The paper presented here discusses the policies about accommodiation for assessments that different states have in place for students with exceptionalities. The ways in which students are able to receive supports during standardized tests continues to be a major point of discussion for many in the educational policy realm and for parents and teachers of students who claim the right to these supports. Check out the paper, and share you thought on what you think the implications of the accommodiations and the policies means for education and understanding student learning through assessments like the ones discussed in the text.
electronic version of article
The article is also attached below as a PDF
It amazes me that major placement and funding decisions are based on performance on high-stakes standardized tests, yet there is no uniformity in the rules and regulations on how such tests are administered, and there are no national guidelines on what accommodations are appropriate and allowed for which students.
Regardless of how one feels about NCLB and similar programs, and regardless of what actions and policy decisions come from analysis of testing data, the quality of the data is a crucial issue. How can we as a country analyze test data when tests and rules vary from state to state? It seems we must collect data using some small set of uniform tests, we must provide a clear set of uniform guidelines, and we must document accommodations that were allowed in a uniform manner. We cannot even begin to make policy decisions until we can improve the quality of our data.
I was surprised to find that realize the extent to which higher-income families are utilizing special programs and accommodations. In A Bad IDEA Is Disabling Public Schools, Chuck Bolick reports that “although kids from families with incomes over $100,000 make up only 13 percent of those taking the SAT, for example, they account for 27 percent of those receiving special accommodations.” This points to a serious inequity in how accommodations are approached and utilized by various communities.
But the bigger issue is that the tests themselves are not uniform. How can we compare performance across our country? Do math standards really need to differ between Alaska and Florida? How can we penalize some states for trying harder and “failing”, while funding other states whose kids passed tests based on lower standards? We very much need a core curriculum and a uniform system for evaluating to what extent students are learning that curriculum. Most importantly, exceptional students must fully participate in this testing system so that we can ensure their learning needs are being met.
Bob, I have pondered those same questions. To that extent, I also wondered why states don't elect to adopt an "easier" test to ensure students pass… or do some state do that?
Bob, I agree with all of your thoughts on the uniformity of tests and testing accomodations. The more information I read regarding standardized tests the more I question why our country is using this process to determine the success (and failure) of schools. I think that it is necessary for states to require schools to use accomodations when testing, but policy makers need to create a standard set of "rules" regarding the accomodations. You would think that if the distribution of money and other resources relies primarily on the results of standardized tests the system would place higher value on a uniform system. I participated in the proctoring of the DCCAS this year at my school and was assigned to the group of students who required the highest level of accomodations. I was asked to read the entire test aloud, simplify any directions when necessary, and provide students with a dictionary during the math section of the test. My experience with this group of students demonstrated to me that students definitely need to be provided with accomodations in order to successfully measure what they have learned.
The results of the paper show that more states are providing accomodations to those students who need them which I believe is a move in the right direction. However, it is astonishing to see the extreme difference among states in how they accomodate and what accomodations they provide. It is frightening to think that the differences seen among states also implies that there are serious differences in the accomodations being provided between schools within the same state. Should the priority for policy makers be to first attempt to create a uniform system for accomodating students for states to follow or should they first ensure that schools within the same state are following the same set of accomodations?
This article brings up many frustrating realities. As teachers and leaders in our schools, we work so hard to ensure that our students are reaching their full potential and at the same time being well prepared for these high-stakes tests. But, as Bob and Emily point out, there is no consistency to how these tests are administered, graded and accommodated for! Even within the relatively small system of DC public schools, there are huge inconsistencies with NCLB testing and performance! The government and states dictate some of the allowed modifications but the reality is that every school can get away with tweaking the system to their advantage. These are truly high-stakes tests and with the school's future hanging on how well the student body performs on this test, well, it's no surprise there is a lot of inconsistency. This inconsistency serves everyone involved, except the most important constituents—the students! It works to the interests of every district and state to have a lot of gray area in terms of accommodations allowed for students (not to even mention the shocking amount of variation in the rigor of the different NCLB tests!).
The more and more I think about it, the more I become disillusioned by the whole system! If we do not standardize the testing system across the country, then we will never be able to compare student performance and hold people/schools/systems accountable. The requirements of NCLB seem like an empty promise to ensure rigorous testing across the country to make sure that 'no child is left behind".
