The Imperfect Parent - Articles || The Parental is Political

PUBLISHED March, 2007
URL:
HOME: imperfectparent.com

The Parental is Political

Do you really know what the No Child Left Behind Act is all about?

by Julie Marsh

“I believe that children are our future
Teach them well and let them lead the way”

- “Greatest Love of All”, Whitney Houston, 1985

It’s easy for Whitney to sing about it. It’s even relatively easy for politicians to draft it, debate it, and enact it. But has anyone asked the teachers what they need to make it happen?

If you have kids – even if they aren’t yet in public schools – you’ve likely heard of the No Child Left Behind Act (also known as H.R. 1). But I’d bet that most of us are still a bit fuzzy on the key provisions of the act.

Selected provisions from the NCLB Fact Sheet on the Department of Education website:

Accountability for Results

“H.R. 1 will result in the creation of assessments in each state that measure what children know and learn in reading and math in grades 3-8. Student progress and achievement will be measured according to tests that will be given to every child, every year.”

Expanding Options for Parents of Children from Disadvantaged Backgrounds

“Public School Choice: Parents with children in failing schools would be allowed to transfer their child to a better-performing public or charter school immediately after a school is identified as failing.”

Confirming Progress

“Under H.R. 1 a small sample of students in each state will participate in the fourth- and eighth-grade National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading and math every other year in order to help the US Department of Education verify the results of statewide assessments required under Title I to demonstrate student performance and progress.”

Promoting English Proficiency

“Under H.R. 1, all LEP students will be tested for reading and language arts in English after they have attended school in the United States for three consecutive years.”

It all sounds good in theory. Granted, these high-level provisions don’t address details such as the logistics of implementation – how teachers and administrators (and even parents) will fulfill these provisions – but the intentions appear good. As set forth in No Child Left Behind (NCLB), “school districts can meet AYP (or adequate yearly progress) targets only if students in four subgroups, including students with special needs, show steady improvement each year on standardized tests.”

So how are the schools – and more importantly, the students – doing?

From a National Education Association analysis of NCLB “Annual Yearly Progress” findings report, dated January 19, 2006:

More schools failed AYP this year compared to last year.

“Several recent rule changes by the Department of Education and changes in state accountability plans may have affected the number of schools failing to make AYP…These rules changes were counteracted by increases in every state of the percentage of students required to score at proficient or above on the state's reading and math test. This is unlike the 2004-05 school year, in which almost all states had the same threshold as the previous year.”

How can a school be designated as "failing" when the criteria upon which that determination is made fluctuate from year to year? Under conditions like these, “comparing scores over time is like comparing apples to oranges.”

The number of schools found "in need of improvement" this year is slightly larger compared to last year.

“This trend is especially significant because those schools labeled ‘in need of improvement’ who are receiving federal Title I aid for disadvantaged children face sanctions. The first time a school receives this label, all of its students (not just low-income students or those who failed to meet the AYP standard) are eligible to transfer to another school within the same school district. Districts must use up to 15 percent of their Title I funds to pay the costs of transportation for any students who decide to transfer. This school transfer provision is causing chaos and confusion for parents and educators, especially in districts where there are few spaces in other schools for these students to occupy.”

Is the label "in need of improvement" equivalent to the label "failing"? And if a school needs improvement, how is it expected to improve if a portion of funding is now used to transport students to a different school – assuming that space even exists at other schools to accommodate transfer students?

Many schools that received top ratings on state accountability systems failed to make AYP.

“The best example is in Florida where in the 2004-05 school year, 827 schools given an ‘A’ rating by Governor Bush failed to make AYP…Even the Norfolk, VA Public School District, given the Broad Foundation Prize for most outstanding urban school district, was labeled as failing AYP this year. These conflicting ratings confuse parents and the public and undermine the entire concept of accountability.”

I believe the above quote needs no additional commentary.

There will be virtually no funds available next year to help turn around schools "in need of improvement."

“Under the law, schools labeled as ‘in need of improvement’ are supposed to receive additional resources. However, since enactment of NCLB no funds have been provided for the School Improvement grants program authorized under Title I…Because Congress has cut Title I funding for FY 06, the vast majority of districts will already face a reduction in their Title I allocation and most states will have little to no money available for school improvement.”

As noted above, schools bearing the "in need of improvement" label already have to use Title I funding to transport transfer students to other schools. And with Title I funding being cut further, it seems nearly impossible for these "failing" schools to recover.

What’s particularly striking for me is that opposition to NCLB transcends political affiliations and socioeconomics. A personal friend of mine – a staunch Republican – teaches elementary school in a relatively affluent local school district. She generously agreed to answer some questions regarding her classroom experience with NCLB:

Julie Marsh: How long have you been teaching? What grades have you taught?

CCSD Teacher: Nine years. Grades 1-5.

JM: What is your understanding of the purpose of NCLB?

CCSD Teacher: My understanding of NCLB is that it is a political move to hold teachers accountable through excessive and subjective testing. Politicians think it is a measurable device that lets them know how kids are doing in school, but politicians have no idea of all the factors that play a role in test scores. Examples would be socioeconomics, lack of parental involvement and the mobility rate of most schools.

JM: Please give specific examples of how NCLB has affected your teaching – both in terms of classroom time and administration priorities.

CCSD Teacher: “Teaching to the test” is a very common saying you hear among teachers anymore. The pressures that my colleagues and I face are ridiculous. The pressures the states put on districts filters down to the classroom teacher, which ultimately affects the child. Rather than spending the necessary time teaching the curriculum, we are forced to teach to a test that is tricky, manipulative, and subjective.

JM: Based on your experience the classroom, what do you see as the major points both in favor of and against NCLB?

CCSD Teacher: Based on my own experiences, I cannot seem to find one thing in favor of NCLB. The negatives far surpass any positives for me. As a classroom teacher, the law has created a lot more stress for me. I understand that there does need to be accountability, but giving one standardized test to a child and then labeling a child’s “smartness” based on that test is ridiculous. There are so many factors in taking a test; for example, a child may be very bright, but a poor test taker.

JM: What is your political affiliation?

CCSD Teacher: Oddly, I am a Republican!! I think it is very easy for the general public, especially Republicans, to jump on the bandwagon and demand that there is accountability in our educational system, but until they live the daily life of a teacher, they have know idea how hard it really is.

I don’t think there’s any doubt that we – the Department of Education, the National Education Association, teachers and administrators and parents – all want the same result: successful public schools where teachers have the support and expertise required to ensure their students have every opportunity to learn. But based even on my limited research, it seems that NCLB is unenforceable due to its inherent subjectivity, continued fluctuations in evaluation criteria, and conflicts between state and federal analyses. And contrary to what many people might expect, the opposition to NCLB is not contained to urban areas where public schools are already struggling. Thanks to NCLB, public schools all across the country – regardless of their demographics – are now struggling.