NCLB Education: Reality-Testing (page 2)

Proponents of the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law have charged critics with creating "myths" about the law and have issued their own "facts." It's time to look at the evidence for a reality check on NCLB's claims of success. [1]

THE CLAIM: Proponents say higher test scores prove NCLB is working.

THE REALITY: Rising test scores are primarily the result of repetitive drilling for the narrow content the exams cover, not real educational improvements. Groups that have long struggled, like special education and English language learners and many low-income minority students, continue to do so - in fact, they may be falling further behind. 

• Some state test scores have risen, but reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) have not. (NAEP math scores began rising prior to NCLB's passage.) Most test experts agree that score gains on one test mean little if there are not parallel improvements on tests that are not taught to, such as NAEP. [2] Instruction in reading and math increasingly resembles test preparation, which is why scores often rise on state tests, but not on NAEP.

• Texas is the NCLB model state. Due to a decade of intensive teaching to the TAAS test, scores rose dramatically and the racial score gap narrowed. But the gains were not confirmed and the racial gap did not close on NAEP or on the state's college admissions exam. In fact, Texas colleges reported in-state high school graduates needed more, not less, remediation after high-stakes testing was introduced.

• Study after study has found that a focus on reading and math tests causes schools to downplay science, history, art, physical education and even recess in order to boost scores.

THE CLAIM: Education Trust and other NCLB proponents say, "[E]arly evidence from states at the forefront of implementing rigorous accountability and instructional support systems demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that public schools are capable of meeting the expectations in the law." [3] Supporters also point to an increase in the number of schools that made "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) under NCLB as evidence of success.

THE CLAIM: President Bush says the law empowers parents by letting them transfer their children out of ineffective schools or obtain tutoring.

THE REALITY: The law has done little more than label schools "in need of improvement," leaving many parents with no real options.

• In large cities such as New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C., and in smaller districts, very few seats for transfers are available in schools making AYP.

• Most "tutoring" is little more than test preparation, not real learning; unlike teachers, tutors do not have to be "highly qualified"; and money for tutoring is taken out of schools' NCLB Title I funds, reducing support for most students.

THE CLAIM: U.S. Education Secretary Rod Paige said that NCLB only asks "that a third-grade child read at a third-grade level," and defines "proficiency" as basic grade-level capability.

THE REALITY: The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) proficiency standards, on which NCLB is based, are set so high that it will be impossible for most schools to reach them.

• Multiple independent studies of how NAEP set proficiency levels found that the procedures were flawed, resulting in absurdly high cut-off points. In other words, "proficient" on NAEP means a score well above what is typically considered "grade level."

• A federal Government Accountability Office study found that states vary wildly in how they define proficiency. "Proficient" is far easier to reach in some states than in others. The differing percentage of students scoring proficient therefore does not reflect the relative academic health of their schools and students.

THE CLAIM: NCLB provides the tools schools and districts need to improve the quality of teaching and learning.

THE REALITY: Once a school or district is labeled "in need of improvement" because it has not met test score targets for two years, a series of progressively more severe sanctions are set in motion, ending with "restructuring," which may mean that a school's staff is replaced or the school is put under private management.

• The law focuses on punishment and blame, rather than on increasing the capacity of state education agencies and school districts to fully address the needs of struggling schools and their students.

• There is no evidence from previous experience that the types of interventions listed by NCLB - firing teachers, privatizing school management, having the state run the school, forcing a school to be a charter school - have consistently improved schools. For example, a report from the pro-NCLB, pro-privatization Fordham Foundation found that replacing staff simply did not work.

THE CLAIM: U.S. Education Secretary Rod Paige says the law is adequately funded and federal expenditures have risen rapidly.

THE REALITY: Funding remains woefully inadequate for the goal of leaving no child behind.

• The National Conference of State Legislatures calculated the gap between funds authorized and appropriated by Congress for NCLB at nearly $20 billion for just the two years 2004 and 2005.

• If the nation is serious about leaving no child behind, then it must not only provide adequate school funding - which some experts say would mean an additional $84.5 billion per year for low-income schools - but also address issues of nutrition, health care, housing and community stability that so often make it hard for children to learn in school.

Notes:

1. These statements are documented in FairTest's report on NCLB, Failing Our Children, [http://www.fairtest.org/Failing_Our_Children_Report.html] unless otherwise noted.

2. NAEP math results are available online at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/. Reading results are at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/.

3. Education Trust's "The ABCS of AYP" is available online at http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/37B8652D-84F4-4FA1-AA8D-319EAD5A6D89/0/ABCAYP.PDF

4. See http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/edu/s090803.htm.