MYTH: The new “No Child Left Behind” legislation is the answer ro everything wrong with the schools. Its emphasis on testing will force schools to perform. One hundred percent of students will be academically proficient by 2014.
The new No Child Left Behind Act provides a sense of hope and promise for those who view the schools as failing the children. Furthermore, it gives satisfaction to those who believe that schools should be punished, and it promises to do so with a vengeance. When the dust settles on this one, the public schools will be under federal control, and held hostage by corporate interests.
The new No Child Left Behind Act provides a sense of hope and promise for those who view the schools as failing the children. Furthermore, it gives satisfaction to those who believe that schools should be punished, and it promises to do so with a vengeance. When the dust settles on this one, the public schools will be under federal control, and held hostage by corporate interests.
In 1965, the federal government took a giant leap toward overhauling public education in the US when it signed into law the sweeping Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Originally intended to aid disadvantaged students, ESEA was expanded in 2001 to include all students and teachers. The updated version of ESEA is now officially known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), a.k.a. Public Law 107-110.
Of all the programs that have been forced upon the schools for the purpose of improving education, none have accomplished the level of devastation that NCLB will have had upon public education. Under this legislation, schools are finding themselves in a no-win situation. Like taking bitter medicine with a spoonful of sugar, NCLB is couched in satisfying rhetoric to make it go down easier. The lofty goals of this legislation mandates that by 2014, just 12 years after its inauguration (2002-2003 school year), every child in America will be academically proficient. This is indeed a noble goal, but one that will be all but impossible to achieve.
Failure Guaranteed
Who would argue about the importance of all children receiving the maximum benefit from education? Yet, the irrefutable fact remains that, regardless of the goals of NCLB, there are, and will continue to be, children who simply will not or can not learn. All teachers know this. Apparently, however, the politicians and business people who contrived NCLB do not. Whether the reasons are social, economic, emotional, physical, cultural, or just plain apathy, no amount of legislation or punitive action against schools will change the fundamental fact that not all kids will learn. Even scientific evidence can not confirm that “all students and all subgroups of students can reach meaningful high standards...as required by NCLB.”[1]
NCLB mandates that schools must make adequate yearly progress (AYP) on an ascending scale every year until the year 2014 when 100 percent of all students are to be "proficient." AYP is to be met by all students including all subgroups of students (Title I, Special Education, limited English speakers, and minority students) as well. If any one subgroup fails, the entire school fails. Schools identified as needing improvement (a.k.a. failing), must not only make up ground lost during the preceding year, they must also negotiate the increased requirements the following year. This applies to all subgroups too. In this Sysiphian environment, schools that fail to make the grade for three consecutive years must provide supplemental education services from tutoring to private or parochial school, and must foot the bill for them as well. (This opens the door for the government to more closely control private, parochial, and home school options.) After six years, the faculty can be fired and the school can be closed.
Failure appears to be the major goal of NCLB. Some are even beginning to refer to the new law as LNSS (Let No School Succeed). It is estimated that in California alone, 8000 schools will fail to meet NCLB requirements. North Carolina and Texas, recognized in recent years for progress made within their schools, are facing an 85% - 90% failure rate![2] Louisiana predicted that by 2004 - 2005 the number of schools labeled as low performing will be 85%.[3] Massachusetts predicts that 50% of their schools will fail while California estimates a 98% failure rate.[4] Those schools in North Carolina that have previously demonstrated "Exemplary Growth" have so far shown a 51% failure rate under NCLB.[5] If top performing schools are staggering under the weight of NCLB, how will less proficient schools fare? Are these high failure rates the result of inadequate schools? Or are they due to the impossible demands of NCLB?
So far the outlook for NCLB to deliver as promised is grim. Twenty-seven percent of the nation’s schools failed to show adequate yearly progress at the end of the 2004 - 2005 school year. This was a full percentage point higher than the previous year.[6] With over a fourth of the nation’s schools in danger of failing after only two years, it appears that NCLB is actually showing a downward trend (as could have been predicted by anyone reading this convoluted conglomeration of rules and regulations).
Are these failure rates built into the act? Robert Linn, President of the American Educational Research Association noted that using NCLB criteria it will take 57 years to meet fourth grade math proficiency and 61 years to meet it for eight grade math. And for 12th grade math, it will take and additional 166 years to meet the proficiency requirements of NCLB![7] A bit longer than the 12 years allowed.
