No Child Left Behind 1

No Child Left Behind                    

A Curriculum Issue Position Paper Submitted to the Elementary Education Division Department of Curriculum and Instruction In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA by Kelly M. Rohlfsen December 2009

 

No Child Left Behind 2 Abstract With the deadline for No Child Left Behind closing in, government officials, as well as educators are becoming increasingly apprehensive as to whether or not students are going to be able to meet the 100% proficiency mark. On this particular topic, many educators and state officials agree that teachers should be held accountable in some capacity for their students’ learning, but there is dissension about several other aspects of NCLB. For example, how students are being assessed, what the outcome of NCLB should actually be, and how do we address those students who are ‘non-proficient.’ At its core, No Child Left Behind does introduce some interesting concepts, such as the accountability aspect, but in order to gain educators’ support, some revisions to NCLB must be in store, or there may be upheaval within the American education system.

No Child Left Behind 3 Issue With the deadline for No Child Left Behind quickly approaching, it is becoming more evident that the idea of all students enrolled in the American public schools being proficient by 2014 is unreasonable. With the various sub-groups outlined in the legislation, there are students who will constantly be at a disadvantage when compared with their peers. Although the law was written with the intent to improve student learning, lawmakers failed to take into account the students themselves. It would be more practical to make reasonable adjustments to the piece of legislation; like adjusting the requirement for 100% of the students being proficient or not using one sole standardized test in order to assess that proficiency. As teachers, we know which one of our students is a struggling learner fairly quickly at the beginning of the year, and instead of having a standardized test given to this student that is already going to tell us what we know, we should be focusing on how we can help that struggling learner.

Pro-Position A person cannot be involved in education and not be highly concerned about the No Child Left Behind legislation. A teacher probably cannot even go one day without standardized tests and/or No Child Left Behind being discussed, which is why it is becoming imperative for the law to be changed, and the deadline is approaching. There is nothing wrong with holding teachers accountable for students’ academic progress, but there is something wrong with assuming that all students will learn the material and be ‘proficient’ within a certain time period, based off of one sole standardized assessment. The fact that they are requiring every student, regardless of when they may have moved to the United States for example, to be considered ‘proficient’ is not logical and it is up to educators to make this fact known. Who better than the people who are working with students

No Child Left Behind 4 every day to tell lawmakers why this piece of legislation needs to be addressed? Although in theory it would be wonderful if all students would be ‘proficient,’ there are other concerns that should be considered. When a person has a student who is one or more years below grade level as they enter a classroom, it is a daunting task to know that they are still expected to be ‘proficient.’ Then, you introduce other various sub-groups outlined in the law, and you realize that a significant percentage of the students have no support from home, so it becomes solely the teacher’s responsibility to help this child. Teachers are up to this task, but students learn in different ways and in different timeframes, which is something the government needs to understand. Chad Wooley, a school administrator, has been working on a more logical way of holding teachers accountable, which is by taking out the factors of the equation that teachers cannot control. In the article, “Holding Teachers Accountable for Learning,” Wooley (1996) states, Using a statistical procedure, the effects of variables such as language proficiency, ethnicity, socio-economic factors, and mobility are removed. The system focuses on improvement-where students start and end-not absolute test scores. So it doesn't matter if schools and teachers have high-performing or low-performing students. The idea is to identify where improvement is not taking place, make plans to remedy the situation, and focus time and resources on achieving continuous growth. (¶ 9) Con-Position When looking at the make-up of any classroom, there is one factor that stays the same regardless. All students should be expected to learn the same content, so therefore their teachers need to be held accountable for ensuring that this happens. As pointed out in an article, titled “Pros and cons of NCLB: What the research says,” by the Educational Research Newsletter, (2006) which is a newsletter that keeps educators up-to-date on the new strategies and findings based off of research, “All students, regardless of socioeconomic status, race or disability, should be expected to meet common standards that challenge them to acquire content and skills that are