I think there are many problems with these tests, not just the inconsistency with accommodations. However, I hesitate to suggest the country adopts ONE uniform test for each grade level or ONE uniform set of rules for accommodations. I understand that the socio-cultural experiences of our students vary immensely across the country and to assume that one test could fairly test ALL students is absurd. I really do not have any suggestions or solutions for these problems. My only thought is that perhaps if the general public realized how meaningless these tests can be, then perhaps there would be a social push to redesign NCLB.
Najila, You bring up some great points in regard to schools having a lot of room to tweak the accomodation rules — which generally works out in a school's best interest (although not often those of the students). The problem here, however, is that we cannot assume that all schools have the needs of special ed. students at heart when they are working to accomodate them during testing. Since the scores of students with a SPED label are in some cases less important and in other cases do not count at all, schools often give unfair priority to general education students during high stakes testing. During my first year of teaching, a SPED teacher was rightfully angered when she was forced to adminster the test in the nurse's office (far too small of a room) with an unreasonable number of students. Some students needed the stories read to them, others did not. The result was a room that was not at all conducive to testing.
To shift gears, like Bob, I am fascinated by the high numbers of students in wealthy communities receiving special accomodations during tests such as the SAT. Parents in these communities clearly seem to feel that the benefits of special accomodations far outweigh the potentially negative stigma associated with needing these accomodations in the first place. This leads to a discussion of how special education students are treated/viewed in wealthier school districts. Are they mainstreamed to the extent that other students are barely aware of their status? Are there other areas of their lives where they have ample opportunities to build the self-confidence that special education threatens to take away? All of this leads to perhaps the more important question of what goes into the special accomodations of certain states? Do wealthy communities apply a different type of pressure to state education boards? Does the number of poor districts in other states affect their accomodation policies? I would be interested to know more about the politics of these decisions.
One major obstacle standing in the way of standardizing how we approach accomodations for special needs populations is the incredible variation in how we as people, educators and former students conceptualize learning differences and the strengths, weaknesses, limitations, and expectations that go along with them. We dont have a standardized idea of how to set expectations for a student's individual learning even within a single school, let alone a state and national setting. It's evident in the quality, sepcificity and rigor of IEP goals (even when you compare IEPs written by different teachers in the SAME department) that we as a professional community have a long way to go in understanding and agreeing on what we ethically, humanly and realistically say we expect from students.
One common approach is to just say that we're not sure what the trajectory of learning is for ANY student (even gen. ed) so we dont assume the tests are perfect…they're equally imperfect for everyone who takes them. The community agrees, however, that accomodations need to be made in order to access the data we hope to gather with these tests, and in order to level the playing field to be able to compare the data. As Emily does a great job of pointing out, however, the people most intersted in a level accurate data are not the people designing the accomodations. Schools benefit from avoiding being shut down and thus benefit from flattering data, however inaccurate. Since referrals, diagnoses and accomodations are created at lower levels than the standardzed state tests, they have wiggle room to manipulate how/what data is collected on students who require accomodations. In this way the need to protect a school or allow a program to save face will stand in the way of us coming to consensus on standardizing accomodations as long as there are high stakes in play.
Good point Emily. I believe policy makers should standardize state testing before a national standard is dervived. The purpose behind my logic is that national standards have a potential of changing every four years, depending on what policies are brought in and enforced regarding new legislation. However, I find it ironic that the article points out so many variations of testing stypes and the way they are proctored, but yet their research has fallen on deaf ears. I too, participated in the DCCAS testing for the second time for D.C.P.S. The testing environment is ridiculous, at least in the classroom I was procotoring in. Accommodations were made for those who had IEP's and or required testing adaptations. Nevertheless, accommodations were not made for the general ed. classes. The basic neccessities were provided such as pencils, scratch paper and calculators, however, it was 89 degrees in my class with two sections of light bulbs missing and construction going on outside. When articles such as these are written, I wonder if these types of accommodations come to mind. Futhermore, NCLB states that all ELL students must sit and take the test with native american speakers. I still do not think this is wise nor fair. ELL students should have the same type of accommodations, along the lines of ESL students.
INFORMATION OVERLOAD!
