Literacy is All

Is NCLB Working and Who’s Going to Fix It?

There was a time, before the Depression of 2008, when members of Congress vowed to review and revise “the biggest social engineering project” of modern times – No Child Left Behind. Teachers across America can’t help but wonder if their concerns will be lost in the deluge of serious problems that face the new president and Congress. At the same time some individuals continue to insist that NCLB has been a success and literacy scores have risen dramatically, or at least significantly.  Some members of Congress, believing that claim, will not place NCLB revision in the forefront of their concerns for the future of this country.

 So, is NCLB working?  The January/February 2009 issue of NEA today claim that NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) results answer that question.  Although critics may claim that a teachers' union publication would take that position,  data does support their claim.  This data is important as a measure because NAEP is administered to large, random samples of students across the country.  Whereas individual states create and score their own state tests, as required by NCLB, the NAEP test is the same for all fourth grade students and is scored identically for the students in Alaska and Maine. This makes it a more reliable measure; the state literacy tests in Texas and Georgia look quite different from the state tests in New York and Massachusetts.

What the data shows is that reading scores remain fairly level; fourth grade students perform slightly better than prior to NCLB and twelfth grade students perform slightly worse. Math scores also do not show a drastic upward trend.

 However, NAEP scores from the 1970s and 1980s showed significant gains in literacy scores for minority students.  Would that growth have continued if Bush and NCLB hadn’t interfered with high-stakes testing that caused districts to throw out literacy instruction to engage in endless test-prep and skill-and-kill practice.  The NCLB law, Reading First and Title I, requires that districts receiving funds employ “scientifically-based” methods and materials.  Has Congress ever realized that the decision behind NCLB and Title I requirements are not based on data, or “scientifically-based” information?  Reminds me of the decision to declare war on Iraq and ignore Afghanistan. 

The Failure of NCLB

As students across the nation gear up for another year of testing, one additional discrepancy in the federal assessment program needs immediate attention.  Not only do the individual states’ tests not represent the same degree of rigor (March 7. 2007 Education Week “Making the Case for National Standards in American Education”) the tests are not assessing the same skills when they purport to assess reading and math (February 28, 2007 Education Week  “Writing: An Unexamined Gatekeeper”).  One clear example is whether a state’s test incorporates only multiple-choice responses, which are solely responsive in nature, or whether the test includes written responses which are usually generative in nature.  Yet these varied test formats and levels of difficulty are deemed equal under NCLB.

Thus when one compares the results of New York or Washington to California or Oregon, one is comparing prime rib to hamburg.  That is assuming that the reading selections and multiple-choice options across the tests in those states represent an equal degree of rigor.  Both New York and Washington require written constructed responses as part of a student’s score; in fact New York students construct responses on all assessments grades 3-12.  Therefore, the students from Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Vermont, Washington, and other written response states are evaluated by a different measure than the students in “multiple-guess” assessment states.  One would also assume that the educational experiences to ensure student achievement on those assessments are quite dissimilar. 

“The Case for National Standards in American Education” claims that expectations state to state and community to community are vastly different and those discrepancies perpetuate the inequalities in our educational system.  For that reason NAEP results represent a clearer comparison of student achievement across states than do separate state assessments.  So although 89% of the fourth graders in Mississippi achieved “proficiency” on the state reading test, only 18% scored “proficiency” on the NAEP reading test.  Meanwhile in Massachusetts 50% of the fourth graders were “proficient” on the state test and 44% were “proficient” on the NAEP test.  Couple those results with an individual state’s results for urban versus suburban districts or affluent suburban versus “free-and-reduced” neighborhoods and you have a frightening picture of public education in America. 

NCLB pretends that the playing field is equal and all students have equal access to be a champion.  National standards and national summative assessments would help educators define a common goal.  These standards and assessments need to be as rigorous as those of our international competitors.  The paths a district or state uses to achieve these goals can be open to local control as long as the goals and measures of accountability remain consistent. 

Whose Child Should Be Left Behind?

As days, weeks, months and years bring US public education closer to the 2014 deadline of “no child below grade level the nay-sayers gain strength about he impossibility and improbability of success.  How much of the inability of No Child Left Behind to become a reality can be laid at the clay feet of educators to whom  No Child Left Behind has never actually a vision?

Surprise!  SES (supplemental educational services) required by NCLB are not happening.  The U.S. Government Accountability Office estimates that in the 2004-2005 school year only 19% of the eligible students received SES.  Is that because low socio-economic is often aligned with low academic achievement and so the voice of the under-served lacks intensity?

The most effective SES for every eligible student is early, intensive intervention provided by a highly qualified educator that is coordinated with the regular curriculum.  Research studies have proven that one-on-one tutoring or small group tutoring closely aligned with the regular curriculum is effective SES.  That effect is accelerated “when the classroom teacher and tutor meet frequently to discuss the students’ needs and progress and to ensure that the extra help both reviews and builds on what has been covered in class.”

Are parents and educational leaders waiting for further political action before they act responsibly?  The research has been readily available; every publication of the International Reading Association (IRA), among others, has publicized this research for years.  And educational leadership has not been silent.  AFT Executive Vice President Antonia Cortese noted, “It is a waste of time and tax dollars when tutoring bears no relationship to a school’s curriculum, fails to reach the students who need it most, and lacks any reliable evidence of success.” 

Let’s start asking everyone: “Whose child shall we leave behind?  Shall we start with your child?  The children in your neighborhood?  In your state?  In the southern states?  Children whose parents weren’t born in this country?  Children who live in urban settings?  In remote rural settings?”

Once we have decided, as a community or nation, whose children we can afford to leave behind, let’s forge ahead with the rest.  Let’s create student-centered learning communities that promote problem-solving, critical thinking, creative innovation and the communication skills and compassion to resuscitate those we left behind.