NCLB: time to reevaluate its effectiveness.

The Federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB), which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, was intended to breathe new life into U.S. schools--to raise the achievement level of elementary and secondary schools and ensure that all children have equal access to a quality education. The NCLB Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush, was founded on four fundamental principles: 1) increased accountability for school districts and schools in terms of meeting state academic standards in math and reading; 2) school choice for parents and students who wish to transfer out of a "failing" school (i.e., a school not reporting adequate yearly progress [AYP] toward meeting the standards); 3) greater flexibility for states, school districts, and schools in deciding how best to use federal education funds awarded for achievement; and 4) federal funds to promote quality reading programs for K-3 students-the President's Reading First initiative.

ACEI members across the country have commented about the various provisions of the NCLB Act that has as its cornerstone Title I--the federal government's aid program for raising the achievement level of students from low-income families. Having high standards for children and teachers as well as top-performing public schools is important to all of us. Many educators, however, believe that the NCLB Act is actually hurting efforts to improve the quality of public education and to close achievement gaps between students, especially disadvantaged students. The sanctions that can be imposed on school districts and schools that fail to meet AYP standards/goals for students in math and reading are of particular concern to many teachers, school administrators, and others who are opposed to the idea of linking standardized test results, as a measurement of a school's success, to federal support for public education.

The issue of accountability and standardized testing is of special interest to classroom teachers who dislike the idea of having to "teach to the test" to help raise student test scores and meet AYP requirements. Many teachers find that the steady stream of standardized tests is taking too much time away from classroom instruction, undermining their efforts to provide a developmentally appropriate program that meets the needs of all students and truly helps them to learn. Increased accountability is putting a greater strain on teachers and school administrators; consequently, schools in some cases are losing good teachers. Having to follow scripted lesson plans/programs that do not give teachers the flexibility that they need to teach and to motivate children to learn is also a growing concern to teachers. Because of the requirements and challenges of the NCLB Act, many teachers are being robbed of the personal satisfaction and enjoyment that they get from teaching.

Children, too, are feeling the added pressure of NCLB's blanket approach to achieving higher academic performance. There is much less time, for example, for individualized instruction for each student (or groups of students) that fits different learning styles and levels. Time spent preparing for tests also means less time for children to be creative, explore other core subjects more fully, and otherwise develop to their individual potential. In addition, state expectations are far too high for many students and poor test performance diminishes their self-esteem, especially for those in special education.

The emphasis on testing and how test results are used continues to be of concern to ACEI members. A public school system judged to be making adequate yearly progress based largely, if not entirely, on student proficiency in just two subjects is troublesome. The NCLB Act mandates that all students attain proficiency in math and reading by 2014, but the law leaves the states to decide what level determines proficiency. Unfortunately, state requirements are either so advanced that many students/schools are predisposed to failure or too low to indicate adequate academic achievement at the national level. According to the National Education Association, "Study after study concludes that with the levels states have set, almost every school will fail to reach 100 percent proficiency by the deadline."

Proponents of the law believe that we are making slow but encouraging progress. Others say that it is too early to determine how effective the NCLB Act will ultimately be in improving schools and closing achievement gaps. Still others believe that the law will never meet its ambitious goals without substantially more funding and a better system of allocating those funds. Those at odds with the law believe NCLB gives the federal government too much authority, shifting authority away from local school districts and schools. This adds to the controversy.

In the Fall 2006 issue of the ACEI Exchange, I mentioned that the 2006-07 school year is a good time for ACEI members in the United States to reevaluate the effectiveness of the NCLB Act. We need to feel more certain that the NCLB Act will live up to its original promise--that every child has access to a quality education, that every child can learn, and no child is left behind. I encourage ACEI members to welcome any opportunity to have input when the law comes up for reauthorization next year. The core goals of NCLB are good, but the consensus is that serious problems remain that need to be addressed. Paramount is the need for more funding for implementation; this time around, educators must have far greater input in revising/improving the law. I suggest that you contact your state and/or local government representatives as well as school policymakers.

School reform is important to all ACEI members, in the United States and other nations. I hope that we can keep the dialogue going in the New Year. On behalf of the ACEI Headquarters staff, seasons greetings and best wishes for 2007.

References

Jehlen, A. (Ed.). (2006, April). Rating NCLB: NEA members say it's hurting more than helping. NEA Today, 24(7).

Odland, J. (2006). Educators left behind. Childhood Education, 83, 32-B.

Jerry Odland,

Executive Director