Public Speaks Out on No Child Left Behind

In March 2005, the Public Education Network (PEN) released “Open to the Public: Speaking Out on ‘No Child Left Behind,’” a report on public hearings PEN held around the nation and an online survey it conducted on NCLB. The purpose of the hearings and survey was to hear from parents, students, and community members about their experiences with NCLB.

PEN held nine hearings in eight states: Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, California, Ohio, Texas, Tennessee, New York and Illinois, between May and October 2004 to hear from people from all walks of life who are rarely invited to voice their views.

Support for NCLB’s Goals and State Accountability

Parents, students, and other members of the public expressed support for NCLB’s goals of raising student achievement and increased accountability. However, many expressed concern for holding only students and schools accountable. The report recommends holding states accountable as well, by labeling them “in need of improvement” and subjecting them to sanctions and corrective action. There was also support for the idea of disaggregating test results according to particular subgroups, in order to shine a light on those groups of children that need extra help. There was frustration, however, in the implementation of NCLB, and the feeling that in practice, the law was at times undermining its stated goals.

NCLB Fails to Empower Parents

One goal of NCLB is to provide more information to parents regarding their children’s education and to provide parents the opportunity to have an impact on their children’s schooling. However, many of the parents who testified found that NCLB is not fulfilling that aim. They indicated that the NCLB information regarding school status, teacher quality, transfer, and supplemental educational services (SES) is confusing and most often not translated into native languages. Moreover, by failing to provide money for programs that would truly help get parents involved, especially those parents who do not speak English, NCLB does nothing to change the climate of mistrust in some communities between parents and school officials.

Parents Want Strong Neighborhood Schools

Although NCLB champions the idea of giving parents a choice when it comes to their children’s education, most parents report that NCLB works against the one choice they prefer: keeping their children in their neighborhood school. When asked about school transfers, the first NCLB consequence for schools labeled “in need of improvement,” parents stated that they prefer that their children remain in their local school. Parents report frustration that neither the states nor NCLB provide their neighborhood schools with enough basic educational resources, such as books, teachers, and facilities in the first place. The perceived diversion of money from school improvement programs to fund NCLB mandates such as testing puts more financial pressure on the schools, they said. Moreover, once a school is labeled “in need of improvement,” parents report that the school is stigmatized, and it is harder to get local support and money. Parents requested more resources to help struggling neighborhood schools. At the very least, they suggested offering SES first before “abandoning” the neighborhood school through the transfer option.

Parents Want Teachers with High Expectations

Hearing participants praised NCLB for focusing on teacher quality. However, despite the law’s reporting requirements, few parents had received information about teacher quality in their schools. Parents reported not agreeing with NCLB’s definition of “highly qualified” teachers. They also stressed the need for teachers who have high expectations for their children and the ability to teach successfully in culturally diverse settings. Students also questioned the teacher quality requirements, citing examples of NCLB-qualified teachers who did not have real teaching skills.

Students’ Perceptions

Many of the student participants lamented the change in instruction resulting from the testing requirements of NCLB. Students described tedious test preparation and skills drilling instead of more challenging learning. They also reported cuts in Advanced Placement courses so that resources could be spent on meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goals of NCLB. Also reported were cuts in alternative education programs for struggling high school students as a result of pressure to report that students graduate “on time.” Parents and students questioned the reliability of a single test to measure AYP and criticized the limited skills that these tests assess.

English Language Learners and Students with Disabilities

Students, parents, teachers, and community leaders criticized the testing requirements as they applied to ELL students and students with disabilities. There were reports of ELL students being counseled to drop out and seek GEDs so that their potentially low test scores would not affect a school’s status. Parents also felt that dual language programs are effective in teaching ELL students, but that these programs are being pushed aside in the rush to test ELL students in English. Students with disabilities experienced demoralization at not being able to pass the NCLB-required test, which set these students up for failure. In almost every state, witnesses requested alternative tests aligned with a student’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP), which is required by another federal law, the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA).

SES Quality Control

In addition to the lack of timely and translated information about SES, there was a great deal of testimony lamenting the lack of monitoring of SES providers. Parents felt they could not asses the quality of a particular provider. In addition, the lack of monitoring has allowed SES providers to claim to serve ELL students and students with disabilities, two subgroups often the most in need of tutoring, while in reality the same providers refused to serve these students.

Message to State Policymakers

In addition to calls for federal changes regarding assessments, public involvement, and other aspects of NCLB, “Open to the Public” notes that the hearings provide an important message to state policy makers. The authors observe that the historic underfunding of public schools is now being exacerbated by the additional costs and requirements of NCLB. PEN cautions that if states fail to address the resource inequalities, public frustration will continue to grow.

Prepared by Wendy C. Lecker, March 24, 2005