|
WHAT THE PUBLIC SAID
This is the second round of hearings on NCLB PEN has hosted in 10 key states that have large populations of
children affected by the law(1). More than 1500 people attended the 2005–2006 hearings, at which approximately 300
parents, students and community members gave testimony. PEN also conducted a second online survey of education
advocates. Here is what the public had to say.
The Accountability Imperative
One underlying NCLB premise is that if data about school and district performance is made available, the public and
policymakers will act on the data and demand conditions that enable schools to become proficient. What we learned
from our hearings and from our online survey is that (a) data alone is not enough; there must be sufficient explanation
of the meaning of the data and of its implications for the public to act; and (b) the public has a deeper appreciation
and understanding of school and district accountability than can be captured by a single source of data.
The public supports accountability, but believes the current NCLB accountability system is too narrow. It rejects the
idea that a single test can create an accurate portrayal of how well a school is performing and believes that such a
determination is often at odds with evaluations based on state assessments and inconsistent with how members of
the public personally evaluate their schools. They want other, more formative evaluation dimensions included in the
determination of school performance.
Shared Responsibility
The public believes that the school is the primary vehicle for increasing student achievement. It does not believe,
however, that schools can accomplish this alone, and wants responsibility for school success to be shared across
the community. Indeed, hearing participants are convinced that engaging the broader community is crucial to school
success. These sentiments are echoed in a recently released poll by the Carnegie Corporation of New York in which
83 percent of Americans said that community members and organizations should share responsibility for reforming
or improving urban public high schools, and that struggling schools cannot improve without active and sustained
community involvement(2). Annual polls by Public Education Network in partnership with Education Week have reported
similar fndings(3).
The more NCLB fails to respond to these threshold views, the more community leaders, parents, and students will
continue to believe that the law does not address their concept of accountability and, thus, the greater the backlash
against it. If NCLB is to meet its goals, this “accountability gap” must be closed.
Communities Abandon Schools
Labeling schools “in need of improvement,” typically interpreted as “failing,” creates conditions whereby schools are
abandoned by some students – often the highest performing students; by teachers who transfer to other schools; and
by communities unsure of their responsibility for schools most in need of support.
Rather than viewing a school in need of improvement as an opportunity to rally community support and elicit
strategies for ways students in that school can be better served, such labeling initiates blame-games and .ngerpointing
at whichever group caused the school to “fail.”
This destructive impact goes well beyond the school; it tears at the fabric of community. When a district or school
receives a low grade, said an Ohio student, “it reflects on the community. Who wants to attend a failing school? Better
yet, what parent wants to live in a community where the schools are failing?”
Communities are willing to help, but they are not being asked to do what is necessary to support their schools. While
some hope can be found in testimony at several hearing sites that told of low-performing schools being turned around
by community support or by intensive support from the business community, the practice of focusing on scores of
low-performing students skews the public’s perception of a school and weakens the community within and around the
school.
Students Feel the Brunt
The strong emphasis on a single high-stakes test puts enormous pressure on teachers and principals that is passed
on to students, causing them deep anxiety. At a minimum, this is counterproductive. At its most extreme, it is severely
debilitating and is even causing students to drop out of school.
The strong focus on testing has significantly narrowed the curriculum, at the expense of course work and outside
activities that many parents believe are necessary to prepare their children for the real world after high school. The
Center on Education Policy recently reported that 71 percent of the nation’s school districts have reduced the hours
dedicated to other subjects to focus on reading and math(4). This is particularly problematic for poor students who are
most in need of an enriched learning environment, and whose teachers are often the least equipped to adopt new
creative teaching strategies. Finally, the premature inclusion of English language learners and some special education
students in regular testing programs is unfair to them and to the schools they attend.
Inadequate Academic Supports Offer False Promises
The resource inequity among schools is visible to students and families in both wealthy schools and poor schools.
This inequity can be seen within the schools and in the range of community supports available to students. It reveals
a fundamental unfairness in the accountability system and in the sanctions prescribed by the law. Many hearing
participants were adamant that increasing expectations without increasing resources is a recipe for failure. And they
were equally .rm in suggesting that resources need to be strategically positioned, and that funds must be allocated
more fairly to meet the learning needs of students.
For most parents and students in low-performing schools, the option to transfer to a better-performing school is not
working. Families don’t want to transfer their kids to other schools; they want their local schools to get the resources
they need to be effective. Many parents see the transfer provision as a false promise, and the transfer option as a last
resort.
Supplemental educational services (SES) or tutoring remain uneven in terms of availability, and in terms of program
and personnel quality. Such services are often not provided as advertised, are not aligned with the in school
curriculum, and are not available to all who are eligible. In some districts, eligible parents and students are not
requesting services because districts often fail to notify parents in a timely manner or give parents sufficient time
to make decisions about services. Current financial incentives do not encourage districts to aggressively promote
supplemental services.
Information Is Not Getting Out
Four years after the passage of NCLB, parents are still not receiving the information to which they are entitled
under the law in a clear, sufficient, or timely manner. They need this information – which includes data about school
performance, and the availability and quality of supplemental educational services – to make sound educational
choices for their children. Yet, even when data is reported, it is often reported without explanation or interpretation.
Students do not understand the purpose of the assessments they are being asked to take, and neither do their
parents. Until they do, they will not support accountability measures and the sanctions linked to them.
Parent & Community Involvement Provisions Not Implemented
Teachers, principals, and district personnel do not have the capacity, nor are they being given the training, to engage
parents or community members. Parents are not being informed about their rights, roles, and responsibilities. They
are not being given the orientation or training necessary to participate in a meaningful way, and schools are not
implementing the school compact requirements of the law. When parents do seek to participate, they are frequently
denied any meaningful role in decision-making or governance, are turned away at the schoolhouse door, or are
engaged in a token fashion.
Community members also remain uninformed about NCLB provisions. Though the law states that community
representatives should serve on committees or be consulted, community members are typically not aware of these
opportunities. Many schools lose a major opportunity for improvement by not involving community members on
school improvement teams in any meaningful way.
Lack of Capacity
Much of the failure to implement provisions of the law, to engage parents and community members, and to provide
information in a timely, understandable manner is due to the lack of capacity at the district and state level.
Teacher Certifcation Is Not Enough
Students across the country see a significant disconnect between teachers who are deemed “highly qualifed”
according to state licensing requirements, and teachers who are able to engage students in the learning process
and reach students with a variety of learning styles and needs in a culturally sensitive manner. Students, parents, and
community members are concerned not only about teacher “qualifications”; they are concerned about the “qualities”
that teachers bring into the classroom, and about the significant need for highly qualified teachers in low-performing
schools.
---------------------------------
|
