FairTest_______________
National Center for Fair & Open Testing
“NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND” AFTER TWO YEARS:
A TRACK RECORD OF FAILURE
The increasingly visible
flaws of the "No Child Left Behind" law and the growing, bi-partisan
criticisms of its provisions demonstrate that the law will do more harm than
good. NCLB’s test-and-punish approach to school reform relies on extremely
limited, one-size-fits-all tools that reduce education to little more than
test prep programs. It produces unfair decisions and requires unproven, often
irrational approaches to complex educational problems. NCLB is clearly
underfunded. But fully funding a bad law is not the solution. If the nation's
goal really is to leave no child behind, the federal government must overhaul
NCLB to ensure that assessment and accountability genuinely improve learning
for all students.
* NCLB is based on
false assumptions and therefore offers false remedies. The façade
that was created to portray Houston and “the Texas Miracle” as national models
is crumbling. Independent researchers have shown Houston failed to close the
race-based achievement gap, inflated test results by pushing out low-scoring
students, and failed to adequately prepare the few who actually graduate for
college-level work. Similar high-stakes approaches in other states, such as
Alabama and Mississippi, have left students mired at the bottom of national
rankings. The U.S. cannot test its way to better schools.
* Nearly all schools
will eventually be rated “In Need of Improvement” because of the way Adequate
Yearly Progress statistics are calculated. A recent California study
confirms the findings of other researchers that the more diverse a student
body, the more likely schools or districts will fail to make sufficient
progress in test results to avoid NCLB sanctions. While diverse, high-poverty
schools will fail and be punished sooner, the consensus among researchers is
that almost every school will eventually fall short of the arbitrary
improvement requirements.
* NCLB’s obsessive
focus on raising test scores will mean an increasing emphasis on test
preparation, undermining the higher order thinking skills all students need to
succeed in work and life. Overwhelming pressure to meet test score
targets makes schools focus on drilling students for the exams.
“Teaching to the test” narrows the curriculum, forcing teachers and students
to concentrate on memorizing isolated facts. As a result, rising test scores
will not mean academic improvement. Fewer students will be prepared to be
successful citizens in our society.
* Demanding that
disabled and limited English proficient students reach “proficiency” on
standardized tests sets those students and their teachers up for failure.
Rather than provide resources so schools can offer individualized approaches
these students need to succeed, NCLB offers the pretense that if we hold them
to the “same standards,” they will magically rise to the occasion. NCLB is
already causing many students to be scapegoated for dragging down average test
scores, tempting some schools to drive them out. The failure to provide high
quality comprehensive assessments for all these students endangers both the
students and their schools.
Tutoring provisions take
money from schools that most need it and turn public funds over to private
entrepreneurs. Based on the simplistic, faulty premise that low test
scores are caused primarily by inadequate or lazy public school teachers, NCLB
paves the way for private firms to reap huge profits. Meanwhile, strapped
districts will see their budgets pinched further and be forced to lay off
staff and cut back on services to students who most need extra help.
* Transfer provisions
make matters worse at both the home and receiving school, while diverting
money from education to "busing." This provision has been a giant bust,
with some receiving schools overwhelmed by transfers and ill-equipped to
handle them, but most parents saying, "No thanks." Parents increasingly view
this so-called choice provision as a hoax, recognizing that better performing
schools are tantalizingly out of reach, either in neighboring districts that
say no to their kids, or exam schools within their districts that are also off
limits.
* Many of the best
teachers will flee schools where they are most needed. As experienced and
excellent teachers recognize that schools with society’s most vulnerable
students are destined for failure and punishment, those who can will transfer
to higher performing schools. The abandoned schools will be hard-pressed to
recruit replacement teachers of any quality.
* NCLB funds fall far
short of what would be needed to make every student in every public school
proficient. The failure to fully fund NCLB is the clearest example of how
it leaves many children behind. However, even with more adequate funding, the
law’s assumptions and methods are so deeply flawed that it cannot work without
fundamental change.
* NCLB ignores the
real reasons many children are left behind. The failure to address factors
outside of school that influence academic achievement guarantees NCLB will not
succeed. The best school, the best teachers and the best curriculum can make a
huge difference in the lives of disadvantaged children, but basic needs like
housing, health care and nutrition must also be addressed to truly close the
achievement gap between poor and rich children.
* The law’s remedies
for “failing” schools do not work. A series of studies demonstrates that
most attempts to “reconstitute” troubled schools fail to improve student
performance. Moreover, few if any states will have the capacity to intervene
in the large numbers of public schools that will eventually be identified for
NCLB’s ultimate sanctions.
* Last, but not
least, better alternatives exist to improve troubled schools. Educators,
researchers, and engaged parents have worked to create and use far better
assessments that meet the primary purposes of assessment – improving teaching
and learning while informing the public about school quality. This requires
rich assessments, from tests and quizzes to projects and portfolios, rooted in
ongoing classroom work by students and teachers; professional development for
educators and time for them to plan improvements in curriculum and
instruction; involvement by parents as real partners not just consumers of
test scores; annual reports on student learning and other vital data that the
community needs to help improve their schools; monitoring by the state to
ensure schools are equitably serving all students; and targeted assistance for
those schools which really need it.
For more information
about NCLB’s flaws and better assessment alternatives that will help improve
academic performance for all students, please contact:
FairTest: National Center for Fair & Open Testing
342 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139
phone- (617) 864-4810 fax- (617) 497-2224
web- http://www.fairtest.org
