Chapter 5
National Policies for Improvement

A CALL TO REFORM

A Nation at Risk (Washington, DC, 1983), a report prepared by the National Commission on Excellence in Education, proved to be a "wake-up call" on the state of the U.S. educational system. It warned of a "rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and as a people." As a result, educators, lawmakers, and governors began earnest efforts to improve schools. The report recommended, among other things, a longer school year, a tougher curriculum, and stronger teacher-training programs. It specifically expressed alarm at the deterioration of academics at the secondary school level.

To improve the situation, the report recommended that no student should graduate from high school without completing four years of English; three years each of mathematics, science, and social studies; one-half year of computer science; and, for college-bound students, two years of a foreign language. A Nation at Risk was the beginning of an educational reform movement that has continued into the twenty-first century. The fact that it was still relevant more than twenty years later speaks to how influential it was and is; it is rare for a policy document to survive through several presidential administrations.

NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS FOR THE YEAR 2000

At the first Education Summit held in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 1989, President George H. W. Bush and the nation's state governors established six National Education Goals to be achieved by the year 2000. The bipartisan National Education Goals Panel was created in 1990 to oversee and report on the progress toward these national goals. The panel was made up of governors, members of Congress, state legislators, and members appointed by the president. Expressing the continued concern of the nation, Congress passed the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (P.L. 103-227), signed on March 31, 1994, by President Bill Clinton. The Act reemphasized the National Education Goals and added two more goals.

The eight goals included preparing children so they are ready to learn by the time they start school (Goal 1); greater levels of high school completion (Goal 2); student achievement (Goal 3); teacher education and professional development (Goal 4); ensuring that U.S. students are first in the world in mathematics and science (Goal 5); increasing adult literacy and lifelong learning (Goal 6); safe, disciplined, and alcohol- and drug-free schools (Goal 7); and parental participation in the schools (Goal 8).

Did We Reach the Goals?

While many schools responded to the challenge first issued in 1989, the Goals panel concluded in its 1992 report that any gains had been modest. In November 1995 the panel reported that results to that point had been disappointing. Although the nation was halfway to the target year (2000), it was far from reaching its education goals. In its 1999 report, the panel found that, of the fifty-three national measures established to gauge progress toward the goals, twelve areas showed improvement, eleven were unchanged, and five had worsened. The remaining twenty-five national measures were either not recorded or only showed baseline (current status) measurements.

In 2000, 2001, and 2002 the panel released reports that examined, for selected indicators in each goal, which states were showing progress, which were not changing, and which had declined. In general, results were mixed. Improvement was made in Goal 1, "Ready to Learn," Goal 2, "School Completion," and Goal 5, "Mathematics and Science." Progress was uneven on Goal 3, "Student Achievement and Citizenship," and Goal 4, "Teacher Education and Development." There was no change in Goal 6, "Adult Literacy and Learning," Goal 7, "Safe, Disciplined, and Alcohol- and Drug-Free Schools," and Goal 8, "Parental Participation."

Goals Not Considered a Failure

In 2002 Congress dissolved the National Education Goals Panel, and no additional reports have been released. In spite of the inability of America's schools to completely reach any of the eight National Education Goals, both Republican and Democratic politicians credited the goals with setting high standards.

THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA, P.L. 89-10) authorized grants for elementary and secondary school programs for children of low-income families; school library resources, textbooks, and other instructional materials for school children; supplementary educational centers and services; strengthening state education agencies; and educational research and research training. Once established, federal legislation is reviewed, revised, and reauthorized by Congress and the president as time goes by. In the case of ESEA, amendments were added in 1968 with the passage of P.L. 90-247, which modified existing programs, authorized support of regional centers for education of handicapped children, model centers and services for deaf-blind children, recruitment of personnel and dissemination of information on education of the handicapped; technical assistance to education in rural areas; support of dropout prevention projects; and support of bilingual education programs.

In 1994 ESEA was reauthorized by the Improving America's Schools Act (P.L. 103-382). The legislation included Title I, the federal government's largest program providing educational assistance to disadvantaged children; professional development and technical assistance programs; a safe and drug-free schools and communities provision; and provisions promoting school equity. In 1995 the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was updated by Public Law 104-5, which amended Part A of Title IX relating to Native American education, provided a technical amendment, and incorporated other changes.

THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; P.L. 107-110), a major reform of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. NCLB focuses on increasing accountability for results, implementing programs that are based on scientific research, expanding parental options, and increasing local control and flexibility.