Punishment Before Progress
Unlike other educational reforms, none of which have lived up to their pre-introduction hype, NCLB does not allow for a period of adjustment before assessing progress and assigning "accountability provisions" (a.k.a. punishment) for failure. In fact, under the new law, punitive sanctions are retroactive. "Consequences are triggered immediately for schools previously identified as needing improvement."[8] That means that some schools began the 2002-2003 school year under NCLB with added baggage that puts them a year behind form the start.
Before its second year had started, (2003-2004) we were already seeing the fruits of this bizarre concept. Over 230 schools in Illinois alone that began the program already in negative territory during the act’s first year in 2002 - 2003. In the summer of 2003, the Illinois State Board of Education reported that 576 schools in the state failed to meet NCLB requirements.[9] This is an increase of nearly two and one-half times over the previous year[10] (before NCLB went into effect and schools were under less restrictive guidelines).
First year sanctions under NCLB for schools identified as needing improvement must write a two-year plan that details what steps will be taken to rectify the situation. They must then allot ten percent of their Title I funds for professional development (Title I funds are intended to be used for the education of economically disadvantaged students). These schools must then offer a choice of other schools and must pay for transportation using an additional 15 percent of Title I funds.
Schools failing to make adequate yearly progress for a second year must continue to redirect ten percent of Title I funds to professional growth, offer school choice, free transportation, and provide supplemental education services. Redirected Title I funds increase from a total of 25 percent to 30 percent.
Failure to meet adequate yearly progress for four years increases the sanctions making it even more difficult to meet the goals. These school are identified as "needing corrective action." In addition to all the previous punitive measures, they must hire an outside expert, replace staff members, and face a lengthened school day and/or year.
And the sanctions only get tougher. After six years, if a school still has not been able to negotiate the increased demands, it can be closed. It can then be reopened under private management.
The Transfer Option
One of the more controversial aspects of NCLB is the provision that schools labeled as needing improvement must offer their poorly performing students the option to transfer to other schools (rather than provide academic remediation at their old schools). What will be the result of a sudden influx of poorly performing students upon the test scores of schools into which they transfer? Furthermore, the test scores of the schools form which poorly performing students leave will no doubt dramatically increase. One enigma in this plan involves those schools previously identified as top performing (before NCLB) and now, because of the provisions of the act, find themselves in need of improvement (failing). To where do parents of students from these schools send their kids?
AYP is assessed based on standardized test scores. The fallacy of this is that test scores are not reliable indicators of school effectiveness. Test scores rise and fall yearly depending in large part on the demographics of the student population at any given time. More affluent students or those from more stable domestics circumstances commonly score higher than their less fortunate classmates. This is one reason why urban schools tend to score lower that suburban schools. For some students, education has less priority than survival.
Abandoning one school for another in the hope of improving test scores is a poorly conceived idea. What of overcrowded schools or districts with no extra capacity? This could be a solution for some overcrowded schools hoping to make some room, but if the new school is overcrowded, where will the newly transferred students be placed? Some schools have had to utilize closets, store rooms, and hallways just to accommodate presently assigned students.
And will the vacuum created at the old school be filled with even lower performing students from schools farther down the academic scale? Will top performing students be forced from top performing schools because of overcrowding at their old school be compelled to attend those schools abandoned by less academically proficient students?
To compound the problem, NCLB stipulates that the student capacity of a school cannot be a determining factor in transfer options. In other words, overcrowded schools cannot turn away transfer students, but from recent evidence high achieving schools have another option. Since its inception in the 2002 - 2003 school year, another trend has developed. High achieving schools are showing a reluctance to accept students form lower performing schools for fear of being tagged as failing.
Another unintended consequence of NCLB appears to be that it encourages school segregation. Test scores of racial and ethnic subgroups which have not historically tested as well as white students are not being reported.[11] In Illinois, test scores of about one in seven minority children were not included in the 2003 - 2004 testing data.[12] (Ibid.)
Regardless of the goals of NCLB, the fact is that there is no evidence supporting the theory that student performance is directly tied to location. Improved student performance is dependent upon many factors, one of which is improved instruction. Improved instruction improves student performance if the student is responsive to instruction in the first place (another performance determining factor). What’s more, the traumatic experience of moving from familiar surroundings impacts negatively on lower performing students further exacerbating the situation. For all intents and purposes, the idea of relocating poorly performing students is a bad one.
