NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND AND OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS FOR URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS
i
ADVANCES IN EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION Series Editor: Richard C. Hunter Recent Volumes: Volume 1–5: Volume 6–8:
Series Editor Paul W. Thurston Series Editor Richard C. Hunter
ii
ADVANCES IN EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION VOLUME 9
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND AND OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS FOR URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS EDITED BY
FRANK BROWN School of Education, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA
RICHARD C. HUNTER College of Education, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA
Amsterdam – Boston – Heidelberg – London – New York – Oxford Paris – San Diego – San Francisco – Singapore – Sydney – Tokyo JAI Press is an imprint of Elsevier
iii
JAI Press is an imprint of Elsevier The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, UK Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, The Netherlands 525 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101-4495, USA First edition 2006 Copyright r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Science & Technology Rights Department in Oxford, UK: phone (+44) (0) 1865 843830; fax (+44) (0) 1865 853333; email:
[email protected]. Alternatively you can submit your request online by visiting the Elsevier web site at http://elsevier.com/locate/permissions, and selecting Obtaining permission to use Elsevier material Notice No responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the material herein. Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, in particular, independent verification of diagnoses and drug dosages should be made British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN-13: 978-0-7623-1299-3 ISBN-10: 0-7623-1299-8 ISSN: 1479-3660 (Series) For information on all JAI Press publications visit our website at books.elsevier.com Printed and bound in The Netherlands 06 07 08 09 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
iv
DEDICATION To our loving and dedicated wives, Joan and Margo, who have supported our careers in so many ways. We greatly appreciate your support and encouragement.
v
This page intentionally left blank
vi
CONTENTS PREFACE
xi
INTRODUCTION: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND, SYMBOLISM OR REALITY? Frank Brown and Richard C. Hunter
xv
PART I: EDUCATIONAL EQUITY AND NCLB FISCAL EQUITY UNDER TITLE I AND NON-TITLE I SCHOOLS IN LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS James E. Lyons
3
NCLB AND DIVERSITY IN SCHOOLS Stephen B. Lawton
23
SCHOOL CHOICE AND EDUCATIONAL EQUITY UNDER NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND IN THE POST-BROWN ERA Frank Brown
37
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: THE BALM OF GILEAD HAS ARRIVED IN AMERICAN EDUCATION Philip T. K. Daniel
61
NCLB AND THE NEW ESEA TITLE I PROGRAM: POVERTY AND EDUCATION Richard C. Hunter
91
vii
viii
CONTENTS
RECONCEPTUALIZING ACCOUNTABILITY IN URBAN SCHOOLS Carolyn Talbert-Johnson and Charles J. Russo
111
THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001 AND CHARTER SCHOOLS Preston Green and Joseph Oluwole
127
STRUGGLING TO MEND IT OR END IT: LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE ISSUES IN THE BRIEF HISTORY OF THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001 Saran Donahoo and Norman Greer
141
TITLE VII, BILINGUAL EDUCATION OF NCLB AND IMMIGRANT STUDENTS IN URBAN SCHOOLS A. Reynaldo Contreras
155
PART II: NCLB AND PROCESS ACCOUNTABILITY, HIGH STAKES TESTING AND NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND Linda C. Tillman
189
RESILIENCY AMONG AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE STUDENTS Tawannah Allen
201
THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP AND THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT: IS THERE A CONNECTION Mark A. Gooden and Teresa Y. Nowlin
231
Contents
ix
PUBLIC EDUCATION IN AN ERA OF NEO-LIBERAL GLOBALIZATION: THE BROKEN PROMISE OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND Jite Eferakorho
249
DEMOCRATIC NOTIONS INFORMING EQUITY IN MATHEMATICS EDUCATION Lecretia A. Buckley
263
PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE: THE NEW K-12 DESEGREGATION MODEL? Dawn G. Williams
285
THE ROLE OF PARENTS UNDER NCLB Richard C. Hunter
299
EDUCATIONAL EQUITY, GLOBALIZATION AND THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT Frank Brown
309
IMMIGRATION, URBAN SCHOOLS, AND ACCOUNTABILITY Xue Lan Rong
321
A NATION STILL AT RISK: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND AND THE SALVATION OF DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS M. Christopher Brown II, T. E. Dancy II and Nicole Norfles
341
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
365
SUBJECT INDEX
375
This page intentionally left blank
x
PREFACE By What Means? The Devil is in The Details! Few pieces of federal legislation have evoked public and professional outcries as those of Public Law 107-110 known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The specific goals of NCLB, as stipulated in the Federal Register of December 2, 2006 as follows: By 2013–2014, all students will reach high standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading/language arts and mathematics. All limited-English-proficient students will become proficient in English and reach high academic standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading/language arts and mathematics. By 2005–2006, all students will be taught by highly qualified teachers. All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug free, and conducive to learning. All students will graduate from high school. States will identify and submit these performance targets to the United States Department of Education (USDE). The lofty goals and prophecies of success of NCLB are those with whom few could or would disagree. But as this book aptly illustrates the old maxim, ‘‘The devil is in the details.’’ The details begin with some of the key assumptions regarding unstated premises of NCLB. The act seems to imply that all children will accomplish the same goals. Unlike a factory assembly line, uniformity of results requires standardization of both inputs and processes. It also implies that those running schools know the exact procedures and methods to accomplish the desired outcomes, or as the father of quality, W. Edward Deming used to say to his audiences when he advised them about stipulating objectives, ‘‘by what means?’’ He was particularly acidic about numerical educational goals and at the time lambasted the goals in America 2000, which had aims strongly echoed in NCLB. They were: the high school graduation rate will increase by the year 2000 to at least 90 percent; every adult American will be literate; xi
xii
PREFACE
every school will be free of drugs; and at least one new school will be created in each congressional district by 1996. Deming (1993) percipiently observed, ‘‘A numerical goal accomplishes nothing y what counts is the method – by what method?’’ (p. 42). Deming went on to remark, ‘‘If you can accomplish a goal without a method, then why were you not doing it last year?’’ (p. 42). Deming said the goals in America 2000, so much like those in NCLB, were ‘‘a horrible example’’ (p. 46) and he cautioned: Ranking and rewarding of individual people, schools, districts, do not improve the system. Only the method is important. By what method? Unfortunately these goals have been posted in schools, giving pupils a bad start in life – goals without method (p. 48).
