Policy Brief – No Child Left Behind Act
Senator Norman Sakamoto
May 21, 2006 (Updated August 22, 2007)
BACKGROUND
Concerned with America losing its competitive advantage to other nations, US Congress and President George W. Bush in 2002 passed into law the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).1 NCLB is distinguished by the following features: (1) high standards – ensuring that all students meet or exceed a "proficient" level of achievement for reading, mathematics, and science by school year 2013-2014; (2) high standards across subgroups;2 (3) freedom for school agencies to set proficiency standards; and (4) sanctions if schools fail to make adequate yearly progress. If a school fails to make adequate yearly progress, the following sanctions are imposed: giving parents the option of transferring their child to another school, offering tutoring services, partial or total restructuring of the school (replacing school staff, appointing an outside advisor, closing down the school and reopening it as a charter school).
POLICY IMPLEMENTATION IN HAWAII
Hawaii has difficulties meeting NCLB goals. In 2005, almost two-thirds of Hawaii's public schools failed to make adequate yearly progress, even though their students achieved higher test scores.3 In early 2006, a state-by-state comparison of "adequate yearly progress" showed Hawaii schools near the bottom nationally.4
Hawaii also had the highest percentage of schools targeted for restructuring.5 The low passing rate reflected NCLB's requirement that adequate yearly progress be made on all assessment tests across subgroups of students.6 Subgroups include six ethnic groupings, English proficiency, poverty, students with disabilities, and migrant students. Many of Hawaii's schools "failed" because a particular subgroup of students did not meet proficiency standards. 7 Schools must also ensure that at least 95% of students in every subgroup take the tests. Failure to do so in even one subgroup results in the school not meeting AYP. In addition, schools now test all students in grades 3 to 8, and 10 which increases the total number of subgroups from when the DOE tested only grades 3, 5, 8, and 10.
The percentage of students proficient and percentage that take the tests become especially challenging in the higher grade levels. One clause of the law allows schools to exempt a subgroup from being considered in AYP if the number of students in the subgroup falls under 40 in a particular grade level, e.g. 5th graders who are Limited English Proficient. The exemption is a privacy issue rather than an educational one but essentially protects smaller schools (most elementary schools) from counting most of the subgroups, with schools in certain geographic areas of the State having to report as few as one subgroup per grade level, making achieving AYP much easier. This has the opposite effect in the upper grades that have many more students per grade level and thus many more subgroups over the threshold of 40 students.
Hawaii's difficulties can be traced to a number of factors. One reason is NCLB's requirement that students with disabilities be fully included in testing without consideration of their disabilities and allowing for no more than 1 percent to be exempted.8 This is at odds with many studies that indicate that 2 to 3 percent should be given alternate tests. It is also at odds with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which requires states to test special education students based on their ability.9 Furthermore, the Government Accountability Office, in its review of NCLB, recommended that inclusion options for alternative testing be provided for students with disabilities.10
A second reason is the growing immigrant population. The number of immigrant students in Hawaii has grown 42 percent over the past four years. While many of these students have had some prior exposure to English, growing numbers have had no exposure at all to English and are illiterate in their native language, having grown up in an oral culture.11 Although English as a Second Language students have made sharp gains in standardized tests, NCLB requires that they perform just as well as their English-speaking classmates. The law does not make sense when it requires that limited English proficiency students meet the same bar as regular students. If they do achieve proficiency, they are no longer limited English proficiency students, but regular students.
A third reason is the rigor of Hawaii standards, which has resulted in a higher failure rate. Hawaii's tests for proficiency in math were found to be among the most rigorous nationally.12 The way NCLB defines progress has had the unintended consequence of states with high standards being punished and states with low standards being encouraged to keep their expectations low.13 There has been pressure to reduce the rigor of the tests.14 However, at an informational briefing in April 2006, Matthew Gandal of Achieve Inc. advised Hawaii legislators against making the tests easier: "It's a rigorous test, no doubt about it, but it's an appropriately rigorous test to get (students) on the track to success."15
While the Hawaii test is rigorous, it is considered a "low stakes" test because there are no consequences to student for their personal test results. The consequences accrue to the school as a whole putting the greatest onus of performance on the principal. Most teachers at the elementary level are able to motivate students to put their best effort forward but this becomes more difficult with older students, many who don't see the point of making a strong effort, much less taking the test. With the previously mentioned issue of subgroups and participation percentages, this puts high schools at great disadvantage in meeting AYP.