I think all the points you all have made above really brings out the frustrations in the lack of uniformity of the tests themselves, the test taking procedures, accomodations that are provided, etc…
As I skimmed through the article (like I said, INFORMATION OVERLOAD), I kept thinking to myself… why does this study have to be so complex?
To summarize the article in my mind:
- In the past, we excluded students with disabilities from testing.
- This led to a lack of accountability in providing them support.
- IDEA and NCLB required testing for students with disabilities.
- This "improved" support and gave educators some accountability.
- Each state complicates things by coming up with variances in accommodations.
- Some students with disabilities may or may not take the test depending on deciding factors determined by states.
- We test students with disabilities and collect data from various sources (tests) with varying accommodations.
- Now, what do we do?
It just seems like we need to simplify things by coming up with a more uniform way of testing and collecting the data. It always seems like we are comparing apples to oranges when looking at state-to-state or even (intrastate) data. All that creates is more complexity and confusion which leads us back to this cycle of creating assumptions, theories, and experiments … I just don't see how we can test the effectiveness of instruction and support without a uniform way of measuring it.
Thank you Will for the overview. I also had trouble organizing the information from the article in my brain. I think what it boils down to is that there is, as we always hear, no one thing we can do to measure the success of a school. Neither one nor ten nationwide standardized tests will give us a true value for the education happening (or not happening) in any school by virtue of the fact that we're gauging their success based on A Standardized Test. As teachers, we know that we need to find multiple opportunities for our students to find success. Why, then, do we insist on this one paper and pencil test to judge a school? It's totally nonsensical. The special education accomodations during these tests are just another testament to their ineptitude at providing us with any real data.
But because these tests are the basis for changes made under No Child Left Behind, I've been wondering: can someone articulate the problems that arise from NCLB? From my understanding, it's an act that puts in place a system to judge the year's progress for the student achievement at a particular school. Based on a few years of little to no progress, something in the school changes. Whether that's making all the teachers re-apply for their jobs or creating "academies", efforts are made to improve the school based on its needs. It seems like teachers who are doing their jobs have nothing to worry about if they need to re-apply for their jobs; other changes that are made are based on educational research. Does anyone have a negative personal experience with NCLB? Any articles out there that advocate for or against it?
Thanks in advance!
Kristen mentions academies, and as I understand them, I think they are the only thing that can really fix the cornucopia of problems a system like DCPS has. Even though “collaborative learning” is all the rage and the number one thing people from “Downtown” what to see when they visit classrooms, I think small academy settings where students can get more individualized attention would serve our students better. Not that I’m advocating we “teach to the test,” but the tests aren’t taken collaboratively, so doesn’t seem that either the method of testing or instruction need to change?
Kristn, I won’t try to pretend I am expert on NCLB, but I did do a paper on the problems related to it and will try to summarize that for you.
The goals of NCLB are the following:
to raise standards for all children, especially the needs of the disadvantaged children
to guarantee there is a well-qualified teacher in all classrooms;
to have additional support for students who are low-performing
Some of the major problems identified in NCLB include the following: unfair accountability practices using adequate yearly progress measures (AYP), a lack in funding for schools, unrealistic requirements for highly qualified teachers, and little focus on social causes of student’s low achievement. The harmful impact of the accountability measures used by NCLB is that it uses high stakes standardized testing to determine if a school has met the adequate yearly progress.
Here are the basics of AYP:
Each of the 10 subgroups must make it’s AYP goal for the year, which continues to rise up until 100% of all groups make AYP in 2013-14. The 10 groups are the following:
total school population, special ed. Students, LEP students, whites, African Americans, Asian/Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, Hispanics, other ethnicities and economically disadvantages students.
95% of the students in each group must take the test.
These requirements are based on the idea that schools need to close the achievement gap between minority students by requiring schools to separate data into subgroups to see which groups need the most attention.
• If a school fails to meet AYP 2x in a row…
– Labeled “bad” or “needs improvement” list
– Lose Federal funding.
– Offer an alternative public school choice
– provide transportation to the new school
• If a school fails to meet AYP 3x in a row
– Offer an alternative public school choice
– Offer tutoring, after school services, or summer school programs for students
– To pay for this, local school districts must use 20% of its’ Title I funds.
• If a school fails to meet AYP 4x…
– school staff could be replaced
– School could lose its management authority.
