GREAT SCHOOLS, GREAT NATION
Achieving the vision of The No Child Left Behind Act
Respectfully submitted by The National Education Taskforce
5 June 2007

One the most significant pieces of legislation to be considered by the U. S. Congress in 2007 will be the bill to renew the law known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The impact of NCLB will reach far into our nation’s future. Today’s children are the foundation on which this future will be built; yet our educational system is losing ground to other nations that are not as blessed with resources as we are in the United States.  Now, as the nation readies itself to renew this law, it is apparent that the law as written will not accomplish its lofty goals. A large number of professional educational organizations have gone on record citing major flaws in NCLB. Special interest groups of all kinds have studied the law, held hearings, gathered data, and produced reports raising serious concerns about the philosophy underlying NCLB and its subsequent operation in the schools.
     In forcing schools to acknowledge that some children are “left behind,” NCLB is spiritual kin to Brown v. Board of Education, the groundbreaking Federal legislation that made school segregation illegal in 1954. This comparison is too kind to NCLB as it exists; however, if its flaws are corrected, NCLB can achieve its noble goal of moving our nation closer to equity in public education.
     Proponents of NCLB report claims of academic achievement in the nation’s schools that are unconfirmed by analysis of research and reports disseminated in recent years. These reports have identified so many flaws in NCLB that it is not possible in this summary to convey the enormity of the negative impact they are having at every level of education. Neither is it possible to give them the individual attention each deserves. The reader is directed to a review of reports released by organizations and policy centers throughout the country that are concerned with children. The NET summary report can only highlight the major concerns that are being expressed at every level about the health, education and development of our children, our nation’s schools, and teachers.
     Heading the list of concerns is the NCLB emphasis on high-stakes testing and school accountability throughout a child’s school career. Advocates of this approach seem to believe that altering a few minor aspects of the present high-stakes approach will ‘fix’ this law. Determining a school’s rating on the basis of a once-a-year two or three hour test is insufficient at best to obtain an accurate measure of effective instruction.
     NCLB and state assessment have had little or no impact on student achievement or in reducing the gap between high and low performing students, or in closing the gap that separates Anglo students from Latino or African-american students. The result of high-stakes testing is that the quality of public education has been reduced. Latino and African-american students continue to drop out of school in enormous numbers.
     For implementing a high-stakes testing program and a test-based accountability system, the State of Texas is held up as a model that shows how a strong accountability system improves student performance. The State of Texas is in this position because it has had a test-based accountability system for at least ten years. In Texas, the state standardized test is the only indicator of academic achievement on which Texas children are showing gains. Dr. Linda McNeil, a member of the NET and professor at Houston's Rice University, has researched this issue. She has found that on every indicator of academic achievement other than the state test, Texas children show weak academic performance, and are growing weaker. McNeil asserts that the Texas accountability system succeeds only when the poor Anglo, Spanish-speaking Latino, and African-american children drop out.
     McNeil states that the accountability system produces unnecessary failures and fakes its claims to more equitable schooling. Her analysis of the high-stakes testing program in Texas points out that all decisions are made centrally and at the top of the bureaucracy. Neither teachers nor parents have input. Teachers are expected to comply and be accountable. Ratings and rankings displace other educational considerations that might be expected to have more influence on the instructional experience of the students. 
     McNeil reports that no well-designed, longitudinal studies have demonstrated that high-stakes testing correlates with achievement over time in any subject. High-stakes testing is not an adequate measure of teacher effectiveness or student achievement.
     Increasing numbers of college applicants who seek admission into Texas colleges are not college-ready. Scores on national tests show that Texas’ students’ performances do not match their increased performances on standardized state tests. Texas students continue to score near the bottom of the fifty states on the SAT 1. Texas’s low ranking on national tests and the SAT raises serious questions about the adoption of the Texas accountability system (NCLB) as a model for the nation. Various researchers have found in recent years that the rates for excluding Texas students from taking the tests have been rising. The children who are more apt to fail are excluded for various reasons with the result that overall scores go up
     McNeil reports research that directly challenges the state’s claim that the Texas Accountability System is making Texas schools more equitable. This is a serious problem since the accountability sections of the NCLB Act are based on the Texas system.
     All reports cite the need for well-trained teachers. But is it reasonable to believe that pressuring a teacher, or punishing a teacher by withholding bonuses, or by publicizing their failures, will produce an improvement in the way teachers teach. Unprepared teachers need to be trained and given the tools to do a better job. Pressuring them is no substitute for training.  It does nothing to improve teacher skills.
     Reports of hearings in which teachers have had the opportunity to comment about NCLB are universally negative. Good teachers who previously loved to teach, report they have come to hate it. Others can’t wait to retire.  Absenteeism is on the rise. Morale is low. New teachers are leaving the field in unprecedented numbers. 
     The curriculum, rather than becoming more comprehensive in this age of information explosion, is being narrowed to include only topics included on the test. Teachers are allowed to teach only topics included on the test.  Subjects such as social studies, science, art, music, and physical education must fight for a small piece of instructional time during the week. Only one state, Illinois, mandates physical education daily, while childhood obesity and diabetes rise. In many schools children gulp down their lunches in fifteen minutes or throw them in the trashcan. Signs appear everywhere in the halls, lunchrooms, etc. that encourage children to study hard for the test. These and many more responses to the high-stakes testing and accountability provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act constitute unanticipated and appalling consequences to this law. 
     Under this system, principals’ careers are on the line along with the superintendent’s job. Principals and their assistants pressure teachers in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. Schools have huge rallies before the test that ratchet up student tension. Teachers in rooms that do better are given special perks. Children are bribed in numerous ways to urge them to study and perform. 
     Children do not escape the climate of pressure that permeates the schools.  Individuality and differences are discouraged. Instructions for the tests tell teachers what to do with test booklets that have vomit on them and rubber gloves are distributed routinely to allow teachers to handle such materials.
     Students, teachers, parents and principals respond negatively to high-stakes testing. Superintendents are more neutral. Lawmakers and politicians view it positively. The farther one is from the classroom (or, as one observer noted, the more expensive one’s suit), the more positively NCLB is viewed.  

concerns        proposals        NET home