Narrowing of the Curriculum
A major component of NCLB is that of standardized (or high stakes) testing to measure AYP. A study by Arizona State University was conducted to determine if testing indicated any transference of knowledge "beyond what was required to perform on...high-stakes test(s)." The findings revealed that "there is little support in these data that (higher test scores) are anything but the result of test preparation." The study also found that "high-stakes testing programs have unintended consequences such as a narrowing of the curriculum, heavy use of drill as the method of instruction, increased student drop-out rates, teachers and schools cheating on the exams, and teachers’ defection from the profession."[13]
In 2000, the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) stated that "high stakes tests often fail to assess accurately students’ knowledge, understanding, and capability. Raising test scores does not improve education."[14] The problem is that standardized testing forces schools to teach to the tests. When schools are forced to focus on testing, memorization of facts are emphasized over the development of problem solving, critical and analytical thinking skills. With pressure to show positive results, schools, administrators, and teachers tend to narrow their focus to avoid the punitive elements of NCLB.
The NCTE also stated that "high stakes testing often harms students’ daily experience of learning, displaces more thoughtful and creative curriculum, diminishes the emotional well-being of educators and children and unfairly damages the life-chances of members of vulnerable groups."[15] (Ibid.)
As authors of the ASU study, Audry Amrein and David Berliner, stated, "the harder teachers work to directly prepare students for a high-stakes test, the less likely the test will be valid for the purposes it was intended."[16] In short, standardized, high stakes testing will not make the schools better.
The Cost
NCLB appears to be a rich source of financial gain for school districts. Especially at a time when schools are facing serious budget crises. But NCLB will only put about $22 billion into programs that are projected to cost as much as $148 billion. President Bush requested $12.3 billion. But currently the authorized amount for NCLB is $18 billion. A minimum of $84.5 billion will be needed to make NCLB work as planned.[17]
In a period of tightening budgets, schools are hit particularly hard. Schools are currently being asked to do more and more with less and less. Amid staff cuts, salary freezes, building closures, and general budget cutbacks across the board, NCLB comes along and slaps schools with a huge bill. Already strapped schools and districts now must foot the bill for compliance to the new standards.
States were facing a $58 billion deficit in FY 2003. NCLB legislation pushed that number higher. As of this writing, cost studies from just ten states show an average increase in spending to carry out government decreed NCLB requirements to be around 32% above current levels. Using a conservative estimate of 20%, the increased cost to the nation will be $84.5 billion (on top of the $58 billion deficit). Applying a perhaps more realistic estimate of 35% results in an increase of $148 billion! In the case of Vermont, to cite one extreme example, one school superintendent found that it will cost the state three times more "to implement the law’s provisions" than is provided by the federal government for the purpose. The State of Connecticut is heading a multistate lawsuit that argues that written tests or too costly for districts to administer as required by NCLB.[18] (Associated Press new release, April 19, 2006.) How does the federal government expect states to meet these financial obligations? If left up to liberals, the problem will be solved by increased taxes.
Who’s Idea Was This, Anyway?
The whole idea of NCLB appears to be smoke and mirrors. It is an elaborate scheme designed to undermine education at all levels and make schools prime targets for takeover by corporate entities. Despite the bipartisan committee that developed the legislation (Chairman, John Boehner [R.-OH], George Miller [D-CA], Ted Kennedy [D-MA], and Judd Gregg [R-NH])[19], it was Ted Kennedy who, with the socialist tenets of George Miller, exercised the most influence on its development. And it was Ted Kennedy who insisted upon many of the more controversial components of the act, such as holding schools hostage to the success or failure of subgroups.
Education entrepreneur Chris Whittle, founder of The Edison Schools, a commercial venture to privatize public schools, was a consultant during the planning phase of NCLB. (The 150 schools[20] now under contract to Edison, have yet to deliver as promised.) In the late 80s and early 90s, Whittle, with the help of George Bush 41’s Secretary of Education, Lamar Alexander, proposed a grandiose plan for school vouchers. The voucher scheme came shortly after Whittle’s announcement of his plan for a national system of private schools. Interestingly, vouchers could be used to attend private schools. Unfortunately for Whittle, Bush 41 lost in 1992 and the governor from Arkansas moved into the White House, putting the voucher plan on hold.
