Implementation Findings

Since the introduction of No Child Left Behind in January 2002, state departments of education and school districts have scrambled to attempt to meet the demands of the legislation. Considerable research and opinions have been written in an effort to assess the act’s effect on education. One of the most comprehensive studies on the topic, From the Capital to the

Classroom: Year Two of the No Child Left Behind Act (2004) was completed by the Center on

Education Policy. The information was based on a survey of 47 states and the District of Columbia, a nationally representative survey of 274 school districts, 33 case studies representing urban, rural, and suburban school district, and other research methods.

The report indicated several broad findings and observations from the study of NCLB implementation. One of the most evident findings noted that states and school districts around

the country had taken the legislation very seriously and were working hard to achieve the goals for student achievement. NCLB had great success in focusing the attention of a national, decentralized educational system on the same set of goals in a relatively short period of time. The majority of the states surveyed supported the goals of NCLB of having an accountability system based on content and performance standards that would positively affect student achievement. Many states and districts reported that they had been working on the goals of curriculum revision, standards, teaching strategies, and professional development in an effort to advance student achievement levels. NCLB greatly accelerated the rate of change and forced the achievement focus to the individual child rather than overall school success (Center on Education Policy, 2004). The use of disaggregated test data and requirements for highly qualified teachers were believed to have a positive impact on student achievement levels and lead to a decrease in the achievement gap among students of different backgrounds and cultures. The greatest progress was believed to occur between white and black students, and between low income and non low income students.

Although the CEP report found general support from states and schools for the central ideas around NCLB, implementation of the requirements of the legislation presented considerable challenges and concerns. The effects of the act were broader and deeper than expected (Center on Education Policy, 2004). For the first time, suburban schools had been identified as in need of improvement that previously would have been viewed as effective schools. Urban and very large districts that already had a relatively large share of affected had even more schools identified for improvement. NCLB’s sanctions could lead to significant consequences for public education, as expressed by one respondent:

Initially, NCLB will have a positive effect, partly because of the focus on education. However, over time, as the goals in NCLB increase, it is simply a

matter of time before all schools, districts and states are identified as “failing to make AYP”-resulting in improvement labels-some with horrific threats (termed sanctions) some feel were intended to discredit public education-(and if the rules of the system do not change, that very well may be the result) what a shame if that was intended-what a crisis to encouraging the best and brightest to become a teacher! (Center on Education Policy, 2004, p. 24)

Several school districts felt that the AYP indicators of graduation rate and test participation lead to unfair determinations of a school’s performance. Schools that otherwise were performing well were targeted for improvement for missing the 95% mark by only a few students. Respondents to the survey cautioned schools not to necessarily equate higher test scores with improved levels of student learning.

One of the most significant challenges faced during the implementation of the provisions of NCLB concerned meeting adequate yearly progress goals for all student subgroups. The subgroups that created the most serious concerns were students with disabilities, English language learners, and low-income students. Narrowing the achievement gap between students in these subgroups and non-identified peers posed the most serious challenge as reported by state and local respondents to the survey (Center on Education Policy, 2004). Reaching 100% proficiency within the special education and ELL groups created even greater concern due to additional circumstances. As ELL students became proficient in English they were removed from the subgroup leaving behind those students with little or no knowledge of English, making it difficult for the subgroup to demonstrate progress as a whole. Special education students have been identified with significant cognitive or learning disabilities resulting in academic performance below grade level. Testing these subgroups with the same test all other students used revealed little useful information negatively impacted children. The Public Agenda (2003) survey referred to the testing requirements for special education and ELL students as “unreasonable and undoable.” One respondent of the CEP report concluded that, “Holding

special education and ELL students to the same time frame for meeting state standards is unrealistic and can have a damaging effect on the self-esteem of these students.” (Center on Education Policy, 2004, p. ix)

NCLB has received a great deal of criticism for its accountability systems that placed excessive emphasis on penalizing schools through sanctions and not committing enough attention to finding effective strategies to meet student needs. The short deadlines, emphasis on sanctions, and demand of revising state accountability frameworks to fit the Federal requirements prompted one respondent to describe the efforts of NCLB as “too much, too fast, and too punitive.” (Center on Education Policy, 2004, p. ix). The short timelines of the act were further complicated by late or incomplete guidance and regulations from the U. S. Department of Education. Many of the provisions of NCLB were required immediately upon enactment in 2002 giving schools little time for transition from previous laws or time to develop procedures and policies to implement the new law.