Accountability for Results

Under NCLB, every state is required to set standards for grade-level achievement and to develop a system to measure the progress of all students and subgroups of students in meeting those state-determined grade-level standards. According to the U.S. Department of Education in A Guide to Education and "No Child Left Behind" (http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/guide/), in 2005 funding to support the development and implementation of state assessments was $410 million.

NCLB created standards in each state for what a child should know and learn in reading and mathematics in grades three through eight. Student progress and achievement are measured according to tests based upon those state standards and given to every child, every year. The results are available in annual report cards on school performance and on statewide progress. Statewide reports present performance data classified by race, ethnicity, gender, and other criteria to demonstrate student achievement overall and to chart progress in closing the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and other groups of students. A sample of students in each state participates in the fourth- and eighth-grade National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading and mathematics every other year. (See Table 4.1 in Chapter 4.) States that fail to meet the standards set by NCLB can have their federal funding reduced. Individual schools that fail to live up to the NCLB can also lose students and funding.

Reading First

Under the NCLB, federal funding for reading programs was increased from $286 million in fiscal year (FY) 2001 to more than $1.4 billion in FY 2005. The goal of the Reading First initiative is for every child to be able to read by the end of grade three. Awards are made to states, which then make competitive sub-grants to local communities to identify students at risk and to provide training to elementary school teachers on reading instruction. The Early Reading First program awards grants to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to support language, literacy, and pre-reading development in preschool age children.

Flexibility at the State and Local Level

NCLB reduced the overall number of ESEA programs at the U.S. Department of Education from fifty-five to forty-five. Up to 50% of the federal dollars school districts receive can be transferred among several education programs without separate approval. All fifty states can transfer up to 50% of the federal non-Title I state activity funds among ESEA programs without advance approval. Local school officials serving rural schools were also given more flexibility in how federal funds are used in their districts.

School Choice and Charter Schools

NCLB created options for public school choice. Parents with children in failing schools are allowed to transfer their child to a better-performing public or charter school immediately after a school is identified as failing. Federal Title I funds (approximately $500 to $1,000 per child) can be used to provide supplemental educational services—including tutoring, after school services, and summer school programs—for children in failing schools. NCLB provides financial assistance for the planning, design, and initial implementation of charter schools, as well as for evaluating the effects of such schools. According to the U.S. Department of Education in A Guide to Education and "No Child Left Behind," support for charter schools and choice options was $504 million in 2005.

Teacher Quality Program

NCLB requires states to put highly qualified teachers in every public school classroom by 2005–06. To be considered "highly qualified," a teacher must hold a bachelor's degree and certification or licensure to teach in the state of his or her employment and have proven knowledge in the subject he or she teaches. Teachers in charter schools do not have to be certified or licensed if the state does not require it.

The Eisenhower Professional Development and Class Size Reduction programs were combined to create the new Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund (Title II). States and local districts are permitted to use this funding for staff development for their public school teachers, principals, and administrators. The purpose of the fund is to increase student academic achievement by providing support for states and districts so they can meet the requirements for highly qualified teachers. In addition to funding professional development, states and school districts are allowed to use their grants for reforming teacher certification or licensure requirements; alternative certification; tenure reform; merit-based teacher performance systems; bonus pay for teachers in high-need subject areas and in high-poverty schools and districts; and mentoring programs. According to the U.S. Department of Education, support for the program in training, recruitment incentives, loan forgiveness, and tax relief was $5.1 billion in 2005.

English Proficiency

NCLB consolidated the U.S. Department of Education's bilingual and immigrant education programs. The new federal program focuses on helping students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) learn English. States and school districts are held accountable for making annual increases in English proficiency from the previous year. States set performance objectives to ensure that LEP children achieve English fluency after they have attended school in the United States for three consecutive years. States that do not meet their performance objectives for LEP students could lose up to 10% of the administrative portion of their funding for all ESEA state-administered formula grant programs. The U.S. Department of Education reported in A Guide to Education and "No Child Left Behind" that 2005 funding for English language acquisition programs was $681 million.

Local Education Agencies and NCLB

According to the U.S. Department of Education, in addition to focusing on school accountability measures and consequences, NCLB increases attention on the performance of Local Education Agencies (LEAs), emphasizing their important leadership role in school improvement. An LEA is a board of education or other local school authority having administrative control and direction of public education in a county, town, or school district. The law requires State Education Agencies (SEAs) to conduct an annual review of LEAs to ensure that they are making adequate progress. The state and LEAs are required to comply with the requirements of NCLB as a condition of receiving federal funding under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. As a provision of NCLB, states must establish accountability performance criteria for determining whether LEAs have made "adequate yearly progress." LEAs that fail to make adequate yearly progress are required to undertake remedial measures, including school improvement plans, corrective action plans, restructuring plans, and other measures.

Status of the NCLB Goals

NCLB identified a total of forty elements in seven key areas:

• Standards and Assessments
• Accountability
• School Improvement
• Safe Schools
• Supplemental Services
• Report Card
• Teacher Quality

In ECS Report to the Nation: State Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (Kathy Christie, Mary Fulton, William Paul Wanker, Education Commission of the States, Denver, CO, July 2004), the states are categorized according to whether they "appear to be on track," "appear to be partially on track," or "do not appear to be on track" for meeting the requirements of NCLB.

According to the Education Commission of the States (ECS), in 2004 all fifty states had met or were partially on track to meeting half of the forty requirements, which was an 11% increase from 2003. All but two states and the District of Columbia had met or were partially on track to meeting 75% of the requirements, and five states (Connecticut, Kentucky, New York, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania) had met or were partially on track to meeting all forty NCLB requirements.

The ECS also found that many states were having difficulty with some elements in the teacher quality key area. Fewer than half of the states were on track to making sure technical assistance was provided to low-performing schools. States did not have the technology infrastructure in place to collect, analyze, and report data at the state, district, and school levels.

The ECS made several recommendations, including that NCLB should be embraced as a civil rights issue, in terms of focusing on narrowing the achievement gap that persists in U.S. schools; performance growth of all students, not just low-performing students, should be guaranteed; adequate yearly progress should be analyzed to ensure that it gives a more accurate picture of student performance; the highly qualified teacher requirements should be strengthened; and state departments of education and local school districts may require additional resources to help them assist schools that need improvement.

Standards and Assessments

For the first key area, standards and assessments, there are eleven elements. The elements include reading standards, mathematics standards, science standards, yearly assessments in reading/language arts, yearly assessments in mathematics, yearly assessments in science, assessment of English language proficiency, inclusion of English language learners in the assessment, inclusion of students with disabilities in the assessment, inclusion of migrant students in the assessment, and reporting results not just for all students combined, but for subgroups within the student population. The number of states "on track" ranged from twenty-nine for annual assessments in mathematics, to forty-eight for science standards. All states were either "on track" or "partially on track" in reaching reading standards, mathematics standards, science standards, annual assessments in reading/language arts, annual assessments in mathematics, inclusion of English language learners, inclusion of students with disabilities, and inclusion of migrant students.

Accountability

The second area is accountability, known as Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). According to the U.S. Department of Education, AYP requires the same high standards for all students, and it must be calculated in a way that is statistically valid and reliable. It must include separate annual measures of achievement, and all students must show continuous and significant academic growth. This area includes:

• A single statewide accountability system for tracking results
• All students and schools must be included in the system
• Continuous growth to 100% proficiency
• A yearly determination of whether there is Adequate Yearly Progress
• Accountability measures in place for all groups of students (racial, ethnic, economically disadvantaged, disabled, and Limited English Proficient)
• The measures must be based on academic achievement and graduation rate, and one other measure must be included
• There must be separate objectives for mathematics and reading
• 95% of students in all groups of students must be assessed

The ECS found that the number of states "on track" in the area of accountability ranged from thirty-three for continuous growth to 100% proficiency to forty-six for requiring accountability for all subgroups. "Continuous growth to 100% proficiency," according to the U.S. Department of Education, is "growth in student achievement that is continuous and substantial, such that all students are proficient in reading/language arts and mathematics no later than 2013–2014"

School Improvement

Another key area of NCLB is school improvement. According to the U.S. Department of Education, one element of school improvement is "timely identification." States are required to identify schools that are in need of improvement, take corrective action at those schools before the beginning of the school year, and make sure that districts notify parents. A second element within school improvement is "technical assistance." States must provide technical assistance to schools identified as in need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. A third element in school improvement is called "public school choice." The state must allow students at schools that do not make adequate yearly progress for two consecutive years to transfer to another school that has not been identified as needing improvement.

The fourth element of school improvement is "rewards and sanctions." States must have a policy for rewarding and penalizing schools, based on whether they are making adequate yearly progress. Fifth is "school recognition." The state must have financial, academic, or other distinguished school programs for recognizing schools that have closed the achievement gap, made significant gains on student performance, or exceeded adequate yearly progress. "School restructuring" is the sixth element in school improvement. The state must have alternative school governance options in place, which include charter schools, private management companies, or turning over a school that needs improvement to the state for operation. The seventh element is "corrective action for Local Education Agencies." The state must have a process in place for taking corrective action against LEAs that operate schools in need of improvement. The actions include reducing funding, implementing a new curriculum, replacing personnel, arranging for alternative governance of the school, appointing someone to replace the superintendent and school board, abolishing or restructuring the LEA, or allowing students to transfer to a higher-performing school.

According to the ECS, in 2004 the number of states "on track" ranged from twenty-three for technical assistance to thirty-eight for school recognition and school restructuring. There were fourteen states that did "not appear to be on track," plus two that have an unknown status in establishing a policy for taking corrective action against LEAs. For timely identification and public school choice, one state in each element did "not appear to be on track."

Safe Schools

Under NCLB, there are three elements that make up safe schools: having criteria in place for safe schools; a transfer policy for students who attend unsafe schools; and a transfer policy for victims of violent crimes. The ECS reported that all states were "on track" or "partially on track" to ensuring safe schools in 2004. Fifty states had criteria for unsafe schools, and forty-nine had transfer policies for students in unsafe schools and for victims of violent crime.

Supplemental Services

According to the U.S. Department of Education, supplemental services means having tutoring and other academic enrichment available, often in reading, language arts, or mathematics. The supplemental services area of NCLB includes four elements: criteria for supplemental services; a list of approved supplemental services providers; monitoring supplemental services providers; and implementation of supplemental services. According to the ECS, the number of states "on track" for the key area supplemental services in 2004 ranged from thirty-one for implementation of supplemental services to forty-eight for having criteria for supplemental services. Twelve states did "not appear to be on track" in monitoring supplemental service providers.

Report Card

The report card key area contains only one element: the state report card. This means that the state prepares and disseminates an annual state report card that includes all required information set by NCLB. Only one state did "did not appear to be on track," in 2004 while nineteen states appeared to be "on the right track." Thirty-one states appeared to be "partially on track for this measure."

Under NCLB, annual state report cards must provide performance data by race/ethnicity, gender, economically disadvantaged status, English language learners, disability, and migrant status. Many states report student data by demographic characteristics, but most do not report achievement data this way. For states that do report achievement data by demographic characteristics, it is more common at the state than the local level.

Teacher Quality

In the last key area, teacher quality, there are five elements. The elements include having a definition of a high-quality teacher; requiring the teacher to be competent in the subject matter taught; having a competency test for new elementary school teachers; having a highly qualified teacher in every classroom; and having high-quality professional development available to teachers. The number of states "on track" ranged from zero for having a highly qualified teacher in every classroom and for high-quality professional development, to forty-three for having a competency test for new elementary teachers. Fifty states (not including the District of Columbia) appeared to be "partially on track" in having a highly qualified teacher in every classroom.

REACTIONS TO THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

According to the ECS, NCLB has generated responses ranging from strong support to skepticism to outright opposition. Common complaints about the law include that it is underfunded, inflexible, focuses too much on high-stakes testing, is too ambitious in terms of improvement in mathematics and science proficiency, and does not differentiate between urban and rural districts. Proponents of the legislation believe that NCLB ensures success for all students, that education is a civil right, and that high-quality schools are vital to the U.S. economy.

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT), a labor union representing teachers, paraprofessionals, and school-related personnel, expressed concern that the law's mechanism for holding schools accountable—the key area called adequate yearly progress (AYP)—does not accurately distinguish between effective and ineffective schools. In "NCLB: Its Problems, Its Promise" (July 2004), the AFT asserted its support for the principles of education improvement that underlie NCLB, but identified shortcomings with its implementation. In addition to problems with AYP measurements, the AFT considered the teacher quality provision unrealistic in its requirements for teachers in such areas as special education, vocational education, and bilingual education. The AFT also maintained that intervention is necessary to raise student achievement in struggling schools, but considered NCLB's sanctions in this key area ineffective. Finally, the AFT contended that the goals identified by NCLB cannot be realized without additional funding.

The National Education Association (NEA), the nation's largest education union with 2.7 million members, has expressed concerns similar to those of the AFT. On its Web site (http://www.nea.org/esea/index.html), the NEA describes the goals of the legislation, including having high standards and expectations for every child, as "laudable," but concludes that in its current form NCLB is "seriously flawed and underfunded." According to the NEA, NCLB focuses too much on punishments rather than on assistance, on mandates rather than on support for proven practices, and on standardized testing rather than on teacher-led, classroom-focused solutions. The organization recommends a "fix and fund" approach to addressing the law's shortcomings.

In the Peabody Journal of Education (vol. 80, no. 2, "Federalism Reconsidered: The Case of the No Child Left Behind Act"), Julia E. Koppich wrote in "A Tale of Two Approaches—The AFT, the NEA, and NCLB" that neither the American Federation of Teachers nor the NEA supported the new legislation initially, but after it was passed, the two organizations had different views. The NEA focused on publicly opposing the law. The AFT took a more careful and less predictable approach to the legislation. The author concludes that these differing strategies fit the patterns of both organizations' reactions to most educational reform efforts since the 1980s. In "Gubernatorial Reactions to No Child Left Behind: Politics, Pressure, and Educational Reform," Lance D. Fusarelli found that although there is some opposition to specific provisions of NCLB, a large majority of state governors in the United States support the goals of the legislation. Fusarelli wrote that there are four reasons for this: consistency with state-level education reform, the law's use by governors to encourage change within schools, the novelty of NCLB, and concerns about sanctions from the federal government.

The International Reading Association (IRA), an organization of reading teachers, surveyed more than 1,500 of its members about NCLB in 2004. The survey asked about seven issues related to NCLB, including the benefits of NCLB, funding, implementation, assessment, outcomes, sanctions, and teacher qualification requirements. According to results released by the IRA in February 2005, the opinions of its members were mixed, with many respondents having either strongly positive or strongly negative views about specific provisions of NCLB. The majority (more than 70%) of members supported the basic premises of the law. However, about the same proportion (more than 70%) had misgivings about how the law had been implemented and whether funding was adequate.

During spring 2004 the Public Education Network (PEN), an organization working to advance public school reform in low-income communities, held public hearings in eight states. The organization also conducted a survey about NCLB and received 12,000 responses. Fifty-nine percent of respondents identified themselves as teachers; other respondents included school administrators, parents, students, and community members. From the hearings and surveys, PEN found that public concerns about NCLB, particularly about funding, were mainly due to many years of underfunding of education by the states. PEN also reported that parents and other community members were not well informed about school progress. PEN reported that many Americans do not understand the public education system, yet still there was strong support for public schools. PEN recommended improving communication with the public about schools and education. PEN also found that some people were more worried about avoiding the provisions of NCLB than about using the law to address problems in the public schools. PEN continued to hold public forums throughout the fall and winter of 2005–06, and surveyed visitors to its Web site (http://www.publiceducation.org/) on matters related to NCLB.

Public Opinions about NCLB

"The 36th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes toward the Public Schools" (http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0409pol.htm) asked a series of questions related to the No Child Left Behind Act. When asked how much, if anything, they knew about NCLB, only 31% of respondents in 2004 said they knew a great deal or a fair amount. More than one-quarter (28%) responded that they knew nothing at all, and 40% knew very little. (See Table 5.1.)

Respondents were asked whether they had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the Act. In 2004 nearly one-quarter (24%) had a very favorable or somewhat favorable impression. More than half (55%) responded that they did not know enough about NCLB to say, and 20% had a very unfavorable or somewhat unfavorable view. (See Table 5.2.)

When asked whether a single statewide test of students could accurately indicate whether a school needs improvement, more than two-thirds (67%) answered no, while 31% answered yes. (See Table 5.3.)

Respondents were asked if a test covering only English and math would provide a fair picture of whether a school in the community is or is not in need of improvement, or if the test should be based on other subjects also. The majority (83%) replied that the test should include other subjects, while 16% believed that a test covering English and math would provide an adequate picture of school performance. (See Table 5.4.)

In 2004 most (80%) of those surveyed responded that they would prefer to have additional efforts made in their child's present school if the school was identified as being in need of improvement, rather than transferring the child to a school identified as not in need of improvement, which was favored by 16% of respondents. (See Table 5.5.)

When asked if they favored or opposed test scores reported separately by students' race/ethnicity, disability status, English-speaking ability, and poverty level, 42% favored this requirement of NCLB, and 52% opposed reporting test scores by these demographic categories.

The public was asked whether the standardized test scores of special education students should be included with the test scores of all other students in determining whether a school is in need of improvement. More than half (57%) believed that standardized test scores of special education students should not be included, and 39% responded that the standardized test scores of special education students should be included with the test scores of all other students in determining whether a school is in need of improvement. (See Table 5.6.)

Respondents were asked about the likelihood of having highly qualified teachers in every classroom at schools in their community by 2005–06. More than half (56%) believed that accomplishment of this goal was very likely or somewhat likely, and 42% believed that it was not very likely or not at all likely. (See Table 5.7.)

In 2004 the public was asked how much NCLB would help to improve student achievement at public schools in their community. Slightly more than half (51%) responded that NCLB would help a great deal or a fair amount, slightly less than one-third believed that NCLB would not help very much or would not help at all, and the remaining 17% said that they did not know how much NCLB would help to improve student achievement at public schools in their community. (See Table 5.8.)