Finally, the Hawaii DOE and BOE instituted NCLB requirements on schools receiving federal Title 1 funding one year before being required to do so. Title 1 funding, the largest federal source of DOE funds, go to schools with at least 35% of the school population qualifying for lunch and bus subsidy because of family income level. Thus, when compared to most states who chose to implement later, it looks like more schools in Hawaii have reached the Restructuring status than other States but this is partly due to the one year difference in the progression of sanctions.
POLICY IMPLEMENTATION IN MAINLAND STATES
On the mainland, dissatisfaction with NCLB has been widespread. There have been complaints about inadequate funding, inflexible mandates, and punitive incentives. In August 2005, Stateline.org reported that nearly two dozen states considered – and four passed – legislation challenging NCLB.16
Regardless of what the comparative data shows at present, if States use tests that have the rigor recommended by national math and reading standards, all schools in all states will "fail" to meet NCLB mandates as the 2014 deadline for 100% student proficiency approaches. There is general widespread agreement that this goal of the law is unattainable.
HOW THE LEGISLATURE RESPONDED
Inadequate federal funding and the rigidity of NCLB mandates have been major concerns to the Hawaii Legislature.17 The Legislature responded in two ways: (1) it passed resolutions requesting that US Congress modify NCLB and (2) it passed legislation aimed at helping Hawaii schools meet NCLB goals.
In 2003, the Legislature adopted House Concurrent Resolution 146, which requested the Hawaii congressional delegation to work to obtain additional funds to support the State's efforts to meet the NCLB mandates.18 In 2003, the House of Representatives also passed House Resolution 118, which urged the Board of Education to consider declining any further participation with NCLB. In 2004, the House of Representatives passed House Resolution 42, which requested the US Congress to include waivers in light of the Act's rigid requirements.
In 2005, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) released a task force report that called for modifications in NCLB: (1) allowing states more flexibility in implementing NCLB, (2) full funding, (3) removing the one-size-fits-all approach to measuring student performance, and (4) recognizing the special challenge of students with disabilities and English language learners.19 Using this report, the Legislature adopted House Concurrent Resolution 245, which requested the US Congress to follow the recommendation of the NCSL's Task Force and make changes to NCLB.
The Legislature also sought to enable Hawaii schools to meet NCLB goals. In 2003, the Senate, in response to NCLB, adopted Senate Resolution 101 (introduced by Senator Sakamoto), which requested the Legislative Reference Bureau to identify effective state practices for raising academic achievements. The Senate also adopted Senate Resolution 20 (introduced by Senator Sakamoto) which requested the Department of Education to use research-based curriculum and standards-based classroom assessments, in addition to large-scale achievement tests, to meet NCLB requirements. In 2005, the Legislature also adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 191 (introduced by Senator Sakamoto), which requested the Department of Education to include performance based incentives when contracting with education service providers involved with school restructuring.
In the summer of 2005, our office conducted a survey of school principals. It was found that 81 percent of Hawaii's public school principals felt that the NCLB goal of all students meeting or exceeding state academic standards by 2013-2014 is unachievable.
WHERE WE ARE TODAY
In the 2007 Legislature, one bill and one resolution passed that addressed concerns related to NCLB. HB 24 (Act 228) provides incentives to National Board Certified teachers to work at schools in restructuring, in other words, putting the best teachers in schools with the most need. SCR 57 urged the U.S. Congress to amend NCLB when it comes up for reauthorization by supporting teacher preparation and training, allowing more appropriate assessment instruments, providing for a growth model as a basis for AYP and fully funding education programs that Congress requires but has not funded adequately.
Few, if any, in the education community dispute the intent of NCLB. It is clear that the pressure on schools to raise achievement has resulted in noticeable improvement throughout most of the country. Hawaii has in fact made significant recent gains in reading and math scores. The number of schools meeting all requirements for AYP rose from 100 in 2006 to 170 (out of 282) or 60.3% of all schools compared to 35.5% in 2006.20 Nevertheless, secondary schools continue to experience more difficulty meeting AYP. Goals and remedies outlined in SCR 57 could provide needed changes in the law that would create more equitable opportunities and more resources for the attainment of high student achievement.
