I originally wrote this post back in May. It was after a mass cheating in my advanced math class resulted in giving 52 zero’s on their final exam. The resounding motto I heard in response was “Cheat or Repeat.” I still need to become more educated about what the new changes the “Every Student Succeeds Act” will bring to have an informed opinion, but the following is a [long] post about my opinions of the results of No Child Left Behind and and its shortcomings.
In many discussions about education, Title I has become a buzzword. Other hot topics in education, such as Common Core, show similar discourse, which leads to the following question: Do people actually understand what they are debating? Common Core is another topic entirely, but the amount of similar misinformation raises the question of whether Title I has been defined beyond the established stereotypes of dangerous, ghetto, run-down, and undesirable.
Terminology
AN ACT To strengthen and improve educational quality and educational opportunities in the Nation’s elementary and secondary schools.
April 11, 1965 (H. R. 2365) Public Law 89-10
Title I is no new designation; it was created in 1965 by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). In the initial documents, it is stated that this should provide financial assistance to local educational agencies for the education of children of low-income families. In less subjective layman’s terms: public/private schools who have a population of 40% or more students from lower-income families (as designated by the US Census) are eligible to be considered Title I as per the US Department of Education. This means these schools can receive federal funding distributed through state agencies (e.g. department of education, district offices). Priority is given to schools making an effort to improve their performance but that have less funding and lower-achieving students.
When not given context, this definition has led to criticism. For instance, why should federal funds be used at the state level to fund schools based on a child’s fiscal situation? Students from lower-income families and communities are simply more at risk when placed in a school that is also disadvantaged. They have been exposed to emotional and social challenges, acute and chronic stressors, cognitive lags, and health and safety issues by virtue of their socioeconomic status. These students may have also been exposed to stressors as English as a Second Language (ESL) students or students from intervention programs who have experienced neglect or abuse.
It was clear even during the 1960’s that there were strong ties between school performance and the socioeconomic status of its students. There was a large gap between the performance of the two groups, and so ESEA was initially created to bridge the literacy/mathematics gap between disadvantaged children and those from more privileged households. There are countless studies, papers, and books on this subject. This sounds reasonable, so why are people upset about this? They probably are okay with the aspect of educating at-risk children, but this is where those stereotypes of ghetto and run-down have come from. Ghetto, specifically meaning a slum area of minorities, is an area that will have students who are at-risk and who may have behavioral problems. It is a lower-income area, so the schools will have less money, lower performance, and kids at risk of failure, abuse, or both.
No Child Left Behind
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is an extension of ESEA (which needs to be renewed every five years and has been since its inception). Many teachers, administrators, and parents who have criticisms for the Title I status are actually at odds with additions made by NCLB, not with the foundation that ESEA laid. Each school must make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) as determined by several factors with consequences for failing at different intervals and in different areas. This portion of NCLB allows schools to be held responsible using quantitative data, which can be found on a school’s “report card.”
- Percentage of students scoring at each proficiency level of state’s assessment (by subgroup)
- Comparing school/district’s performances to state’s AYP goals
- Percentage of students not tested
- Two-year trends
- Other indicators for AYP (as specified by state)
- High school graduation rates
- Teacher qualifications
- If school is identified by the state/district for improvement
Being able to track this data is invaluable and allows the federal government (and state government) to make more educated decisions; however, it does come at a price.
Falling through the Cracks
While there is strong motivation and support to meet the lowest bar, there is virtually no support for students who are capable of achieving above and beyond. No incentives currently exist to create programs to foster students once they have reached the boundary of functionality as determined by the respective state, and there are no required programs for gifted students under NCLB. This does not mean they do not exist – some states have gone above and beyond to make sure their students are afforded these educational opportunities, but this is the exception, not the rule. Most states experienced severe cuts to the funding of gifted programs once it was clear they were not a federal priority.
Another concern is the shift of funding onto almost solely literacy/mathematics versus other subjects such as history, art, science, foreign language, and music. As a mathematics teacher who taught seniors how to work with negative numbers and fractions, I know that it is vital to teach our students how to analyze written work and analytically work with word problems; however, this has statistically been shown to be done at the expense of other subjects because of the risks associated with not reaching the bars set by NCLB, which requires 100% compliance and achievement.
Lastly, students with disabilities or who are (ESL) are being left behind in terms of useful data collection. What does this mean? Unlike with gifted students, NCLB does give incentives for schools to provide for students who need special accommodations as per their IEP/504 plans. Unless a students’ IEP/504 plan specifies otherwise, the student must take the same assessment as the general population.The amount of useful data that can be collected is at risk because the NCLB requires their data to be counted just as other students’ scores. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to use data gathered from testing and the like to make decisions for the benefit of this group. These students’ disabilities also vary greatly in degree and classification, so their data being mixed in with the general students’ can skew it and compromise its integrity and usefulness.
One Size Fits All
NCLB’s requirement is for 100% compliance – meaning 100% of a school’s students must participate. ESEA’s original intention back in 1965 has stayed – level the playing field for disadvantaged children by not leaving them behind; however, by acting as if each child is a cookie cutter of the one before, it makes the system less effective and puts strain on the child, teacher, and parent. When a child is told they should be capable of something and they are not, it puts psychological strain on the child. It puts emotional strain on a parent to be told their child is not performing at level and should be. And it takes a toll on the teacher to be told that the child should be learning this. This leads to all three questioning their competencies for not completing an impossible task. This also leads to schools operating under increased pressure and being put at risk of penalties for not being able to raise the achievement of students who do not have the capabilities necessary to perform at the level the state has mandated.
Playing the Game
After looking at the population of students who are being left behind just by nature of the system, the focus on data and terminology allows “creative” administrators and faculty to manipulate their data to avoid reprimand and maximize awards. Even outside of manipulating the data, the NCLB requires 95% of students to be assessed and up to 1% of students can be just declared proficient based on an alternative assessment. The data in some cases has been manipulated due to outside funding from for-profit sources.
Closing Remarks
As an educator, parent, or citizen, knowledge of what the actual shortcomings of NCLB and how they can affect a Title I school, and knowing what a Title I school actually is, is vital to engineering the success of a student. Many of the Title I schools are in run-down areas. Many of them are desperate for funding, have students who already have a criminal record, and have students who are incredibly disadvantaged, abused, at risk, and in need of support. The NCLB addition to the ESEA is in no way perfect, and it puts a lot of strain on the people involved. Its positives are fairly obvious and have been consistent for almost sixty years – provide funding for schools who have high populations of students in need to bridge the gap between them and students who are more privileged. The short-comings…the students who fall through the cracks, the pressures that children, their families, and their educators are put under, and the simple fact that schools are being driven to a lack of integrity to meet a quota are all causes for concern and discourse.
Sources:
little fish in a large pond 