NCTE Members Speak Out on NCLB Reform
by Kent Williamson, NCTE Executive Director
The Council Chronicle Online, August 7, 2007

As Congress examines proposals to reform the far-reaching No Child Left Behind Act, scores of NCTE members have taken action this summer to ensure that the voice of literacy educators is taken into account. In response to a July invitation to contact their Congressional representatives, more than 750 members emailed letters requesting Congress to make essential changes in the legislation. And, between July 24 and August 6, 487 educators completed a brief poll on potential NCLB reforms.

What do literacy educators have to say about the future of NCLB? Plenty.

• 63% of poll respondents called for substantial reforms, while 31% felt that it should not be re-authorized at all.
  
• 96% supported moving away from sole reliance on standardized test scores to measure Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), and supported using multiple measures to evaluate school success.
  
• Large majorities expressed strong support for. . .
  
  • Allowing English Language Learners more time to gain proficiency in English before including their test scores in AYP computations (80%).
    
  • Using “growth models” to assess the growth of cohorts of students over time to evaluate AYP (73%).
    
  • Supporting local school and district development of their own high quality assessments (65%).
    
  • Including a “Striving Readers” provision that would provide intensive literacy education support for adolescent students and professional development assistance to their teachers. (60%).
    
• Among the reforms that attracted little support. . .
  
  • Paying stipends to Highly Effective Teachers, as determined by increases in student test scores (strongly opposed by 64%).
    
  • Expanding mandatory testing to grades 10-12 (strongly opposed by 54%).
    
• Sadly, our poll participants didn’t think that NCLB had produced a positive effect on learning by students from any demographic category or strata. The negative influence was most pronounced for several groups targeted for assistance through the law, including. . .
  
  • English Language Learners (69%)
  • Students with disabilities (70%)
  • Students from lower economic strata (65%)
  • Students who tend to be low academic achievers (61%)
    
• Consistent with other findings, fully 81% of poll respondents felt that the law had been unsuccessful in promoting greater equity and higher levels of student learning.

As a sampling of comments below reveal, poll participants proposed a range of options for changing the NCLB Act to better advance the teaching and learning of English language arts:

While the concept of NCLB is laudable (no child should ever be left behind), governmental agencies charged with funding education should increase budgets to support learning and stay out of the business of telling educators how to do their job. High stakes testing -- that one big test of the year -- has not increased student achievement, has not promoted lifelong learning, and prevents the kind of teaching necessary to prepare our students with the kinds of skills necessary for their futures.

NCLB reinforces the social strata where the rich people stifle the disadvantaged by making requirements that cannot be reasonably met. Also, it scares good teachers who are fleeing from the profession because they do not want their professional expertise called into question. Instead of helping kids take academic risks that lead to growth, we are raising a generation of paranoid learners who have no soul for what we do in school.

I believe that there are so many inherent problems with NCLB that it must be eliminated. In its place we can create legislation that addresses the various interests of students, families, and communities -- legislation calling for greater local involvement in policymaking and implementation. Recognizing that there is no single best approach that fits every learning context, I support local choice in deciding curriculums and instructional strategies that are grounded in best practices as defined by teachers, researchers, and the professional associations representing various disciplines. NCLB is unconstitutional and NCTE should be taking a strong stand against its reauthorization.

Use multiple measures of progress toward proficiency; allow more time for English language acquisition; track progress by "growth models"; use schedules, incentives, etc., to increase student investment and obtain valid results on standardized tests; fund tutorials and other efforts to reach students who need supplemental help; stop rating administrators and teachers solely on the basis of one set of standardized tests; do not excuse anything that shortchanges disadvantaged students, but do not assume that teachers are solely responsible for student motivation.

For the first time in the history of Title I, schools and districts must account for ALL student groups. This drives the equity component. States have been slow to support this through productive discourse with the feds. Rather than looking to overhaul, states should take its equity component and strengthen it by providing unequivocal leadership so that all student groups are being provided with standards-based education. If not, districts should have plans for accelerating achievement. This means more coherent, ongoing PD for teachers, stronger leadership training for principals and district administrators and even perhaps superintendent mentoring and work with boards on understanding NCLB. This could be the promise of NCLB, but it has been politicized by many organizations, including NCTE. The children (predominantly children of color) whose lives are impacted most severely by lack of accountability are usually not well served by schools. NCLB program improvement measures are the only way that we have been able to get educators to take notice and make some strides toward addressing these students' needs. There is research out that shows that greater accountability is driving more schools to provide students with the standard-based instruction they deserve. Yes, there is a lot of bellyaching about lack of "creativity" but in 40 years of Title I, those practices have done little to close the achievement gap. Standards-based instruction with strong professional development in using basals is proving to be the method best suited for students who are behind. Thanks for asking for input.

1. Instead of merit pay for teachers whose students score higher, let's offer greater pay to those who teach in low-performing schools, to attract and retain good teachers.
2. Most of the AYP prescription works against low-SES schools -- that is the only population I have ever worked with, and it makes for undue stress on administrators, teachers, and students.
3. Let schools show gradual improvement over time with no punishment rather than arbitrary "benchmarks."
4. Devise a test for policymakers -- legislators, school boards, congressmen, the President.

See What Others Have Said about Revising the No Child Left Behind Act