The Public’s Voice
The PEN hearings were set up to compensate for the lack of public involvement in the shaping of NCLB. The law may have brought a new era of accountability to public education, commented Chad Wick, president of KnowledgeWorks Foundation, the Ohio hearing co-sponsor, “but true accountability has to reach beyond results of tests, report card scores, and state sanctions. Missing from this important debate are the voices of parents and youth and other members of the public, particularly those from communities most affected by this law.”

National Report - The Public's Voice - Test-Based Accountability: Failure of a Promising Reform - The Effect of NCLB on Teachers & Teaching Quality - NCLB, Parents & Communities - Conclusion

Wendy Puriefoy, president of PEN, similarly contends that public voices deserve to be at the policy table. When NCLB became law, PEN decided it was important to hear from those whose voices are typically not sought out by policymakers – ordinary citizens, students, and parents – “the people who care about and make public education what it really is.”

Testimony from students was given special emphasis at every hearing, particularly since they are the ones most directly affected by changes in schools and by NCLB’s provisions. Students from all kinds of public schools – low-income urban to affluent suburban – used the hearings to decry the lack of equal opportunities to learn. PEN also reached out to the broader community in all 50 states through an online survey on NCLB, which was posted on the organization’s website, www.GiveKidsGoodSchools.org. See Appendix A.

Each hearing brought to light situations unique to the state in which the hearing took place – especially in regard to accountability systems and funding inequities – but strong, consistent themes emerged across all hearings.

-	The implementation of test-based accountability – in place in every state but one (Iowa) prior to the passage of NCLB – intensified in reaction to the punitive consequences that are part of NCLB. Furthermore, because accountability systems are being so poorly implemented, the public is rejecting the worth of such assessments and is very upset about the narrowing effect on curriculum, teaching and learning.
	- While all students are affected by the change in classroom priorities, students in low-performing schools are the ones mostly likely to be deprived of rich instruction.   - Differences in measurement and reporting criteria between state accountability systems and those required by NCLB are confusing the public.   - NCLB mandates that students with disabilities be assessed with the same grade-level tests as other students, and that Englishlanguage learners (ELL) be assessed after only one year of English instruction, are seen as unfair, unwarranted, and counterproductive.   - Focusing on test scores as a way to prevent punitive action demoralizes teachers and points to a critical need for strong instructional leadership in schools and districts.
-	Students and parents value qualities in teachers that the NCLB definitions do not address.
-	Parents and community leaders want resources and efforts to focus on improving local schools, not transferring kids to schools outside the community. The supports needed to turn schools around – such as community collaboration across agencies and services and/or private resources – are rarely utilized. Witnesses insisted that stable communities and families are at the heart of improving student performance, yet NCLB fosters policies that perpetuate the isolation of schools from their communities.
-	Communication about NCLB breaks down at several levels. Parents do not receive adequate information about their rights and choices under NCLB, and school reports are not readily understood by parents – a problem both of clarity and translation into home languages. Moreover, students often do not understand how testing relates to accountability, or how the underlying rationale of NCLB and its provisions relate to their education.
-	States and school districts lack the capacity and/or the will to monitor NCLB requirements. Assuring the quality of supplementary educational services (SES) and soliciting the active involvement of parents in meaningful policy decisions are just two areas that are not being enforced.
-	Funding levels are insufficient to assure that all students have the resources needed to succeed. But decisions made at state and district levels, more so than any federal policies, are in large part responsible for the unequal distribution of experienced teachers, poor facilities/resources in low-income schools, and inadequate communications.