Requirements for providing highly qualified teachers in every classroom have been implemented more slowly than other aspects of the legislation. States have struggled to define what highly qualified means for teachers currently in the classroom, especially in middle schools where a mixture of certifications previously existed. Although states have focused on other, more urgent deadlines in NCLB to date, as the 2005-06 deadline nears, accomplishing the law’s goals for teacher qualifications will not be easy due to relatively low salaries of teachers compared to other professions and the special problems rural and urban districts face in attracting and retaining highly qualified staff.

States and school districts expressed concern over issues of available capacity to meet all of the law’s requirements. Although some Federal funds were available for professional

development, school districts reported the need to allocate considerable local funds in the attempt to meet the NCLB guidelines. Insufficient funding sources restricted school district’s ability to attain the goals. A national survey of public school administrators concluded that NCLB was viewed as an unfunded mandate that contributed to school’s responsibilities, without contributing the funding needed to fulfill them (Public Agenda, 2003). In addition to funding, states and schools reported insufficient staff to carry out the duties required by the act (Center on Education Policy, 2004). Schools identified as in need of improvement have been forced to look toward state departments of education for technical assistance, while the majority of states reported insufficient staff to effectively do their part.

School districts that have been identified as in need of improvement reported the implementation of several strategies in an effort to improve student achievement. Actions taken by schools emphasized planning initiatives, improvement planning, new curriculum, extended school hours, school choice, and supplemental services. Schools have opted less for the punitive actions provided for in NCLB, however as schools continue to path of school sanctions, many of the more serious sanctions become mandatory. An interesting finding uncovered that while nearly one half of schools identified for improvement offered students the option of school choice in 2002-2003, only 2% of eligible children took advantage of the provision and moved to another school. Table 3 provides a summary of actions taken by school districts for Title I schools identified for improvement.

Table 3: District Actions Taken in 2002-2003 for Title I Schools

Actions Taken by Districts

% of Districts with Title I Schools Identified for Improvement Taking Action in 2002-2003

Notifying parents of improvement status 83%

Joint school improvement planning 65%

Requiring the implementation of a new, research

based curriculum/instructional program 55%

Providing students with public school choice, with

transportation provided 47%

Extending the school day or year 38%

Providing students with supplemental educational

services (e.g. tutoring) from a state approved provider 38%

Appointing an outside expert to advise the school 34%

Restructuring the internal organization of the school 13%

Reassigning or demoting the principal 9%

Replacing school staff who are relevant to the failure

to make AYP 8%

Replacing all or most of the school staff 6%

Decreasing management authority at the school level 5%

State takeover 4%

Reopening the school as a public charter school 1%

Entering into a contract with a private management

company to operate the school 1%

Other 15%

Note: Responses are listed in rank order. Respondent could list more than one action

Note: From the Center on Education Policy, December 2003, District Survey, Item 13 (Table 5)

8. Summary

The introduction of the No Child Left Behind legislation in January 2002 greatly changed the rules for education reform in the United States. Fueled by the failure of previous efforts of reform, NCLB concentrated on standards for curriculum and the establishment of systems of accountability to ensure the improvement of student achievement. NCLB has been extremely

influential and successful in forcing schools to address the issues surrounding the improvement of student achievement and the elimination of achievement gaps between children. The five key provisions in the legislation of accountability, sanctions, highly qualified teachers, proven curriculum and instruction methods, and increased funding were all designed to assist school districts in meeting the aggressive demands of proficiency mandated by adequate yearly progress. Critics of the legislation contend that the requirements of the act were overly stringent, unworkable, and unrealistic and that the accountability demands were “too much, too fast, and too punitive.” (Center on Education Policy, 2004). Effectiveness of schools and teachers was determined by a single measure of student proficiency in the form of state created standardized assessments. Fear of failing to meet the demands of adequate yearly progress on the assessments placed increased pressure on teachers and principals to teach the elements of the test instead of a challenging, exploratory curriculum. As more schools are identified in need of improvement due to the demand of larger gains in AYP measures in later years of the act, demands on state and local capacity and funding will greatly increase.