Policy Brief: NCLB

Review, Analysis, and Recommendations to

No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

Problem Definition

• Education policy needs to be addressed because there are major, fixable issues with the current law.

• The problem is widespread; effecting nearly all sub-groups in all 50 states

• Education policy improvement is imperative and therefore of concern to the public sector because achievement gap on both fronts– Achievement gap between disadvantaged students

and non-disadvantaged students– Achievement gap between public education in

America vs. other globalized competing nations

What is NCLB?

• 1965, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)– Revised every five to seven years

• 1983, Nation at Risk– Nation Commission on Excellence in Education

• 2002, NCLB signed in to law– Goals of NCLB:

• Close achievement gaps– 100% proficiency in reading and math by 2014

• Create assessment and accountability systems– Annual standardized testing for grades 3-8 in reading and math– Must make adequate yearly progress (AYP)

Causal Model

• Public education is a public good

• Performance of our school system has direct consequences for the economy and society at large

• Education policy should maximize student achievement

Measured academicachievement

Student quality

School quality

Peer quality

Detailed Causal Model with variables

Measured academicachievement

Student Quality

School Quality

Peer Quality

Innate ability Parental involvement Student effort

School resources Leadership quality Teaching quality Parental involvement

Peer ability Peer effort

Consequences of AYP failure

Consecutive Years of AYP failureConsequences for Individual Schools That Receive Moniesfor Disadvantaged Children under Title I

2 years

Identified as "in need of improvement"

School officials must:* Develop a school improvement plan* Spend at least 10% of Title I funds on professional development* Allow parents to transfer their children to successful schools in the district

Notify parents of their options under this plan

3 years

All consequences from previous years

School officials must:* Implement school improvement plan* Provide supplemental educational services (SES) for students

4 years

All consequences from previous years

Corrective action:* This many include replacing staff, overhauling the curriculum, reducing management authority at the school level, hiring outside experts, or lengthening the school day and/or year.

5 years

All consequences from previous years

Plan for restructuring:* Either by reconstituting school as a charter school, replacing all or most of the school personnel, contracting out for private management, state intervention, or other restructuring efforts

6 years

All consequences from previous years

Initiate restructuring

NCLB criticisms: positive

• Improved test scores• Improvement over

local standards• Increased

accountability• Attention to minority

populations

• Quality of education• School choice• Funding• Public perception of

public education

NCLB criticisms: negative

• “Gaming” the system• Problems with

standardized tests• Incentives against low-

performing students• Incentives against gifted,

talents, and high-performing students

• State refusal to produce non-English assessments

• Narrow curriculum• Narrow definition of

research• Limitations on local

control• Facilitates military

recruitment• Variability in a student

potential and 100% compliance

Major Reform Proposals• The Joint Organizational Statement on

No Child Left Behind (Oct 2004)

• The Aspen Commission onNo Child Left Behind (Feb 2007)

• Forum on Educational Accountability (June 2007)

Propose Course of Action• Changes need to be made to NCLB:

1. Realistic goals– Research based goals; replace the law’s arbitrary targets with ambitious targets

based on rates of success actually achieved by the most effective schools2. National proficiency standards

– Provide a standard to be achieved national– Provide states flexibility to reach said standard

3. Update annual assessment system– Allow for multiple indicators of student achievement in addition to standardized

testing– Decrease burden of testing by allowing annual testing in selected grades– Alter AYP reports to include a “value-added measure”

4. Reconsider sanctions and rewards system– Create REAL consequences and rewards– Allow for multi year improvement plans

5. Fully fund the law– Allocate $50 billion for Title I (compared to $32.3 billion in FY 2009 – including

ARRA and RTT funds)

• Be patient, give NCLB more time• NCLB is vastly more ambitious than ESEA of 1965• ESEA took a decade before Title I functioned at its authors intended

Questions?