No Child Left Behind 5 more than just minimum requirements” (Wang, Beckett, Brown, 2006, ¶ 8). It is no longer okay to sit back and allow students to ‘slip through the cracks’ because of one reason or another, and with the legislation of No Child Left Behind, the teachers are being held accountable to making sure these ‘slips’ do not happen to any of their students. There are some who feel that the largest problem of No Child Left Behind is how it is based solely on assessments in order to determine proficiency. However, it is because of how our students were performing on the SAT and ACT standardized assessments that this type of reform is needed through No Child Left Behind. Another finding from the Educational Research Newsletter (2006) states that, Assessment-driven reform can have a powerful influence on school curriculum and reform, if tests are carefully designed to be consistent with the kinds of learning desired in the classroom and if there is a tight connection between cognitive learning theory, the curriculum, classroom activities and assessment items. (Wang, et al., 2006, ¶ 4) We live in a world where people are assessed every single day, albeit in various methods, but in order to help prepare our students for the ‘high-stakes’ assessments that help them to enter college, it does not seem so illogical to base our way of monitoring No Child Left Behind with a standardized assessment as well. Areas of Disagreement When looking at No Child Left Behind, and what its original intent was, not many people could argue that there were not good intentions behind this piece of legislation. However, according to an article written recently by Linda Darling-Hammond that was published in the May 2007 issue of The Nation, both “high-profile Republicans,” and “many newly elected Democrats,” are recognizing that No Child Left Behind is no longer being seen as the be-all, end-all piece of legislation that is going to help our entire nation reach the 100% proficiency level (Darling-Hammond, 2007, p. 1). One of the areas of disagreement about No Child Left

No Child Left Behind 6 Behind is that as a result of the assessments being done to show that students are ‘proficient’ according to government standards, there has been a narrowing of curriculum. When looking at what subject areas school districts report out numbers for, the government requires every student be tested in math and reading, and in the near future, it will also include science. The problem that many schools are facing is that because of the extent of pressure they are facing to make each and every single child ‘proficient,’ they are finding themselves cutting back time in other content rich areas in order to provide more time for the areas that are reported to the government. In an educational system that was already struggling to support the fine arts, some critics argue that No Child Left Behind only served to tighten the noose, so to speak (Darling-Hammond, 2007). Another area of disagreement toward No Child Left Behind is the way in which students are assessed in order to determine whether or not they meet the ‘proficiency’ requirements. Monty Neill, the executive director of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, believes that standardized tests will “promote bad educational practices and deform curricula in significant ways” (Neill, 2003, ¶ 8). In order to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind, schools with low-achieving students are going to have to work constantly on test preparation versus an actual curriculum. It is no longer going to be a question of student learning, but more a question of how well they can do on one sole standardized assessment. Many people, including Neill (2003), would argue that the standardized assessments, or high-stakes assessments are a sole snapshot of student achievement, and even that snapshot is blurry at best. If a student has a bad morning at home and then comes to school to take the test that will decide his or her proficiency, chances are that the student will not perform at their best level. However, when looking at how the real world functions, many people would also argue that high-stakes

No Child Left Behind 7 assessments are what the students will face later on in life, so they should begin to learn how to succeed in that type of environment. In addition, according to the Educational Research Newsletter (2006), an online newsletter, research found that, “Standardized testing is the best alternative for comparing student performance across different education systems because human judgment is error-prone. Decades of evidence show that the quality of teachers' tests pales compared with more rigorously developed large-scale tests” (Wang, Beckett, and Brown, 2006, ¶ 12). When looking at such a large-scale federal government initiative such as No Child Left Behind, it is always interesting to see how the government responds when they too realize that some of the components of the initiative are not working as planned. U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, even admitted that No Child Left Behind has “significant flaws, and that he looks forward to working with Congress to address the law’s problems” (U.S. Department of Education, 2009, ¶ 4). In his speech, Duncan stated that one of the problems with No Child Left Behind was that it unfairly labeled many schools as failures. When a school fails to meet their Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goals for more than one year, they are labeled as a School In Need of Assistance, or SINA. These schools typically have the neediest students, but as one Florida principal asked, “Is anybody going to want to dedicate their life to a school that has already been labeled a failure?” (Darling-Hammond, 2007, p. 2) The answer to that is “Probably not,” which makes it difficult for the SINA schools to attract high-qualified teachers. Then, to add to these schools’ list of things to do, they also then have to “use their federal funds to support choice and "supplemental services," such as privately provided after-school tutoring, leaving them with even fewer resources for their core educational programs” (DarlingHammond, 2007, p. 2). Essentially, our government does not have a problem labeling a school

