|
Given the wide disparities in the quality of public education in America, the No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 was greeted by many as necessary and long
overdue. But the public wants policymakers to know that it opposes many of the
consequences of the law and disagrees with the way it is being implemented.
This overarching theme permeated public hearings on NCLB organized by Public Education
Network (PEN) and local partners in major cities across the country. PEN is a national
association of local education funds and individuals working to advance public school
reform in low-income communities across the country. With support from national and local
foundations, PEN held two rounds of hearings in 10 states over an 18-month period to give
students, parents, and community leaders an opportunity to talk about their experiences
with this far-reaching law that has rewritten education policy in America. This report covers
testimony given in New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan,
Florida, and California during the second round of hearings(1).
Hearing testimony reveals a public that is hopeful and frustrated, supportive and critical;
a public trying to align personal values with the law’s public priorities in a way that
makes sense. While NCLB earns praise for focusing attention on giving all students an
opportunity to succeed academically, the public sees its provisions as so inadequate that
they undermine the law’s well-intentioned goals. Indeed, as familiarity with the law and its
principal tool, test-based accountability, has increased so, too, have misgivings about this
strategy.
Test-based accountability has, in fact, turned out to be a double-edged sword. Advanced
students see it as detrimental in that it cuts down on the breadth and depth of content they
want in their classes. And struggling students, particularly those who are low-income and
minority, see it as a make-or-break factor that may determine whether they will remain in
school.
The public strongly believes in the value and importance of education and often seeks
solutions beyond the dictates of the law. For example, NCLB’s definition of highly qualified
teachers – those who meet the law’s credentialing criteria – falls far short of what students
and adults alike believe makes for a successful teacher. And, while accountability measures
may tell how schools are performing, they cannot guarantee that schools, districts, or
states will respond with effective interventions. Furthermore, it is obvious that terribly
distressed schools need full community support and collaboration to be able to teach
successfully. They cannot do it alone.
One finding that emerged from the hearings transcends any principle, law, or regulation:
students, who have been taught by teachers with low expectations – as do the parents of
these students – consistently underestimate what is needed to make sure that education
does, in fact, lead to a better life. Public officials also underestimate what it takes to move
low-performing schools into higher levels of performance. From testimony given at the
hearings, there is little evidence that low-performing schools are getting more experienced
teachers, more support for students and their families, or more access to the
expertise they need. Mutual effort and mutual trust are essential if poor and
minority children are to have access to equal opportunities for quality education
in this country.
---------------------------------
|
