No Child Left Behind--it is a blessing or a curse for our schools?
Both, according to the testimony heard Saturday, November 15 at Stanley
Middle School in Lafayette.
Assemblymember Loni Hancock and the Select Committee on Bridging
the Achievement Gap held a hearing, "No Child Left Behind? How the
Federal No Child Left Behind Act impacts local schools and children,"
that featured several educators speaking about how the law affects
their work. In addition, members of the audience spoke about perceived
flaws in the legislation and about the systematic under-funding of the
Act and schools in general.
It should be noted that the goals of NCLB are important. Education
in America is a system that does not provide equal education for all.
The most important component for learning--qualified, experienced
teachers--are often lacking in the schools that need them most. The
ongoing lawsuit against the State of California [Williams] showcases
how schools in poor communities are much more likely to be poorly
maintained, less likely to have proper textbooks, less likely to have
qualified teachers. [
http://www.idea.gseis.ucla.edu/resources/williamscase/
]
But inequities are not limited to poverty-stricken communities.
Even in districts such as Berkeley, where nearly every teacher is
certificated, large, persistent gaps in achievement between children of
affluent, mostly white, families and children of color exist. And they
exist no matter how you want to measure outcomes: graduation rates,
teachers' own assessments, standardized tests. Yes, teaching students
from less-affluent families is more challenging--but that does not mean
we as a community [and a country] should not be clear about our lack of
success in that endeavor, acknowledge how crucial the task is, and
focus our efforts to improve.
This article will attempt to summarize the most important points
made at the hearing. There are links at the end for those more deeply
curious, and I would recommend going to them for more lengthy
explanations than are possible here.
--The NCLB Act will be the driving force in setting policy for
schools across the country for this decade and beyond.
--Its stated goals:
Stronger accountability for results
More freedom for states and communities
Encouraging proven education methods
More choices for parents
--It was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.
--The ultimate goal [to be achieved in 2014] is 100% proficiency
in both English-language arts [which they abbreviate as ELA, but this
article with call "English"] and math.
--Progress must be made in both English AND math, or a school will
be labeled as needing "Program Improvement" [Often the term "failing"
is used, in the sense of failing to meet the target numbers.]
--95% of students must take the tests, or a school will be labeled
as needing "Program Improvement", no matter its performance.
--Progress must be made by all subgroups [race, gender, economic
status] that are statistically large enough.
--All teachers must be "highly qualified" by 2006-07, the
definition of which is not quite the same as California's teacher
certification. Teachers in Title 1 schools must be "highly qualified"
immediately.
--While the targets are set relatively low now, they start ramping
up quickly starting in 2006-07.
Objections to NCLB run along these lines
--Classroom: Too much emphasis on subjects that are tested, arts,
music, etc ignored.
--Students: Too many standardized tests, too much time spent not
learning.
--Assessment: Relies only on standardized test data, which is not
an accurate measure of overall student performance.
--Participation: 95% of students must take the tests, or a school
will be labeled as needing "Program Improvement". By law in California,
parents may excuse their children from the tests, but excused students
count against the participation numbers.
--Teachers: Incoherent system of certifying teachers as "highly
qualified," does not relate directly to state system.
--Goal: All students proficient or above by 2014 is not backed by
common sense or research.
--Unfunded mandates: The restrictions, regulations, and
improvements mandated by NCLB come with no dollars attached to them.
Thus a Catch-22 situation exists. [Note on the money issue: It is
important to separate the issue of under-funding from the issue of
trying to meet the goals of NCLB. Everyone deserves equal protection
under the laws, equal access to good quality schools and education.
When we are told that we must have the same expectations for educating
our black and latino students as white students, some protest that we
can't change unless we get more money!? Our schools are underfunded,
but this argument against NCLB is reactionary. That said, there may be
elements of NCLB implementation that could be more cost effective.]
--Increased regulation: Regulations place a burden on districts to
show compliance.
--Inconsistent with state programs in place already. Creates
confusion and increased costs.
--Money: Decreased state money for education prevents spending on
research-based programs to increase achievement.
--Threat to public education: Measure calls for outside
corporations to run after-school programs, possibly charter schools,
etc. When coupled with lowered funding, sets schools up to fail.
What happens when a school or district enters Program Improvement?
In Berkeley, only Rosa Parks is in this situation. Rosa Parks is in
year 3 of Program Improvement. Once a school enters Program
Improvement, it must meet all performance targets in English and math
for the school as a whole and all significant subgroups for two years
in a row to exit the program.
