniform and are not interpreted in a consistent manner.
Proven Education Methods
No Child Left Behind legislation encourages states to utilize “scientifically based research” instructional programs in the areas of Reading, Math and Science. The legislation also focuses on implementing programs that improve the education of limited English proficient (LEP) students.
Under NCLB, federal support targets those educational programs that have been demonstrated to be effective through scientific research. NCLB’s accountability requirements mandate the utilization of scientific based research programs in schools that continually fail to improve student achievement. Instructional programs that meet the “scientifically based research” standard must have reliable evidence that the program works.
No Child Left Behind legislation provides funds that assist states in improving the education of limited English proficient (LEP) students by helping them learn English and meet state academic standards. Scientifically based research instructional strategies must be utilized. Local school districts must implement school wide programs that target LEP students systematically and consistently.
NCLB requires that all core academic subjects are taught by highly qualified teachers. All states must submit a plan that describes how they are ensuring that all students are being taught by a highly qualified teacher.
In summary, state flexibility continues to be the standard. States and local school districts can determine the instructional programs that will be utilized, and how highly qualified teachers will be determined.
Choices For Parent
NCLB requires additional academic instruction be offered to students who are in schools that have not met State targets for increasing student achievement for three or more years. NCLB defines these additional academic instructions as supplementary educational services and may include tutoring or after school services. The services can be offered by public or private sector providers and states must provide parents a list of approved providers within their district boundaries.
Any student who is attending a school that has not made adequate yearly progress for at least two years, must be offered the option of transferring to a school in the district that is not identified for school improvement. Students are also given the option of transferring from a school designated a “persistently dangerous school” as defined by the individual state. This also includes any student who has been the victim of a violent crime on the grounds of his or her school. Students may choose to attend a charter school if the district has this option available.
Under this section of the federal legislation, states and school districts are required to provide certain information and options to parents. How the information is shared is left up to the individual states to determine.
Conclusion
No Child Left Behind legislation was enacted to ensure that all students in the public schools were at grade level in the core academic subjects by the time they graduated. When the content of the legislation is analyzed, the goal of grade level attainment cannot be determined. When each state is given the flexibility to establish their own criteria in almost all areas of the federal legislation, no standard of grade level attainment can be determined. Grade level standards are clearly different in each state and numerous variables associated with projecting student performance are inconsistent from state to state. Salvia and Ysseldyke (2001), identify five problems that occur when utilizing grade equivalent scores. Students obtaining similar grade level scores are usually not answering the same questions correctly; they are answering a similar number of items correctly. Average grade scores are estimated for groups of students who aren’t tested. The average grade level score is a statistical abstraction that represents a range of performance. Grade equivalent scores are constructed in a way that 50 percent of the test takers will perform below the median. Grade equivalent scores tend to be ordinal data.
If national legislation involving student performance is established, then national performance standards must be established. Establishing national goals and allowing states to define the goals is neither reliable nor valid data for determining if students have met grade level, when grade level standards vary widely state by state. National grade level standards would allow states and local districts to focus their instruction on clear targets that are consistent from state to state. Results from instructional practices utilized from state to state and district to district could be shared. Practices that were proven to be effective could then be replicated and assist in collecting data on scientifically based research strategies and student learning. National standards could encourage and enhance collaboration and communication among state education agencies in sharing instructional strategies that were proven effective.
Along with national standards, how we assess student proficiency must be addressed. Allowing all states to utilize different assessment processes that measure different outcomes at different levels of learning is neither valid nor reliable data on a national level. The assessment(s) utilized must reflect the clear targets established in the national curriculum. If we are wanting to look at composite data, group administered test scores should be analyzed on a group basis. If we are wanting to analyze data on an individual student basis, the assessment tools should be valid and reliable for this goal. Different goals need different types of assessment tools. No one assessment tool has been developed to be reliable and valid for the multiple purposes associated with national standards of achievement on a national, state, local and individual student level.
We need to continue the commitment of having highly qualified teachers utilizing research supported instructional strategies in the classroom. When instruction by qualified teachers is aligned with clear targets, student learning will increase. When targets are varied, and vague, assessed in multiple ways and interpreted in different ways, student learning is difficult to measure.
References
Campbell, C. (2007). Education trust recommendations for no child left behind reauthorization.
Retrieved May 4th, 2007 from EdTrust Web site:
http://www.2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/Press+Room/NCLB+Recommendations.htm.
Finn, C., Petrilli, M., & Julian, L. (2006). The state of state standards 2006. Retrieved May 4th,
2007 from Thomas P. Fordham Foundation Web site:
http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/publication/publication.cfm?id=358.
National Center for Educational Statistics (n.d.). Retrieved May 4th, 2007 from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/profile.asp.
Overview of No Child Left Behind (n.d.). Retrieved May 4th, 2007 from
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml?src=In.
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. (2001). Assessment (8th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Spellings, M. (2006). Remarks by Secretary Spellings at No Child Left Behind Summit in
Philadelphia, PA, April, 2006. Retrieved May 1st, 2007 from U.S. Department of Education
Web site: http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2006/04/04272006.htn.
|