No Child Left Behind 8 as a ‘failing’ school and then not provide them with any sort of financial support to help reverse the failings. Other Positions Another component of No Child Left Behind that may need to be looked into is the fact that advocates of NCLB insist “parents of students in poorly performing schools be allowed to transfer them [the students] even if it causes overcrowding elsewhere” (McKenzie, 2003, ¶ 3). Obviously a parent is undoubtedly going to want their child to be at a highly successful school, but while it may seem like a good idea to change schools; for many students changing schools is more of a hindrance to their academic progress than a successful one. In addition, when several students who are considered ‘not proficient’ by NCLB standards move, that school’s scores are probably going to increase, while the new school where the students are going, are probably going to see a decrease in their test scores (McKenzie, 2003). What the government has done is create a vicious cycle that simply allows children to move from school to school, instead of actually focusing in on the strategies that may actually help the student experience academic growth. Authors Heinrich Mintrop and Gail L. Sunderman bring up another issue with NCLB in an article titled, “Why High Stakes Accountability Sounds Good But Doesn‘t Work— And Why We Keep on Doing It Anyway.” Their issue is with the Adequate Yearly Progress, (AYP) and how it does not actually measure progress or improvements in student’s academic growth. When schools report out how many students are ‘proficient’ for that particular year, those scores are not measured against last year’s scores, but rather a fixed annual target (Mintrop and Sunderman, 2009). As Mintrop and Sunderman (2009) stated, Because students in schools identified for improvement for the most part begin with lower average test scores, they can continue to make substantial improvements while

No Child Left Behind 9 failing to reach the fixed AYP performance targets. As a result, overall student achievement gains are often similar in schools identified for improvement and schools meeting federal AYP goals. (Mintrop and Sunderman, 2009, p. 17) When looking at low-achieving students, who do not typically make a year’s worth of growth in an academic school year, even if they do make substantial growth one year, they are still being compared to a fixed number, instead of where they were at one-year ago. My Position It is my belief that at its fundamental level, the writers of No Child Left Behind did indeed have good intentions, such as holding teachers accountable for their students’ learning, they tried to implement a piece of legislation that was doomed to fail right from the beginning. I believe it is ridiculous to believe that 100% of students will all be considered ‘proficient’ by the year 2014. While it is a lovely thought and perhaps teachers did need a push of some sort, No Child Left Behind does not instill a sense of urgency in teachers. Instead, it causes frustrations, guilt, insecurities, and unhappiness, among the people who are having a direct impact on the future of our world. It is true we do have a ‘deadline’ that we are all working incredibly hard to meet, but if a person who believed in NCLB as it is written today walked into any American public education classroom, it would not take them long to realize the futility of NCLB. Every classroom will undoubtedly always have a student, or probably more, who are struggling learners. For example, what about that student who moves to America in the year 2013 not knowing a single English sentence? According to NCLB guidelines, that student will still need to be proficient by the year 2014. What about the student who absolutely refuses to try on the standardized assessments, and simply fills in the blanks playing “connect-the-dots,” because he or she cannot be bothered to care, regardless of anything an adult may say to them?