Although NCLB was based in early 2002, it is really just a
tougher, extended version of the Title I law that preceded it.
Even under the old law, schools that did not make progress had to go
into Program Improvement. But the consequences were not as
significant. That is how Rosa Parks can be in Year 3 even though
NCLB began in 2002.
Program Improvement School Requirements:
Year 1: Revise school plan, Use 10% of Title 1 funds for staff
development, Provide school choice with paid transportation, District
provides technical assistance.
Year 2: Continue Year 1, add supplemental services and tutoring
Year 3: Continue above, add district corrective action
Year 4: Continue above, add development of plan for alternate
governance
Year 5: Implement alternative governance plan [Reopen as a
charter, or replace staff, or contract with external entity, or
takeover by state.
Program Improvement at the District Level
Year 1: Revise LEA Plan, Use 10% of Title 1 funds for staff
development, Target students not making AYP, Provide extended learning
opportunities, Involve parents, Receive TA from state
Year 2: Continue to implement plan
Year 3: State takes one corrective action: Reduce funds,
Institute new curriculum and staff development, replace personnel,
Appoint trustee, Restructure LEA, AND authorize school choice.
California in relation to NCLB
--California, prior to NCLB, had set state standards and created a
testing system to provide accountability.
--Unfortunately, the US Department of Education is not waiving any
of the requirements of NCLB, which means that although there may be
programs in California that are very similar to those NCLB requires,
California must revamp those programs to meet NCLB. This creates
confusion and costs dollars.
--California built its accountability model around API [Academic
Performance Index] whereas NCLB uses AYP [Average Yearly Progress]. One
is a growth model, one is a static measurement. The differences are
technical, but California has grown comfortable with API. It is now the
"secondary indicator" for performance.
--API combines math and English and sets growth targets. AYP
separates math and English and sets certain percentages of students who
must be proficient. Currently, that percentage is small, but rises to
24.5% by 2004-05, 35.2% by 2007-08 and increases 11%/year thereafter to
reach 100% by 2014.
--Teachers must be "highly qualified," the definition of which is
not quite the same as California's certification, and actually, due to
the way it is written, makes teachers with years of classroom
experience "not highly qualified" in the subject they've taught for
years [this is especially an issue in the high schools]. It also
requires more bureaucracy to track for districts like Berkeley, where
97% of the teachers are state certified.
The format of the event included a description of the high points
of the measure, comments from a panel of teachers, principals, and
administrators, including our own Superintendent Michele Lawrence. 17
audience members spoke, including 2 [Issel, Rivera] of the 4 [+ Riddle,
Selawsky] Berkeley School Board members present.
Here are a few of the comments:
From Michele Lawrence:
--Don't lose sight of the goal!
--Lack of funding makes the goals impossible to attain.
--While funding decreases, regulations, and the cost of
compliance, increases.
--Especially at underperforming schools, NCLB is decreasing art,
music, PE, etc in favor of English and math.
Solutions:
--Repeal 10 state Education Codes [it runs 30 volumes] each
year--give districts the flexibility to work without restrictions to
attain the goals.
--Fully fund the cost for 10 districts to extend the school year
30 days this year. Fund an additional 10 districts each successive year.
--Insist on multiple measures of performance, not just
standardized tests.
Janice Thompson, a principal in a Richmond school that has seen
huge performance increases told her story:
--Four years ago, she inherited a school in a poor neighborhood,
all children of color, with an API of 324. Starting with basic things:
Improving attendance [from 84% to 94%], working with parents, and
creating an after school program, the school has restored hope among
the faculty [which went from just a few certified teachers to mostly
certified teachers], parents and children. The most recent API is in
the 500s.
--Stop punishing schools--fund them fully so there are no layoffs.
From Boardmember Issel:
--Feels she's on the Compliance Board not the School Board--cut
regulations.
--Repeal NCLB or don't comply and accept the funding cuts.
From Boardmember Rivera:
--To the Assemblymembers: No more reforms! Remove what isn't
working in the Ed Code. Give districts more flexibility.
--Change the rhetoric--school aren't failing!
From a teacher:
--Teachers are NOT against reform or accountability, we are
confused by the onslaught in the past five years of evolving state
standards and differing federal and state top-down regulation.
--How can an effective, 15-year teaching veteran with a degree
from Cal NOT be labeled "highly-qualified?"