• If a school continues to fail to meet AYP…
– the school could be taken over entirely by the State or private management.
In summary- there is a high price to pay for high expectations
Many people think that AYP is
– inaccurate gauge of success of schools
– little focus on social causes of student’s low achievement
– has harmful affects for students and teachers
With some understanding of how NCLB works and after reading the article on state policies on assessment participation and accommodations, it seems more and more like this complicated beast we call NCLB may be unrealistic. In this way I agree with decicco13 in thinking that the United States may be just too large to regulate NCLB effectively. NCLB’s ideals are great, but as we are finding out, it is difficult to implement the system well.
The journal pointed out three challenges concerning accommodations that remained. The third challenge made the most sense to me: “better tests should be designed to minimize the need for accommodations”. What exactly would consist of a better test?
Like Will, I see the merits a nationally uniformed test. I heard one reason we don’t have one test for the country now is because the people who make up the tests are the learning companies, for example Houghton Mifflin. However, not every state thinks that Houghton Mifflin is the best company to make up a test, so that state employs another company and voila! The tests come out different. I’m sure some states tweak them to their own liking too.
Yet, there is something comforting about different ways of doing things. If competition creates a better product, maybe all these inconsistencies in accommodation policies will help come up with the best ideas that work. Unfortunately, it probably would take a long while to get there, while meanwhile students are not getting the accommodations they might need.
I agree with many of the excellent points made thus far on this issue (…but I just write to slow to keep up with all the posts). I definitely join Kristen in thanking Will for clarity. Based on reading this article, and my two years in DCPS, just thinking about testing and funding, with all of the inconsistencies and inaccuracies, makes me feel like Christopher from The curious incident of the dog in the night time. There is too much information and the lack of patterns and organization just makes his head hurt. It appears that our education system can not agree on: 1) what needs to be taught [such that every state has its own standards], 2) how to teach […the yet to be agreed upon material], and 3) how to properly assess the effectiveness of the un-agreed upon methods for teaching the un-agreed upon material. So I ask, what the hell are we doing?
I wonder if this country is too big and too diverse to have one system that works for everyone everywhere. Even if one system could actually meet everyone’s needs I seriously doubt that a consensus could ever be reached? I’m not really sure what can be done short of wiping the slate clean and just starting over from scratch. (Is it too early in my teaching career to be this cynical?)
In college, my baseball coach once made me bat left handed for a week in practice (I’m right handed) because he said I was over thinking my swing. He thought I was concentrating too hard how to swing and it was affecting my ability to actually a baseball. Since I didn’t know how to bat left handed I would just have to start over and do what ever felt right. His point is, I was taking something (relatively) simple and making so complex that it didn’t work anymore. After a week of batting left handed, I forgot what it was that made batting right handed so complicated (and the slump was over!). I think our educational system needs to do something similar to reassess what it’s trying to accomplish and how best to do it.
Another complication of NCLB and special education is the so-called "N number" provision. Basically, as you all know, NCLB accountability provisions are based on the idea of sub-groups: no longer can schools "mask" their floundering minority groups by averaging their low scores with the high scores of their majority groups. Sounds good, right?
Well…as always, the devil is in the details. Under the law, states are allowed to establish a minimum number of students in a sub-group before they have to report the subgroup's scores. That minimum number is the "N number." It is based on the idea that schools should only be judged on their subgroups if there is a statistically significant sample size. For example, the typical N Number is 40. So a school only is accountable for, say, English Language Learner scores if there are 40 or more ELL students in the school. If there are only 39, then the scores, while still reported, don't "count" towards AYP.
The problem is that the N Number provision has been abused in many instances to carve out millions of special education, ELL, and minority children from the protection of the NCLB system. Some states have set very high N Numbers and thus papered over the fact that they are not serving the special education students in their schools.
The morale? Always read the fine print.
As a teacher of students with special needs I have had first-hand experience with the inadequacies of our current methods of assessment, and I agree with the author’s suggestions that policy makers and education experts need to develop better methods to assess these students, methods which take account of their unique needs and difference.
