| OCR Text |
Show The ABC's of No Child Left Behind: Accountability, Benefits and Controversies Cameron Diehl Flexibility: Each state has the flexibility to determine its own definition of AYP to demonstrate the achievement (or lack thereof) of each school district and school. To qualify for AYP, schools are required to show that at least 95% of all students in each grade participated in the state assessment, utilizing standardized tests. Students are to be classified in different subgroups, according to race/ethnicity, poverty level, disability and English language proficiency. The size of the subgroup is decided by the state, and must be statistically reliable, to ensure that struggling individual students do not get ignored or lost in the maze of school statistics. For schools that do not meet AYP statewide goals but are still making progress with their students, NCLB offers a safe harbor provision. These schools are credited with AYP "as long as the school reduces the percent not proficient by 10% from the previous year." Under "safe harbor," a school makes AYP if it goes from 50% below the proficiency standard in year 1 to 45% below in year 2, a 5% improvement that is 10% lower than the previous year (Haycock and Weiner, 2005). Educator Quality: A key facet of the No Child Left Behind law is the stated emphasis on placing a highly-qualified teacher in every public school classroom by the current 2005-06 school year. There are three ways for a teacher to be considered "highly-qualified." The teacher must hold a bachelor's degree, have a certification or licensure to instruct in the state, or must have a proven knowledge of his/her core subject. To demonstrate content knowledge, "new elementary teachers must pass a state test of literacy and numeracy, new secondary teachers must either have a college major or pass a rigorous test in the subject area," and veteran teachers may do one of the above or "demonstrate content knowledge through some other uniformly applied process designed by the state" (Carey, Barth, Hall, Garcia, Licon, Wiener, and Yi, 2003). About 40 states offer such certification alternatives for veteran teachers. Funding: In one of the more controversial stipulations of NCLB, schools must meet the aforementioned accountability standards in order to qualify for continuing federal funds. Those funds have increased during the Bush administration. In fiscal year 2005, President Bush solicited financial increases for reading programs by $1.4 billion. The most significant chunk ($1.1 billion) was for the Reading First program, $132 million for Early Reading First programs and $100 million for the Striving Readers program. These programs train teachers in effective reading instruction though it has drawn some criticism from teachers. There is a concern that Reading First places excessive emphasis on speed-reading for third-graders and not on comprehension or retention. President Bush has stated repeatedly that he wants every American child to read at their grade level and many states (such as Texas, Maryland, California, Ohio and Florida) have invested in reading programs as well. "State expenditures on early childhood education have increased from $267 million in 1988 to $2.54 billion in 2002-2003 (in constant dollars)." (Wattenburg, Hansel, Hendricks and Chang, 2005b) State and local officials, however, contend that the amount of federal funding is not sufficient to meet the basic goals of NCLB. Penalties/Enforcement: If schools do not make adequate yearly progress for two straight years, such schools are publicly decried as "failing schools" and NCLB empowers students who attend such schools to transfer to a higher-performing public or charter school within the district on the district tab. Children are also eligible for school supplied supplemental services such as tutoring. If schools fail to meet AYP for four consecutive years, stiffer penalties include reorganization, state takeover, or school closing ("No Child Left Behind Brings Tough, New Accountability Provisions," 2004). This stipulation draws major ire from NCLB opponents who argue that the lone mechanism to chart student achievement-standardized tests-is inadequate. If one subgroup struggles, then the entire school is listed as "failing." From an individual student perspective, many educators argue that standardized tests do not demonstrate the overall ability of students. The 1st F: Federalism. Who should be accountable, Uncle Sam or state/local entities? Opponents of NCLB often cite the 10th Amendment to the Constitution which has historically placed control of education in state and local hands. Virginia Solicitor General William Thro said "an argument can be made that the federal government has no power to make education policy" (Hancock, 2005). State and local officials also stress the concept of fiscal accountability. Whatever level of government offers the most funding should have the right to determine how money is spent. State and local levels provide .92 cents out of every dollar spent in K-12 education but increasingly find themselves bound by federal mandates. Of additional concern to states and localities is a perceived shift in federal relations from cooperative federalism to coercive federalism. From their perspective, the Bush administration's insistence on policy implementation and the threat of fund withholdings are typical of coercive federalism and in stark contrast to the typical model of cooperative federalism. "The administration needs to recognize how far NCLB deviates from the traditional model of federal-state relations. (They) need to acknowledge the legitimate role of each level of government in education and re-consider the proper role of the federal government (Sunderman and Kim, 2004)." Historically, states have been considered "laboratories of democracy" because their decisions are "closest to the pec pie." From a political perspective, NCLB exposes a perceived shift by the Republican Party from its traditional stance on 26 |
