Menu
Paid Advertisement
view counter

Winter 2007 Vol. 15. No. 2 Focus on No Child Left Behind

Theme articles

A law that has shaped education like no law before

By

by Dale Mezzacappa

on Nov 22, 2007 12:00 AM

Since No Child Left Behind was enacted more than five years ago, education in the United States – not to mention the education debate – has not been the same.

Technically, the law is the 2002 version of the 42-year-old federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) with a catchy new name. But it is much more than that.

To an unprecedented degree, NCLB has expanded the reach of the federal government into local education policy and has driven what happens in classrooms, schools and districts like no law before it.

Building on a standards movement that began in the 1990's, it set the ambitious – some would say unattainable – goal that all students should reach proficient levels in math and reading by 2014, regardless of disability, ethnicity, command of English, or socio-economic status.

It required each state to set annual improvement goals for its schools and to publicize test results both overall and by demographic subgroup. As a consequence, schools could no longer mask their failure to educate children of color, those with disabilities, or English language learners.

A signature initiative of the Bush administration, the law was a compromise between Democrats and Republicans. It passed Congress with the help of prominent Democrats like Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.

But the bipartisanship goes both ways. As school districts started to grapple with meeting its requirements, traditional adversaries united in opposition – teachers' unions wary of too much testing lined up on the same side as conservatives who dislike federal interference.

At the same time, it split the civil rights community: some groups believe that the renewed attention on poor children and children of color is driving academic progress, while others believe that schools serving these children are subjected to unproven and punitive reform strategies, including conversion to charters, privatization, or replacement of staff.

The law did not set national standards for academics or teacher quality – leaving those things up to the states. In response, states have set widely varying benchmarks. And while federal education aid has increased since the law was enacted, a broad coalition of groups has complained that the increases don't come close to paying for the kinds of reforms needed in struggling schools to bring them up to speed. Kennedy has argued that the federal investment should have jumped fourfold to $80 billion. Instead, it has increased from about $17 billion to $24 billion.

This split is evident as Congress tries to reauthorize the law. After months of work, key Congressional leaders now doubt that any bill will move this year. Schools and districts may have to live under the law's current conditions until 2010.

Locally, NCLB has had a number of ramifications. Not surprisingly, most of Pennsylvania's schools that have been tagged as poorly performing are located in Philadelphia, Chester, and other impoverished areas. But the public reporting of test results has also exposed the failure of many well-heeled suburban districts to adequately educate their students of color, and disabled and low-income students, and this has fueled opposition to the law.

Following are summaries of some of the legislation's most important provisions and how they have played out in Philadelphia:

Testing and accountability

NCLB requires schools to test students every year in reading and math in grades three through eight and in grade 11, reporting the results broken down by student subgroups, including race, ethnicity, disability, English-language status, and income. To make “Adequate Yearly Progress” or AYP, the school as a whole and all the subgroups must meet proficiency targets in both reading and math or show rapid improvement. Other targets must also be met, including test participation and attendance rates, or graduation rates for high schools. Miss even one of these targets and the school does not make AYP.

Right now, 70 schools in Philadelphia have fallen short for five or more years and are in “Corrective Action II,” meaning that they face the most drastic remedies, including outsourcing to private management or charter conversion. But many of these schools had already been taken over by outside management companies before NCLB took effect – leaving open the question of what else might work. The School District is promising a plan this winter for the “Corrective Action” schools (see Restructuring process looms for 70 schools).

At best, in 2004, 60 percent of Philadelphia schools reached all their AYP targets. That has fallen to 40 percent as those targets, set by the state, become steadily tougher.

Here, as elsewhere, educators have complained that the focus on reading and math has squeezed out other subjects and turned schools into test-prep facilities, casting doubt on the value of the higher test scores, especially since they have been concentrated in the lower grades.

At the same time, many schools have been stung with the stigma of failure through labels like “School Improvement I” and “Corrective Action II.” But it is impossible to say how much those stigmas have contributed to any improvement in a school's achievement.

Teacher quality

NCLB requires all schools to have a “highly qualified teacher” in every classroom. It left it up to the states to define “highly qualified,” but did set some minimal requirements. One emphasized content knowledge – for instance, by mandating that seventh- and eighth-grade teachers be able to demonstrate mastery of the subjects they are teaching, either through a college major or by passing a Praxis teacher certification test.

About the Author

Contact Notebook contributing editor DaleMezzacappa at dalemezz@comcast.net.

Comments (1)

Submitted by drysr (not verified) on March 24, 2009 10:38 pm

NCLB is a bad law. No single high stakes test can provide a complete picture of how well a student is learning, how well a teachers is teaching, and how well a school is doing.

I for one am sick of blaming the ills of society on teachers and schools.

Anyone ever question the validity of those high stakes tests? What about the error measurement(s) and reliability?

I bet if this country got smart and we had a moratorium on testing, wonderful things will happen. Students will bloom for teachers will once more be in charge of their classes.

We are going down the wrong path with regards to education in this country. A student is more than a test score. Even the students know the the tests are lame.

Oh, and think about this: Lower class sizes and quit building schools as if they are mega-factories, and get rid of the layer upon layer of administrative bureaucracy, which do not add value.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. We reserve the right to delete or remove any material deemed to be in violation of this rule, and to ban anyone who violates this rule. Please see our "Terms of Usage" for more detail concerning your obligations as a user of this service. Reader comments are limited to 500 words. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Table of Contents

Philly Ed Feed

Print edition

Click Here
view counter
Click Here - Paid Ad
view counter
Click Here
view counter
Universal Family of School is Recruiting Talented Teachers
view counter

view counter
Click Here
view counter
Keystone State Education Coalition
view counter
Click Here
view counter
Click here
view counter
Advertise with TheNotebook.org
view counter
Click Here
view counter
Reserve your ad in the next edition of The Notebook
view counter
Top

Public School Notebook

699 Ranstead St.
Third Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 839-0082
Fax: (215) 238-2300
notebook@thenotebook.org

© Copyright 2013 The Philadelphia Public School Notebook. All Rights Reserved.
Terms of Usage and Privacy Policy