I found it interesting to read that “states are using a variety of alternate assessment approaches to assess students with severe cognitive disabilities, including a portfolio approach…” There are several questions that arise from this assessment practice. Is there an established protocol to follow to define which students have “severe cognitive disabilities”? What standards do assessments incorporate? How are metrics for success measured? If so, who decides, state officials or a central assessment agency? Where are the checks and balances?
I ask these questions because I’m wondering what alternative assessments look like in different states. From my experience alternative assessments are extremely inconsistent. For instance, during my first year of teaching I was in Houston Texas and alternative assessments were what seemed to be a well established practice. And just as the article indicated the assessment was pretty much just an outside of grade assessment and the students’ scores did not count towards the schools Annual Yearly Progress (AYP). Every single Special Education student on my case (37) load took an alternative assessment. Being a first-year teacher I thought that this was just the way it went. So, it surprises me to hear that such assessments are designed to be only for “severe cognitive disabilities.”
In order for alternative assessments to serve students with special needs and educators they need to be more flexible and aligned with the individual needs of students.
Ericka, I totally agree with your last point. It is important for us to recognize the individual needs and abilities of our students. Why can we look at where are students are performing at the beginning of the year and then retest at the end of the year and look at the progress that is made. This is argument that is consistently made when we think about general education students and state testing but the reocurring counterargument is that at a certain point a student needs to perform at a certain level. I think as the testing stands, we are not getting a true assessment of our students strengths. I have commented in a different post about the inconsitencies with accomodations at my school and how that is communicated to students. When a student sees a test that they know they cannot perform well on, why will they even try? I like the reflection in the article about the alternate forms of testing because we cannot approach our students like robots. We must be flexible and see how to truly assess our student's strengths and weaknesses.
I also agree with Tori's point below about educating the parents about the tests and having them advocate for their children. It seems to be one of the main themese of education but the major way to improve the experiences of our students is to get as many people involved as possible. The louder the voice, the better the service.
Ok, to begin with, we need more oversight in testing by regional boards. There needs to be uniformity in testing and the analysis of those tests if federal money is involved, like with NCLB. Perhaps a way to skirt the issue is to set up regional boards to create, administer, and oversee testing across the country. If tests are written under the same guidelines by a specifically selected and trained staff meeting the same requirements but using cultural tools associated with the region being tested, perhaps it could add validity and fairness to the current testing model. Najila brings up some great points about the great amount of inconsistencies in testing among schools and districts. When it comes to testing ELL and SPED kids, these inconsistencies abound. Schools and districts can work to tweak and alter stats to take advantage of the system when it comes to scores for kids in these classifications, and numbers can be omitted to make sure the school looks like it is meeting the needs of these kids. When money is tied to testing prowess, schools have to do everything in their power to stay afloat, even if it means not doing the strictly lawful thing to make funding happen. I know that, at my school, we skirt around this problem by eliminating the need for testing all of our SPED students so that our scores in this department are “better.” For SPED kids, every accommodation should be given so that they can test to the best of their ability. Yet, many schools do not have the staff and support needed to make accommodations during a week of testing. So, what happens to those kids legally and mentally when they are tested if we do not meet these basic needs? It is against the law and unfair to students, yet dozens of schools do it every year. Like the article suggests, we need high-quality alternate assessments to test some of our kids so that they can prove their prowess and “intelligence” in other ways. Life itself is not two-dimensional, yet we teach our students that success is measured on a two-dimensional piece of paper they have to bubble in with a number two pencil. As far as accommodations go, we need to educate PARENTS on what is going on with testing so that they can play a role here. by educating parents about this, we can make them advocates for proper accommodations for their kids. Many of our parents do not understand the testing system and the rights their children, by law (re: article), when it comes to the administration of tests. we all know the power parents have as a collective when it comes to school laws and rights for students. Parents hold the power to change the system by mere complaints to the school board and by shouting their grievances to the press and state lawmakers. If we were to take the time to educate parents of our SPED and ELL kids about the rights their kids should have and the way in which they should be tested, perhaps we can see a change in the system for the better. As teachers, we need to read up on the laws governing testing practices to ensure that our schools and teachers are in compliance with state and federal laws. People cannot become advocates for such things unless they are educated as to why the system is wrong and unfair, and it is our job as teachers to make sure our parent body understands this!
