NCLB is a symptom, not the cause

I was still in the public school system when "Nickelby" (NCLB--No Child Left Behind) was announced to all the world. Emotionally, it made sense: set high standards for kids and watch the kids reach those standards. I remember that our school's first big "Oh no!" came when we realized that a small but statistically significant group of students would be required to meet standards in English: our ESL (English as a Second Language) or ELL (English Language Learner) population. How would those standards be assessed: a (not so simple) test, in English, at the appropriate grade level to be administered after three years of enrollment in English-language schools.

The No Child Left Behind legislation was signed into law by then-President Bush in January 2002. This past year, President Obama converted NCLB into the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. One stated goal of the revised legislation was to "prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace."

Diane Ravitch wrote an op-ed piece earlier this week for the New York Times. The title of the post asks, "Why Blame the Teachers?" and makes the astonishing claim that "It Started With No Child Left Behind." To Ms. Ravitch, the "campaign of vilification" of teachers--from Rhode Island to the LA Times to the collective bargaining issues in Wisconsin-- all started with NCLB. To quote Ms. Ravitch: "The assumption behind this punitive approach is that poor student performance is caused by incompetent teachers and principals, despite the fact that decades of social science show that family income is the most reliable predictor of test scores."

Here is my problem with Ms. Ravitch's post. If "poor student performance" was measured solely by the test scores used in programs such as NCLB, the LA Times features, and other studies, we could lay blame at NCLB's feet. However, what is our current national graduation rate for students who actually finish a "high-school" education in the traditional 4-year span? In 2008, the "averaged freshman graduation rate" (document page #52) was 74.9% nationwide. That indicates that just over 25% of students who entered as freshmen in 2004 did not graduate within four years. High school graduation rates have improved in the last two decades to reach this level (though I assert that a 2008 nationwide average of 1-in-4 students not graduating high school in 4 years is appalling).

How well can our graduates read, write and do basic arithmetic? The Army is concerned. Seems that 23% (nearly 1 in 4) applicants who completed the ASVAB reached the minimum score of 31 correct of 99 questions. College admissions personnel may have reason to be concerned as well. Check out the growing trend toward remedial coursework needed by those who earned diplomas just months or weeks before: here and here and here.

Did all this "start" with No Child Left Behind? Are the struggles of America's students really so recent?

• In 2009, 12th grade students in 11 states were tested as part of the NAEP (National Assessment of Education Progress) "Nation's Report Card" program. Coincidentally, 74% of students tested scored "Basic" or above on the reading comprehension portion of the assessment. Most telling is that reading scores are "statistically significant" when showing a 4-point drop (292 to 288) from the 1992 assessment. That 2009 score is also 2 points lower than the assessments given in 1998. 

• In 1999 US students scored 502 in mathematics and 515 in science on TIMSS. The US 8th grade mathematics score was the median score; half the countries in the assessment scored better than our students, and half scored worse.
• Science scores were much improved in 2003 (527) while math was relatively stagnant at 504. 
• By 2007, TIMSS scores in math reached 508 for US 8th graders, and we were in ninth place overall. However, a significant gap of 62 points keeps us from the top 5 nations. Our science score of 520 had us in 11th place for the 47 nations in the year's assessment.

NCLB may have brought increased and unwanted focus on standardized test scores and statewide assessments. Teachers and school administrations point to test scores as indicators of success when convenient, but discount their validity when success is less obvious. In any case, national and international measurements were in place before NCLB became law. Those standardized tests that Ms. Ravitch dislikes so much do seem to indicate one thing. While teachers may be suffering a "campaign of vilification", the overall picture of student accomplishments in our nation has been increasingly dismal for much longer than NCLB's lifespan. Significant segments of any graduating class is potentially not prepared for college work, nor for the military; for what are we preparing them? 

Perhaps it is not that teachers are now suffering unjust blame; I believe parents and other concerned citizens are simply more vocal now. Some of those concerned citizens are teachers themselves. We as a nation have realized that our children cannot pay the price for outdated tenure policies like "last in/first out." No child deserves ineffective teachers. Finding valid methods of assessing teacher competency and remediating teachers who are willing to change will help all our students. NCLB was an attempt to identify schools that succeeded in reaching all students, because--misguided as the program was--we recognized as a nation that something must be done. NCLB was definitely not a cure, but neither it was not the cause of the turmoil our public education system faces today.