No Child Left Behind 10 If a government official would come into any classroom, they would see that while it is true, teachers should be held accountable for their students’ learning; there are some essential components of NCLB that must be changed in order to make it fit the public education system. The government had it backwards; they created a piece of legislation and tried to make the entire American education system change to meet those requirements, instead of creating a piece of legislation with scientifically sound research that would help actually close the achievement gap. Textbook Information In our textbook Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Educational Issues, the topic of No Child Left Behind is discussed in Chapter 23 titled, “Is No Child Left Behind Irretrievably Flawed?” For the ‘pro’ side of this argument, found on pages 404-409, authors Sharon Nichols and David Berliner argue that No Child Left Behind is flawed, due to the increasing demand of high-stakes assessments used in order to determine if a student is ‘proficient’ or not. According to Nichols and Berliner, “a high-stakes testing climate sends a message that the primary purpose of learning is to score well on the test” (Berliner and Nichols, 2010, p. 405). On the opposing end, or ‘con’ side of this argument, found on pages 410-413, author Dianne Piché, a self-proclaimed, “early, proud supporter of the law [NCLB]” (Piché, 2010, p. 410) would argue that “No Child Left Behind (NCLB) may be the most vilified act of Congress in modern times” (Piché, 2010, p. 410). In her response to this particular issue, Piché compares this education reform movement to the civil rights movement, in that we are “in dire need of creative thinking, committed education leaders, and informed, involved parents-all united in our belief in the worth and value of every young life and each child’s potential to learn and do great things” (Piché, 2010, p. 413).

No Child Left Behind 11 Critical Thinking Skills In order for No Child Left Behind to be effective, there are not that many people who believe it should be kept and carried out exactly as it was first written. In fact, even our educational government officials acknowledge that there are some serious revisions which need to happen (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). It seems the general consensus is that there needs to be criteria developed for evaluation, and clarification of standards. It is no longer acceptable to use high-stakes assessments as a way of evaluating how a student is performing in the classroom, when so many other variables that are beyond a teacher’s control can affect how any particular student performs on those high-stakes assessments. In order to make sure these revisions happen, and that we as a country are not just making revisions to make revisions, we need to explore the beliefs, arguments and theories that are already in place throughout the educational system. It is time to stop looking for the new ‘gimmick’ or quick-fix to help us solve the growing achievement gap. Instead, there should be effective research done to help give teachers strategies that they could possibly implement in their own classrooms that are proven to improve academic growth when implemented with fidelity. We need to see what has been working with No Child Left Behind, and what has to be changed in order to make it a realistic piece of legislation, instead of something that would only be possible in Utopia. Teachers all over the United States are working every single day to help increase their students’ learning, but to say that every single student in America must be proficient by a certain deadline ignores the fact that like their teachers, students are only human, and with that comes the complexities and intricacies of being individuals. NCLB, in its simplest definition could define any student in any classroom in America. It by itself is not going to work

No Child Left Behind 12 right away. Instead it will take the efforts of several people, administrators, teachers, mentors and parents, who all need to take the time and effort to interact with and guide that child so the final outcome will be a well-rounded individual in not only the world of academia, but also as a citizen of our world.

No Child Left Behind 13 Vocabulary 1. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): An individual state's measure of yearly progress toward achieving state academic standards. "Adequate Yearly Progress" is the minimum level of improvement that states, school districts and schools must achieve each year. (Definition taken from the U.S. Department of Education website: http://www.ed.gov/nclb/index/az/glossary.html.) 2. Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): ESEA, which was first enacted in 1965, is the principal federal law affecting K-12 education. The No Child Left Behind Act is the most recent reauthorization of the ESEA. (Definition taken from the U.S. Department of Education website: http://www.ed.gov/nclb/index/az/glossary.html.) 3. Teacher Quality: To ensure that every classroom has a highly qualified teacher, states and districts around the country are using innovative programs to address immediate and long-term needs, including alternative recruitment strategies, new approaches to professional development, financial incentive programs, partnerships with local universities, and much more. (Definition taken from the U.S. Department of Education website: http://www.ed.gov/nclb/index/az/glossary.html.) 4. Proficient: “Proficient” is essentially a cut score (e.g., 90 out of 100 questions correct) on a test, though these days a “cut score” is often referred to as a performance standard or achievement level. The goal of NCLB is that all students will be at the 40% “proficiency” level by the year 2014. (Definition taken from http://www.aft.org/pubsreports/downloads/teachers/WhatsProficient.pdf.)