First, in answer to kholtschlag’s earlier question on articles critiquing the good/bad of NCLB. Here are some links, actually interesting reads as well….
http://www.resultsforamerica.org/education/toolkit_critique.php
Critique of "No Child Left Behind"
Rethinking Schools, a group dedicated to improving America's public school classrooms, published the following article about the No Child Left Behind Act. (NCLB). The article provides a great explanation about the shortcomings of the act. You can find the article and more information about Rethinking Schools online at: www.rethinkingschools.org
Equity Claims for NCLB Don't Pass the Test
Spring 2003
By Stan Karp
Supporters of President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" legislation have made a series of claims about how various aspects of the new law will help kids, parents, and schools, especially in poor communities. This month's ESEA Watch takes a closer look at these claims. (Note: ESEA stands for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, a combination of the major federal educational programs. No Child Left Behind [NCLB] is the political label given by the Bush Administration to the version of the ESEA that was renewed last year. ESEA and NCLB refer to the same set of federal programs and regulations and are often used interchangeably.)
Claim: Annual standardized testing is the key to bringing school improvement and accountability to all schools. “For too long,” says the Department of Education, “ America 's education system has not been accountable for results, and too many children have been locked in underachieving schools and left behind. … Testing will raise expectations for all students and ensure that no child slips through the cracks.”
Reality: A huge increase in federally mandated testing will not provide the services and strategies our schools and students need to improve. Most states and local districts have already dramatically increased the use of standardized tests over the past two decades, without solving the problems of poor schools. Some estimates are that the new federal law will require states to give more than 200 additional tests at a cost of more than $7 billion.
Many studies show that standardized testing does not lead to lasting increases in student achievement and may in fact reduce it. Researchers at Arizona State University recently completed the largest study ever done on the issue. They concluded that "rigorous testing that decides whether students graduate, teachers win bonuses and schools are shuttered, an approach already in place in more than half the nation, does little to improve achievement and may actually worsen academic performance and dropout rates." (New York Times, 12/28/02)
When schools become obsessed with test scores, they narrow the focus of what teachers do in classrooms and limit their ability to serve the broader needs of children and their communities. Overreliance on testing also diverts attention and resources from more promising school improvement strategies like smaller class size, creative curriculum reform, and collaborative professional development. High-stakes tests push struggling students out of school, and encourage schools to adopt developmentally inappropriate practices for younger children in an effort to "get them ready for the tests." Overuse of testing can also encourage cheating scandals and makes schools and students vulnerable to inaccurate and, at times, corrupt practices by commercial testing firms.
Claim: The new law will use test scores to hold schools accountable for serving all students. For the first time, the spotlight will be put on achievement gaps that schools have traditionally covered up, and schools will be forced to address inequalities in student achievement that they have failed to deal with in the past.
Reality: NCLB uses achievement gaps to label schools as "failures," but does not provide the resources or support needed to eliminate them. The law includes an unrealistic and under-funded federal mandate that by 2014, 100 percent of all students (including special education students and English-language learners), must be proficient on state tests. Schools that don't reach increasingly difficult test score targets face an escalating series of sanctions. Instead of an appropriate educational strategy, this is part of a calculated political campaign to leave schools and children behind as the federal government retreats from the nation's historic commitment to improving universal public schooling for all kids.
Inequality in test scores is one indicator of school performance. But test scores also reflect other inequalities in resources and opportunities that exist in the larger society and in schools themselves. Ten percent of white children live in poverty, while about 35 percent of Black and Latino children live in poverty. Why isn't the Bush Administration demanding an end to this kind of inequality? Students in poor schools, on average, have thousands of dollars less spent on their education than those in wealthier schools. About 14 percent of whites don't have health insurance, but more than 20 percent of Blacks and 30 percent of Latinos have no health insurance. Unemployment rates for Blacks and Latinos are nearly double what they are for whites. Can you imagine the federal government saying all crime must be eliminated in 12 years or we'll privatize the police? All citizens must be healthy in 12 years or we will shut down the health care system?
Some politicians are trying to turn the problems of poor schools into a campaign to destroy public education. We need to ask: When did the same politicians who oppose civil rights, affirmative action, more spending for social programs, and universal health care suddenly become champions of poor Black and brown children and their families?