Whittle is not one to give up. With his plans for school vouchers, on the rocks, Whittle saw his opportunity when Bush 43 announced during his campaign in 2000, "that no child should be left behind." He helped Ted Kennedy contrive a plan that would almost surely guarantee a windfall of foreordained failures for the privatizers.
Another player standing in the wings ready to swoop in and "rescue" failing schools is William Bennett’s K12[21]. Bennett is the former Secretary of Education under George Bush 41. Financing for K12 is linked to former stock market whiz and defrocked stock broker, Michael Milkin. Another participant in this potentially lucrative market is National Heritage Academies, Inc.[22] (NHA). In fact, the only entities not reporting negative impressions of the new legislation are those who stand to benefit form it. A simple internet search will turn up scores of other private enterprises that were not established until after NCLB became law.
On the surface, NCLB looks like a serious effort to get public education "back on track," but on closer examination, it appears more as a blatant attack on schools for the purpose of reorganizing them into some standardized format under contract to private corporations. As more and more schools fail, as surely they must under this legislation, Edison, K12, NHA and others stand ready to take over and run schools on an industrial model and rake in huge NCLB profits.
NCLB is less focused on reform than it is on punishment. It will only result in bigger problems than it was proposed to solve. It is a train wreck in progress. The casualties are the children. No Child Left Behind comes up for congressional renewal in 2007. Parents need to contact their representatives and voice their disapproval of this odious plot. With enough parental objection, NCLB can be made to join the junk heap of other failed progressive "improvements" to public education.
[1] William J. Mathis, “No Child Left Behind: Costs and Benefits,” Phi Delta Kappan, May, 2003, p. 683.
[2] Gerald Bracey, “The No Child Left Behid Act: Just Say No,” full text availalbe at www.america-tomorrow.com/bracey/EDDRA/EDDRA28.htm. And Bracey, “NCLB - A Plan for the Destruction of Public Education: Just Say No,”: Presidential Address by Robert Linn, President of the American Research Association, April 23, 2003.. Alain Jehlen, “High Stakes Questions,” NEA Today, March, 2003, p. 10
[3] Mathis, op. cit.
[4] Bracey, op. cit.
[5] Bracey, op. cit.
[6] Decatur (Illinois) Herald and Review, “A Fourth Miss ‘No Child Targets’,” March 30, 2006, [Unisgned news story].
[7] Bracey, op. cit. Source, as reported by Bracey in: “NCLB - A Plan for the Destruction of Public Education: Just Say No,”: op. cit.
[8] The Business Roundtable: Education & the Workforce, “executive summary of the ‘No child Left Behind Act of 2001,” [no author given]. Full tect available at http://brt.org/toolkit/appendices.html.
[9] Clinton (Illinois) Clinton Daily Journal, “Schools Not Meeting Criteria for ‘No Child Lewft Behind’ Law,” August 3, 2003, p.4.
[10] ibid.
[11] Decatur (Illinois) Herald and Review, “States Skewing Effects of Test in No Child Law,” April 18, 2006, [Unisigned news story].
[12] ibid.
[13] The study is published in the March 28 edition of the on-line, refereed, scholarly journal Education Policy Analysis Archives [Amrein, A. L & Berliner, D. C. (2002, March 28). High-Stakes Testing, Uncertainty, and Student Learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18). http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/].
[14] The National Council of Teaachers of English Position Statement delivered at the NCTE Annual Business Meeting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2000. See also: http://www.ncte.org/about/over/positions/level/mid/107357.htm
[15] ibid.
[16] ASU Study, op. cit.
[17] Mathis, op. cit. p. 683. Bracey, op. cit. Advocay Center for Children’s Educatinal Success With Standards (ACCESS), “Studies Show Massive Cost of Meeting NCLB Mandaes,” Research Policy, December 3, 2003, see: www.accessnetwork.org
[18] Decatur (Illinois) Herald and Review, “Advocates Fear No Child Fuels Segregation,” April 19, 2006, p. A2. [Unsigned news story].
[19] Bracey, op. cit.
[20] ibid.
[21] Andrew Trotter, “Invasion By Corporate Charters,” Education Week, as reported by Jamie McKenzie, see: http://nochildleft.com/2003/jan03.html.
[22] Jamie McKenzie, “Gambling with Children: Lack of Evidence for Change Strategies,” 2003, News World Comunications, Inc., http://nochildleft.cm/203/jan03.html, and http://washtimes.com.