--Quoting Wynton Marsalis in NEA Today:
"This whole emphasis on testing and making kids compete with
people scientifically--it's creating an elite corps of students who,
granted, can compete with anyone. But, for most students, that doesn't
work. You need another way to deal with the mythology, the soul of
people--to teach them what it means to be an adult, what it means to be
alive. That will improve our national life. Not smarter students, but
more informed, humane students."
From a district administrator:
--California spends the least of any state [per student] on
lobbying in Washington and working with the federal Dept of Education.
From another district administrator:
--Need to align state and federal regulations.
--The data, as it is presented to principals and teachers, is
confusing and often conflicting. Better data analysis costs money at a
time not even enough teachers can be funded.
--Low-performing students are more likely to move--there is no
mechanism to track students statewide as they change districts.
From audience members:
--Vocational education is being eliminated from K-12 education.
75% of high school vocational programs have been eliminated, the rest
are threatened. Working with one's hands--welding, plumbing,
construction--are perfectly good careers that many people are happy
with. NCLB assumes [incorrectly] everyone will need and want to go to
college.
--NCLB requires districts to give student information to the
military UNLESS parents write the district to opt out.
--Let's not legislate teachers out of the profession.
--High school students noted the large number of standardized
tests they need to take--how can they be reduced?
--Nationwide, millions of students are in Special Ed, and they are
still expected to be proficient in English and math. For some [though
not all], that is not realistic and disheartening.
--If a student fails one subject, the student is not labeled as
failing. Neither should a school that fails to show growth in one
subject matter or one subgroup.
--You need to pay for what you are asking for.
--Overheard walking out the door: "How am I going to explain all
this to the parents at my school [which is categorized as needing
"Program Improvement"]. There's so much jargon and even the experts
seem confused."
I am sure by now I have exhausted the reader's patience, but would
like to end with a couple of comments.
We should remember that we need to educate all of our children in
our nation, and in our case, Berkeley's children. Looking at the
numbers, whether they are teacher's own assessments or test scores,
graduation rates or successful outcomes, they tell a sad tale--we have
to say, Yes, we can do better. We must do better.
We can work to remove the most punitive, ineffective provisions of
NCLB while continuing to support the goal of quality education for all.
We can work to spread the word: California is 37th in per student
state spending on education--we need to increase taxes to pay for our
schools and human services. You get what you pay for.
We can work to spread the word about local taxes [such as BSEP in
Berkeley] that pick up part of the cost of education that the state and
federal governments are refusing to pay.
We can volunteer in our school or after-school program, to make a
difference in a child's life.
We can make sure improving achievement is a goal of our schools
and our community.
We can make sure every discussion about potential Presidential
candidates includes: Where does she or he stand on significantly
increasing funding for education [which will require raising taxes]?
We can take our extra money from lowered vehicle taxes or the $400
less in federal taxes [per child!] that most of us will save from
lowered federal taxes [each year!] and invest it in the organizations
that support schools.
We can reach out to another family at your school for a playdate
or impromptu dinner and talk about school experiences.
We cannot afford to do nothing. Loni Hancock, in her closing
remarks, asked attendees to do one thing: to stay engaged in the
ever-more crucial task of supporting public education.
As Janice Thompson, the principal in a Richmond school that has
seen huge performance increases noted:
"NCLB is a blessing because it makes folks teach all our children.
It is a curse because it penalizes failure despite the fact there is
not enough money to implement its goals. But remember: success is there
for every child. We all need to work together to make it happen."
Below are the resources from the event program. Notes by Jay
Nitschke. Your additions, corrections or comments are welcome at
jay@jaystoys.com
RESOURCES [from the event program]
Representative George Miller and the Education and Workforce ~
Committee have published a report entitled "Broken Promises." Rep. is
Miller is one of the principal authors of NCLB but is angry with the
President for underfunding it. The report can be viewed at
http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/brokenpromises.pdf
The Applied Research Center has published a report entitled,
"Reporting on Race, Education and No Child Left Behind." While
originally intended for journalists, this is a reader-friendly guide.
www.arc.org
Assemblywoman Loni Hancock is the Chair of the Select Committee.
She also sits on the Assembly Education and Budget Committees. Ms.
Hancock represents the 14th Assembly District. Her website is:
http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a14
The California Department of Education web site includes a page on
NCLB, the State's plans, programs and contacts. This site also links to
federal resources.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/pr/nclb/
The Official No Child Left Behind web site is sponsored by the
U.S. Department of Education. This site provides state data and
statistics as well as important dates.
www.nochildleftbehind.gov