Claim: The new law mandates that students historically exempted from the testing pool, such as special education students and English language learners, must now take tests and have their scores counted. These groups also must achieve "100 percent proficiency" within 12 years. This will force schools to improve student achievement for groups of students who have previously been left behind.
Reality: The inclusion of special education and Limited English Proficient students in the testing calculations will make it harder for schools to reach the unreasonable "adequate yearly progress" targets, but will do nothing to improve educational services to these children. The law's punitive preoccupation with high-stakes testing will narrow curriculum focus and impoverish educational experience for all children. It will also force students to take inappropriate and unhelpful mandated assessments, like tests in languages they don't understand.
If the federal government wanted to help special needs students it would fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as called for repeatedly by education advocates. (The federal government currently provides less than half the funding authorized by the IDEA). It would also support effective bilingual education programs for English language learners and encourage assessment practices that promote content learning and language acquisition simultaneously. Instead, the new regulations will greatly restrict the use of effective bilingual education programs and promote a kind of "English only" intolerance.
Claim: The new federal law gives parents in failing schools more choices.
Reality: The law gives parents the right to take students and money out of struggling schools and to leave those schools behind. But it does not guarantee them any new places to go. In districts where some schools are labeled “failing” and some are not, the new law may force increased class sizes by transferring students without creating new capacity. "No Child Left Behind" does not invest in building new schools in failing districts. It does not make rich districts open their doors to students from poor districts. And it doesn't give poor parents any more control over school bureaucracies than food stamps give them over the supermarkets. It's a “supply-side” fraud designed to manufacture a demand for vouchers and ultimately to transfer funds and students to profit-making private school corporations.
Claim: The new ESEA gives poor schools more resources to improve.
Reality: Overall, the new law boosted Title I funding for poor schools by about 20 percent. But much of that money will be used to take kids and resources out of poor schools through transfers and payments to private providers of "supplemental" services. See Keeping Public Schools Public. Moreover, the test performance targets set by the law are so unrealistic, that in some states as many as 90 percent of all schools — not just poor schools — may be unable to meet them and may ultimately lose federal funds as a result. (New York Times, 11/27/02)
The amounts targeted for internal improvement of "failing schools" are also unclear and uneven. In New Jersey, 274 schools will share $3 million this year in new federal aid targeted for improvement — less than $11,000 per school. In Chicago, 179 schools will share $35 million which yields a more significant average of about $195,000 per school.
But even these funds are threatened by the Administration's war budget. And as more schools are put on the list of "failures," the limited funds will be spread thinner and thinner.
As Paul Houston, executive director of the American Association of School Administrators said, “What happens is you create a situation where there are so many schools failing that there is no support for them. The administration likes to talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations and how this law fights that. But what about the hard bigotry of high expectations without adequate resources?” (Washington Post, 1/2/03)
Claim: The new law puts real pressure on districts to change bureaucratic business as usual, which is why it is generating so much heat.
Reality: The law is generating increasing heat because the incoherence and irrationality of the Bush plan is becoming more evident. Governors and education commissioners from Louisiana to Nebraska are belatedly trying to tell the federal government that it has no business defining high-stakes test score targets for individual schools and districts and for imposing under-funded, top-down school reform mandates from Washington. The federal government provides only seven percent of school funding, but is using federal regulation to drive school policy in conservative directions at the state, district, and school levels. Historically, when it came to things like integration, busing, or defining what kids should learn, politicians, especially Republicans, have always declared that schools should be “locally controlled.” But the new ESEA is the most intrusive federal education law in history. The only thing that's changed is the ideological commitment of some politicians to reform public education out of existence through a strategy of "test and burn." As researcher Gerald Bracey put it, “ESEA is a weapon of mass destruction and its target is the public schools.”
An NPR Story, link:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5134827
Education
No Child Left Behind Fails to Close Achievement Gap
by Claudio Sanchez
Weekend Edition Sunday, January 8, 2006 • Four years after the No Child Left Behind Act became law, test results show progress in some areas. But many schools are not reducing the achievement gap between white and minority students, and closing that gap may take longer than the law's requirements.
And, a link to a paper about strengthening NCLB – some good stuff there!!!
Building on Results: A Blueprint for Strengthening the No Child Left Behind Act.
http://www.wsba-wy.org/NCLB%20Policy%20Book.pdf
Hope this helps some!!!