Success or Failure - What is the Verdict on No Child Left Behind?

While not nearly as widely discussed as the war in Iraq or the well debated Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the education reform legislation signed by President George W. Bush in 2001 is no less controversial. And with contradictory data on the results of the highly contested program it is difficult for parents to assess how this legislation may be impacting their school age children, for better or worse.

The basic premise of NCLB is that schools are to be held accountable for providing a quality education to all public school students. The goal is for 100% of students to perform at grade level in reading and math within specified time frames. Schools districts that fail to meet these goals are faced with specific consequences such as paying to transport students from a failing school to a higher performing one if the parent requests a transfer or in providing tutoring to assist children in attaining grade level in reading or math.

In theory NCLB sounds like a long overdue solution to the problem of wide variations in the quality of public education around the country. Proponents of the program shower NCLB with high praise, indicating that it will ensure equality in education for all, but especially for children of color, low income students, immigrant children for whom English is a second language and the disabled. However, as we examine the specifics of NCLB in greater detail inherent problems with these assertions begin to be revealed almost immediately.

One of the chief concerns of critics is the fact that NCLB is a system of "unfunded mandates." School districts must adhere to a stringent set of guidelines and face serious consequences if the desired results are not achieved. However, little or no federal funding has been made available to assist school districts serving lower income families. Critics would argue that it is this very lack of funds that has contributed to the school's inability to provide a quality education to students in the first place. Crumbling buildings, lack of equipment and supplies and the inability to pay the higher salaries that would attract the most talented and experienced teachers are almost certainly contributing factors in schools that are "failing". Simply telling administrators in struggling districts that they must "do better" and then punishing them by withdrawing federal funds and burdening them with the extra expenses associated with paying for outside tutoring or transportation of their students to other schools does little to help them achieve quality goals in the long run.

Moreover, achieving a "failing" grade makes it much harder for school districts to recruit more highly skilled teachers, which further exacerbates the problem of achieving quality.

There also appear to be unanticipated challenges associated with the assurance that parents will have the option to request that their children be transferred out of failing schools. National Book Award winning author Jonathan Kozol states that in some urban areas there are not enough high performing schools to which students from failing schools may transfer even if parents are aware that they can request this option. In New York City, for example, Kozol writes that only 8000 of 275,000 transfer requests were successfully implemented. Likewise, in other urban areas such as Cleveland, Chicago and Los Angeles only a fraction of eligible students were able to successfully transfer to higher performing schools.

Another inherent challenge with NCLB seems to relate to the question of how to measure school performance fairly and adequately without allowing the measurement system itself to get in the way of quality instruction.First there is major controversy surrounding the standardized tests that are used to hold districts accountable for results. Many educators express concerns regarding the pressure to "teach to the test", resorting to the rote-and-drill test preparation methods that may produce short term improvement in test scores but do little to equip students with the analytical and critical thinking skills which they will require to succeed either in a university setting or in highly technical skilled job markets.

Next is the concern that there is no nationally standardized test or testing method. The standardized tests are implemented on a state-by-state basis presenting the opportunity for some states to manipulate the content of the testing material in order to make it easier for higher percentages of students to do well.

According to several studies there also appear to be a number of unanticipated and decidedly undesirable side effects occurring as a result of NCLB mandates. One of the most disturbing was reported in a recent article by Linda Darling-Hammond who found evidence that schools were raising test scores by increasing the expulsion rates for African-American and Latino students who were more likely to perform poorly on standardized tests. "In one major Texas city," Darling-Hammond writes, "scores soared while tens of thousands of students, mostly African-American and Latino, disappeared from school."

It is also difficult to ascertain whether NCLB is working due to various reports showing contradictory results. The U.S. Department of Education has declared NCLB a major success indicating that the achievement gaps between African-American and white fourth graders in reading are at their lowest in fifteen years.

However, other data contained in "The Nation's Report Card" suggests that less than 50% of all states have shown improvement in reading and math standardized test scores since 2005. Also, fourteen states are still showing lower than average test scores. And sadly, these seem to include states with high African-American and Latino enrollment (California, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina) or high percentages of rural and low income students (Tennessee, Kentucky and West Virginia).

Finally, I was also quite surprised to learn about what may be a very little known provision of NCLB. Under the legislation schools are required to provide the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all students to military recruiters if asked unless parents have specifically requested that their child's information not be provided. As the mother of a 17 year old high school senior I was shocked to learn of this provision and cannot recall ever being given the opportunity to "opt out" of this requirement.

So, while the sentiment behind NCLB might appear sound it would seem that there are practical matters that still require adjustment. Rather than a punitive approach why not implement reforms that would actually assist failing schools in achieving the desired improvements? Why not offer salary incentives to teachers willing to work in failing schools or provide scholarships and signing bonuses to attract the best and brightest college students into teaching careers? Measures such as these would seem to go a much longer way in truly ensuring that no child is left behind.

References:

Darling-Hammond, Linda. "Evaluation No Child Left Behind", The Nation. May 2, 2007.

Kozol, Jonathan. The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America. New York, Three Rivers Press. 2005.

The Nation's Report Card. http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/

U. S. Department of Education Website. http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml