Forum on NCLB Critiques Teacher and School Improvement
Mandates
On November 15, 2004, the Center on Education Policy
(CEP) hosted its third in a series of forums on NCLB
(the “No Child Left Behind” Act) at George
Washington University in Washington, DC. The full-day
forum focused on two of NCLB’s most prominent
provisions: ensuring “highly qualified teachers”
and improving schools that consistently fail to reach
their adequate yearly progress (AYP) goals. Presenters
provide their expertise pro bono, and CEP asks that
they articulate proposed solutions for any criticisms
they may have.
Highly Qualified Teachers
Four leaders from a variety of organizations presented
their views on the teacher provisions of NCLB, and three
of them expressed unexpectedly similar critiques that
concluded the law has major flaws in this area.
Using data from Kansas and North Carolina, the Education
Commission of the States (ECS) recently performed
a study that found state policies intended to address
the problems of hard-to-staff schools and the maldistribution
of quality teachers had surprisingly little impact,
according to a presentation by ECS’s Charles Coble.
Toni Cortese, from the American
Federation of Teachers (AFT), indicated that the
solutions for hard-to-staff schools are better working
conditions and better compensation. She also argued
for better teacher preparation and induction and, although
praising NCLB’s goals, criticized its failure
to require “highly qualified” teachers in
charter schools and as providers of supplemental educational
services (SES).
The Southeast
Center on Teaching Quality’s (SECTQ) Eric
Hirsh agreed that working conditions must improve to
solve the problem of hard-to-staff schools. Also, based
on SECTQ’s research,
he criticized NCLB’s teacher provisions as wrong-headed.
He expected them to actually lower teaching quality
because they (1) give “highly qualified”
status to people with little or no preparation and no
classroom experience, (2) do not address working conditions
and resources, (3) emphasize content knowledge only,
at the expense of pedagogy, and (4) lack standards and
specificity. On the other hand, he asserted that the
professional development provisions of the law are good.
Kate Walsh, President of the National
Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), began her presentation
by stating that requirements for becoming a teacher
in the U.S. are, compared to other developed nations,
“an embarrassment” that will not be improved
by NCLB. She focused many of her comments on the HOUSSE
(high objective uniform state standard of evaluation)
provisions of NCLB, as applied by the states, and found
they add paperwork but provide little or no benefit.
Jack Jennings, CEP’s Executive Director, wrapped
up this portion of the forum by observing that teaching
quality is a state responsibility but a national imperative
for our economy and our civic life. He also noted that
some of the concerns expressed by the presenters may
be addressed during reauthorization of other federal
education laws, such as IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities
in Education Act) and HEA (the Higher Education Act),
and that advocates are building coalitions in preparation
for the 2007 reauthorization of the ESEA (Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, of which NCLB is the latest
version).
School Improvement
Three presenters at the forum offered quite different
reports on school improvement efforts, leading to the
conclusions that (1) low-performing schools can be turned
around, but (2) many states and districts have not yet
found and adopted proven methods for doing so, and (3)
at least some state departments of education lack the
capacity to adequately pursue this important work. An
analysis of the New
American Schools (NAS) initiative by Susan Bodilly
indicated that significant progress was made in most
schools that thoroughly implemented the initiative.
However, NAS used the “effect size” to evaluate
gains in student achievement, a much richer measure
than the single, narrow “proficiency-level”
standard of NCLB, and NAS did not disaggregate its data
by subgroup, as NCLB requires. Thus, it is difficult
to project the impact NAS initiatives would have on
NCLB’s school improvement goals.
After a pessimistic report on school improvement efforts
being undertaken by state education departments hampered
by downsizing that has left them without the staff and
other capacities needed to help schools and districts
improve, Steve Schenck, the Kentucky Associate Commissioner
of Education who coordinates the Highly Skilled Educator
(HSE) program, explained that state’s successful
approach to raising student achievement and building
capacity for teaching and learning in its lowest-performing
schools. During the last 10 years, highly skilled educators
have been recruited, trained in school improvement,
and assigned to the lowest-performing schools in Kentucky
for two years. They analyze school-level data, mentor
teachers and principals, and change school cultures.
While there are ongoing challenges, especially at the
high school level, all of the lowest performing schools
have moved out of the state’s “in need of
assistance” category by meeting or exceeding their
student achievement goals.
Those who drafted NCLB would have produced a better
federal law if they had examined successful strategies
already developed in the “laboratory of the states,”
such as the HSE program in Kentucky.
CEP’s Forums
Representatives from a wide range of education organizations
attended this forum; the largest contingent was from
the U.S. Department of Education. Education stakeholders,
such as unions, state departments of education, education
academics and researchers, disability rights organizations,
the National PTA, other advocates, and the education
media, along with staff from the Hill, swelled attendance
to about 180 people.
CEP’s two earlier forums in July and September
2004 addressed concerns and proposed solutions regarding
NCLB’s approach to measuring AYP and specifically
regarding measurement of students with disabilities
and English language learners. Papers presented are
available at the CEP website.
Prepared by Molly A. Hunter, November 18, 2004
|