In conclusion, NCLB provides a key component for educational reform: a standards based accountability approach to education. We support the purpose of NCLB; however, modifications are needed in order for meaningful improvement to public education in Hawaii and on the mainland to be realized.21 The current law with its emphasis on measuring school performance has generated unintended consequences that jeopardize school reform and undermine the worthy goals of NCLB.
1 Text of the NCLB Act can be found at: http://www.nasbe.org/Front_Page/NCLB/
ESEA2002.pdf . For an executive summary see http://www.ed.gov/print/nclb/
overview/intro/execsumm.html.
2 This includes all students, racial/ethnic groups, students with disabilities, students with limited English proficiency, economically disadvantaged students, and students from major racial and ethnic groups.
3 Treena Shapiro and Beverly Creamer, "66% of Isle schools miss No Child goals," Honolulu Advertiser, August 18, 2005, http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Aug/19/ln/FP508190354.html. Department of Education, No Child Left Behind State Report, School Year 2004-05, February 2006, http://arch.k12.hi.us/pdf/nclb/2005/NCLB999.pdf.
4 Dan Martin, "Hawaii schools' program slides," Honolulu Star-Bulletin, March 29, 2006, http://starbulletin.com/2006/03/29/news/story06.html.
5 Dan Martin, "Isle schools fare the worst," Honolulu Star-Bulletin, March 29, 2005. http://starbulletin.com/2005/03/29/news/story1.html.
6 See note no. 2.
7 Johnny Brannon, "Restructuring of 24 schools wins an OK," Honolulu Advertiser, April 29, 2005. http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Apr/29/ln/ln10p.html. Department of Education, "No Child Left Behind State Report: School Year 2004-2005," February 2006, http://arch.k12.hi.us/pdf/nclb/2005/NCLB999.pdf.
8 Diana Hinton Noel, "Improving the Lives of Young People with Disabilities," Legisbrief, June/July 2005.
9 Scott Young, "NCLB: Feds Crack the Door," State Legislatures, June 2005, p. 23.
10 Government Accountability Office, "Most Students with Disabilities Participated in Statewide Assessments, but Inclusion Options Could Be Improved," GAO Highlights, July 2005, http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d05618high.pdf.
11 Dan Martin, "Language Barrier," Honolulu Star-Bulletin, October 9, 2005, http://starbulletin.com/2005/10/09/news/story02.html.
12 Susan Essoyan, "Isles sixth in school standards," Honolulu Star-Bulletin, May 13, 2005. Paul Peterson and Frederick Hess, "Johnny Can Read…: Assessing the rigor of state assessment systems," Education Next, Summer 2005, http://www.educationnext.org/20053/pdf/52.pdf. Chubb et al., "State Standards Are Anything but Standard (Figure 2)' in "Do We Need to Repair the Monument?: Debating the Future of No Child Left Behind," Education Week, Spring 2005, http://www.educationnext.org/20052/8.html.
13 Jennifer Hiller, "School progress law hard on states," Honolulu Advertiser, January 5, 2003.
14 Will Hoover, "Lingle addresses teaching troubles," Honolulu Advertiser, January 15, 2006, http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Jan/15/ln/FP601150334.html.
15 Treena Shapiro, "State told to stick with 'rigorous test'", Honolulu Advertiser, April 6, 2006, http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060406/
NEWS07/604060353/1012/NEWS
16 Kavan Peterson, "States spar over school funds, reforms," Stateline.org Weekly, August 30, 2005, http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&
languageId=1&contentId=51225. Lorraine Woellert, "A Revolt at The Schoolhouse Door," BusinessWeek, September 5, 2005, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/
content/05_36/c3949069_mz013.htm.
17 Daniel K. Inouye, "Lack of federal money will doom 'No Child,' Gathering Place, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, March 12, 2004.
18 Senate Majority Office, 2003 Legislative Accomplishments, p. 20.
19 http://www.ncsl.org/programs/press/2005/pr050223.htm.
20 News Release, "Adequate Yearly Progress: Public Schools Make Great Gains in NCLB Status", Department of Education, July 19, 2007.
21Editorial, "Gaps in 'No Child Left Behind' need to be filled,' Honolulu Star-Bulletin, April 20, 2006. See also Rep. Roy Takumi, "Failing No Child act must be revamped," Honolulu Advertiser, May 24, 2006.