5. School In Need of Assistance (SINA): If a school does not meet the annual Adequately Yearly Progress (AYP) state participation goals or state Annual Measurable Objectives

No Child Left Behind 14 (AMO) in reading or mathematics assessment in either the “all students” group or any one of the subgroups for two consecutive years, it is designated as a school in need of assistance. (Definition taken from the following website: http://www.aea9.k12.ia.us/documents/resources/u_u_sina_dina_022508131127.pdf.) 6. Standardized Assessments: Another word for "test." Under No Child Left Behind, tests are aligned with academic standards. Beginning in the 2002-03 school year, schools must administer tests in each of three grade spans: grades 3-5, grades 6-9, and grades 10-12 in all schools. Beginning in the 2005-06 school year, tests must be administered every year in grades 3 through 8 in math and reading. Beginning in the 2007-08 school year, science achievement must also be tested. (Definition taken from the U.S. Department of Education website: http://www.ed.gov/nclb/index/az/glossary.html.) 7. Title I: The first section of the ESEA, Title I refers to programs aimed at America's most disadvantaged students. Title I Part A provides assistance to improve the teaching and learning of children in high-poverty schools to enable those children to meet challenging State academic content and performance standards. Title I reaches about 12.5 million students enrolled in both public and private schools. (Definition taken from the U.S. Department of Education website: http://www.ed.gov/nclb/index/az/glossary.html.) 8. Supplemental Services: Students from low-income families who are attending schools that have been identified as in need of improvement for two years will be eligible to receive outside tutoring or academic assistance. Parents can choose the appropriate services for their child from a list of approved providers. The school district will purchase the services. (Definition taken from the U.S. Department of Education website: http://www.ed.gov/nclb/index/az/glossary.html.)

No Child Left Behind 15 References Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Evaluating ‘No Child Left Behind’. The Nation, 1-3. Retrieved October 12, 2009, from http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070521/darlinghammond/3 Denny, K. (2004). Studies show NCLB flaws. UEA Action, 34, 3. Retrieved October 13, 2009, from http://www.utea.org/newsEvents/publications/ueaAction/mar04/toughts/denny.htm Dillon, S. (2009, April 28). ‘No child’ law is not closing a racial gap. The New York Times. Retrieved October 16, 2009, from http://www.monroecc.edu/depts/library/apa.htm#emagazine McIntire, N. (2009). Schools in need of assistance/districts in need of assistance (SINA/DINA). Retrieved November 22, 2009, from http://www.aea9.k12.ia.us/documents/resources/u_u_sina_dina_022508131127.pdf Mckenzie, J. (2003). Gambling with the children. No Child Left, 1, 1. Retrieved October 12, 2009, from http://nochildleft.com/2003/jan03.html#1 Mintrop, H. & Sunderman, G. L. (2009). Why high stakes accountability sounds good but doesn’t work—and why we keep on doing it anyway. Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA. National Education Association. (2009). NEA's 8 principles for ESEA reauthorization. Retrieved October 14, 2009, from http://www.nea.org/home/1335.htm Neill, M. (2003). Don’t mourn, organize! Rethinking Schools, 18, 9-11. Retrieved October 13, 2009, from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/bushplan/nclb181.shtml

No Child Left Behind 16 Nichols, S. & Berliner, D., & Piché, D. (2010). Taking Sides: Clashing View on Educational Issues (15th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill: Higher Education. Rosenberg, B. (2004). What’s proficient? The No Child Left Behind Act and the many meanings of proficiency. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://www.aft.org/pubsreports/downloads/teachers/WhatsProficient.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Glossary of Terms. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/index/az/glossary.html U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Secretary Duncan says rewrite of ‘No Child Left Behind' should start now; Reauthorization can't wait. Washington, D.C. Wang, L., Beckett, G., Brown, L. (2006, November). Pros and cons of NCLB: What the research says. Educational Research Newsletter, 19, 305-328.