The education landscape is changing as a result of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). But how is it changing, and who is most affected? These reports examine the impact of NCLB.
The Center on Education Policy's fourth annual report on NCLB,From the Capital to the Classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act, explores the legislation's effects, highlights educators' concerns, and recommends improvements. The report's findings are based on a survey of the 50 U.S. states, a nationally representative survey of 299 school districts, case studies of 38 geographically diverse school districts and 42 schools, six special analyses of crucial NCLB issues, and three national forums.
Teaching and learning are changing. Some results are positive. Schools are trying to align curriculum and instruction with state academic standards and assessments. Test data are proving helpful in targeting instruction to meet student needs. And districts are becoming more serious about monitoring teaching practices in their schools, encouraging teachers to use pacing guides and hiring instructional coaches to observe in the classroom. However, 71 percent of school districts reported that their elementary schools had reduced instructional time in at least one other subject to focus more narrowly on reading and math. Some respondents viewed this as necessary to help struggling students; others believed it was a disservice to both teachers and students. NCLB has also influenced teacher qualifications by requiring teachers to obtain a degree in their subject and complete additional coursework. Most district officials surveyed expressed skepticism that these requirements are improving teacher quality.
Scores on state achievement tests are rising. The majority of respondents found that adequate yearly progress (AYP) requirements were responsible in part for these gains but that school district policies and programs played a larger role. It is unclear, however, to what degree rising scores reflect increased student learning. Many states are making policy changes that result in higher numbers of students being classified as “proficient.”
The effects of NCLB are holding steady. The number of schools identified as in need of improvement has changed little from the previous year, due in part to changes in federal and state rules that have made it easier for schools to make AYP. The percentage of eligible students taking advantage of school choice (2 percent) and the percentage of students participating in tutoring programs (20 percent) have also remained steady.
NCLB is having the greatest effect on urban school districts. Fifty-four percent of Title I schools identified as in need of improvement and 90 percent of the schools in restructuring are in urban districts. Several factors are responsible for NCLB's greater effect on urban schools. Greater diversity in urban districts means that additional numbers of subgroups must make AYP; urban districts often include dozens of schools, unlike smaller districts that might have only one school for each grade span; and urban schools often have high numbers of students living in poverty, which affects achievement. On a more positive note, the percentage of urban school districts reporting that their teachers are highly qualified (88 percent) and the percentage reporting an overall increase in student achievement (85 percent) are similar to the percentages reported by suburban and rural districts.
Although respondents recognized the strengths of NCLB—high learning expectations, the focus on subgroups that have traditionally lagged behind, improved alignment, and better use of data—they also pointed to the legislation's negative aspects. These include lack of funding, lack of staff necessary to carry out NCLB's accountability requirements, teacher stress, and low morale. Many expressed concern about the accountability requirements for certain subgroups and about bringing 100 percent of students to proficiency by 2014.
Monitor the effects of allowing schools flexibility in how they meet AYP (confidence intervals and safe harbor provisions, for example).