Harvard study cites NCLB implementation flaws

A major study warns that implementation problems surrounding the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) could jeopardize the worthy goals underpinning the law. In February, the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University released a study examining NCLB through its first year and found that educators at all levels are struggling to implement the law, due largely to fuzzy rule-making and a lack of guidance and resources at the federal level.

The study charges that federal accountability rules tied to NCLB have derailed state reforms and assessment strategies, and the rules have no common meaning across state lines. “Adequate yearly progress” rules also are falling especially hard on urban schools while asking for much less progress from affluent suburban systems, the Civil Rights Project warns. And the market- and choice-oriented policies imposed on schools deemed “in need of improvement” have consumed resources and local administrative time but have little impact on students and are not being seriously evaluated, the study finds.

“The reality for too many public educators is confusion and frustration as No Child Left Behind is leaving too many children—and teachers—behind,” says Gary Orfield, co-director of the Civil Rights Project and professor of Education and Social Policy at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. “I firmly believe, and this report supports, the time has come for local, state and federal educators and officials to work together to sort out the pluses and minuses and adopt administrative and legislative remedies to save the good objectives of the program and remove the arbitrary and unworkable provisions.”

Key findings in the Civil Rights Project:

• States have been slow to roll out their accountability plans and have lacked support for these efforts. In June 2003, only 11 states had accountability plans that were fully approved by the U.S. Department of Education, contrary to the federal government’s claim that all states were in compliance with NCLB. And, although the law provides states with some money to meet the testing requirements, there is no support to assist them in meeting the administrative costs of implementing other requirements.

• Federal accountability rules have complicated state efforts to build a coherent accountability system. States layered the federal accountability requirements on top of pre-existing plans, resulting in disconnected accountability systems. As a result, schools are receiving conflicting signals about their performance under disconnected federal-state performance targets.

• Even though the school-choice provisions under NCLB are little used by students and unproven in terms of effectiveness, they still impose tremendous burdens on many school systems. The federal law concentrates the costs and burdens of choice implementation in high-poverty urban districts and provides no incentives for local officials to adopt workable and effective transfer policies such as interdistrict choice plans.

• The supplemental educational services tied to NCLB have the potential to fragment Title I. Supplemental services shift the focus from improving schools to improving individual student achievement, but only for those requesting services—and there is little empirical evidence of the effectiveness of these services for the most vulnerable students. Moreover, districts faced significant administrative burdens in implementing supplemental education services and in assessing the effect of this policy on student achievement and Title I schools.

“While we embrace the overall objective of the federal law—to narrow the achievement gap among different subgroups of students—NCLB’s test-based accountability policies fail to reward schools for making progress and unfairly punish schools serving large numbers of low-income and minority students,” says Jimmy Kim, principal investigator for the Civil Rights Project.

The project’s NCLB findings and executive summary are available online at www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu.

The high cost of doing nothing

The fight over funding tied to the No Child Left Behind Act usually plays out in billion-dollar terms—impressive sounding numbers that are just too difficult to put into real-life context. That’s the dilemma addressed in a recent AFT analysis of NCLB underfunding and what it means for programs and services in Dallas, Texas.

The analysis found that, with NCLB funding at levels authorized by Congress, Dallas public schools could:

• Offer smaller classes to 24,500 students;

• Provide after-school enrichment to 7,100 students;

• Offer small-school environments to 15,200 high school students;

• Provide top-quality prekindergarten for 3,100 children; and

• Offer extended-year Kindergarten-Plus programs to an additional 11,800 students.

In fact, the $22.5 million shortfall between what Congress authorized and what was actually funded last year would have paid for after-school programs, and would have reduced class size and early childhood programs at all 14 regular school district campuses that have been rated as low-performing under the state accountability system, says Aimee Bolender, president of the AFT-affiliated Dallas Alliance. The failure to provide the full funding promised under federal law means that many children in the Dallas Independent School District are needlessly being left behind, she warns.

AFT president Sandra Feldman, who joined Bolender for a recent tour of schools and a news conference to call attention to the budget shortfall, says that the same problems can be found in other major metropolitan districts at a time when NCLB funding is billions of dollars short of what is needed nationwide.

NCLB resolution slated for convention

Delegates to the 2004 AFT national convention in July will have an opportunity to press for crucial midcourse corrections in the No Child Left Behind Act.

In February, the AFT executive council approved a resolution on NCLB that was developed by leaders of the union’s teachers division earlier this year. It reflects grass-roots concerns about the law, and it details strategies for improving NCLB implementation. The resolution pledges AFT action to address “serious failings” in NCLB as it deals with standards, assessments and accountability; school improvement plans; teacher quality; paraprofessional requirements; and public oversight. Also addressed are AFT concerns over inadequate funding for NCLB, which is the current installment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

AFT president Sandra Feldman said the resolution was another step in the union’s efforts to remedy real problems with NCLB through the regulatory process, state-level oversight boards, congressional hearings and lobbying. These are steps that can be taken without pressing for the law to be reopened—a move that could jeopardize lifeline programs such as Title I.

The dangers of overhauling the law now should be clear, said Feldman, pointing out that this Congress recently took the unprecedented step of establishing a federally funded voucher program in the District of Columbia. “We are looking for changes during [the next] reauthorization,” she said. But those changes must be well-considered steps that will improve schools, she stressed.

Among the steps called for in the draft resolution on No Child Left Behind:

• “Safe harbor” provisions to protect schools from arbitrary or unreasonable benchmarks on student progress;

• Assessments that are “valid for the widest range of children, including children with disabilities and English language learners”;

• Options, other than a test, for veteran teachers to demonstrate they are “highly qualified”; and

• A full range of avenues and supports for paraprofessionals to get the training they need to meet the law’s requirements.

The draft resolution also calls on the AFT to wage “one of our most concerted efforts to lobby Congress and [work] with parents, community organizations and other groups to get the funding promised for our students.” The draft also presses for continued lobbying at the U.S. Department of Education for amended regulations and new guidance “to clarify areas that are not aligned with the letter of the law.” Part of the lobbying effort also will be aimed at collecting and analyzing data on adequate yearly progress (AYP) that “show how this [AYP] formula is inherently unfair, totally arbitrary and ultimately unachievable and [to] demonstrate that not enough credit is given for progress.”

The resolution also directs the AFT to assist state and local affiliates by creating a new NCLB implementation tool kit to provide examples of strong contract language on topics related to the law, models of successful programs for revitalizing low-performing schools, community outreach materials, and help in pressing for necessary changes in AYP indicators at the state level.

Copyright by the American Federation of Teachers, AFL•CIO. All rights reserved. Photographs
and illustrations, as well as text, cannot be used without permission from the AFT.