NCLB beset by problems, research studies find

Researchers from RAND, the Center on Education Policy, and the American Institutes for Research discussed three studies: the National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality under NCLB, and a study that looked at the experiences of teachers and administrators in California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania.

The studies found that while about 75 percent of schools are making their adequate yearly progress (AYP) goals, NCLB is still failing school districts, children, and teachers in a variety of ways and is causing the most harm to special education students, English language learners (ELLs), and poor, urban, and minority students.

According to researchers, urban schools and schools with large numbers of minority and poor students were more likely to miss their AYP targets. About one-third of schools that did not make AYP failed to reach their goals for students with disabilities and ELLs.

Nearly half of the schools that needed assistance to improve services for these students said that they did not receive this support.

Nearly a third of teachers failed to receive test results and AYP reports before the start of the school year, making it difficult for them to improve their teaching methods and overall student achievement.

Many teachers also said the accountability system put in place by NCLB led to lower morale among the faculty and forced them to teach to the test and focus on the “bubble students” -- those poised between failing and proficient -- thus reducing the amount of time they spend with low and high-achieving students.

The researchers identified a major inconsistency with NCLB: Because each state sets its own proficiency standards, it is difficult to make definitive conclusions about whether student achievement is actually rising.

Without a national definition of “proficient,” a state with higher standards could report fewer students at the proficient level than a state with lower standards, even though the first state might actually have more students performing better in math and reading.

To improve NCLB, the panelists said the law should focus on enhancing the educational experience for all children, not just those whose test scores can be easily improved. They proposed wider use of growth models instead of an inflexible proficiency cutoff.

They also suggested a need to increase the number of subjects schools should be held accountable for in order to counteract curriculum narrowing, where a disproportionate amount of time is spent on reading and math at the expense of other subjects.