And he prophesized, ‘‘y a goal that lies beyond the means of its accomplishment will lead to discouragement, frustration, demoralization’’ (p. 41). He also trenchantly noted that, ‘‘Anybody can achieve almost any goal by redefining the terms, distortion and faking, and running up costs’’ (p. 44). We see all three at work in the case of educators and legislators trying to attain the methodless goals of NCLB. The individual states write their own tests and set their own passing grades, so the high-sounding achievement rhetoric of NCLB becomes elastic in application (Kronholz, 2003). As more schools fail, they must engage in costly activities to try and attain the goals. Kronholz (2004) has indicated that since coming to office, President Bush has increased school spending by ‘‘almost $11 billion, to $38.7 billion’’ (p. A6). And still many say NCLB is underfunded. The critical message from Deming is that without knowing exactly how goals are to be attained, making them numerical is chimerical. They amount to smoke and mirrors, first in policy and secondly in really understanding what to do inside the schools to make them better for all children. I am pleased to inform prospective readers that this book, co-edited by my distinguished colleague at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Frank Brown, and Richard Hunter at the University of Illinois, takes up the issue W. Edward Deming incisively raised about invidious numerical goals by asking ‘‘by what means?’’ The collection of scholars assembled in this volume sort through the sticky and contentious details of NCLB, carefully identifying the layered issues like archaeologists on a dig, brushing the detritus aside to reveal the critical legal, policy, operational, moral, and ethical artifacts that should inform future policy developers and practitioners about what kinds of
xiii
Preface
federal legislation might actually make a difference in urban schools, and how NCLB might yet be amended to actually close the achievement gaps in them. After reading the chapters, the reader will know what the phrase ‘‘the devil is in the details’’ means intellectually and emotionally. I would call the overall effect a kind of ‘‘forensic passion’’ unveiled. As the chapters unpack the complexities, contradictions, and claims advanced by proponents and defenders of this most controversial education law, the tendency of the policy wonks and think tank pundits to over-simplify the causes of educational failure by proposing simple solutions should be dashed for good. That in itself makes this book worth the reading.
REFERENCES Deming, E. W. (1993). The new economics: For industry, government, education. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kronholz, J. (2003). States’ high-school exams are political minefields. Wall Street Journal, (June 6), p. B1–B6. Kronholz, J. (2004). Bush’s education law gets an incomplete. Wall Street Journal, (September 1), p. A.6.
Fenwick English
This page intentionally left blank
xiv
INTRODUCTION: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND, SYMBOLISM OR REALITY? ABSTRACT This chapter reviews the rationale for the text and reflects on the contents of the text. This text was motivated by the issues based upon implementation of the 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) federal education statute. The NCLB Act and other related program designed to help education urban and minority enrolled in Title I programs of NCLB with white children. NCLB applies only to local Title I schools; however, the Act allows individual states to determine the number of Title I schools and the number of subgroups to be assessed using standardized tests. The Text is divided into two sections: Educational Equity and Process and Research. The first section on educational equity discusses the policy implication of NCLB and its history and the second section examines avenues on how to effectively implement programs under Title I and other requirements under NCLB. The authors explore the federal government’s efforts to close the achievement gap between different subpopulation of students under NCLB. Today, global economic rules and the country’s population have changed. Economic globalization demands a better-educated workforce and the new economic players are already making American pay for an increasingly less competitive work force. NCLB has been with us for 40 years with the aim of closing the achievement gap between minority students and white students; and the achievement gap continues 50 years later. These 20 chapters by national and international scholars and educators provide educators, policy makers and government officers with current information and research needed to make improved decisions on closing the achievement gap; and hopeful improve the life of our citizens.
xv
xvi
INTRODUCTION
This book seeks to generate ideas about federal education program such as those contained in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and other related programs designed to help education urban children. The other programs not included in NCLB legislation are Upward Bound and Head Start. Chapter authors for the book will explore models to achieve equity using Federal funds for Title I of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), other components of NCLB, Upward Bound, Head Start and Special Education. Upward Bound is funded through higher educational institutions to help local school districts prepare low income and educational disadvantaged students for college; and Head Start programs are federal funded programs aim at preparing disadvantaged pre-school children for kindergarten. Book authors will also develop theoretical frameworks for using Federal funds as a motivating force for equity in the use of local and state funds for public education; and how to implement an equity programs – the recruitment, hiring and retention of high quality teachers for low performing schools. In 1965 under the administration of President Lyndon Johnson, Congress enacted the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA of 1965) to assist school districts with compensatory education for poor- and low-performing students. Over the years, this became known under different names: ESEA of 1965, compensatory education, Goals 2000 and today as No Child Left Behind. ESEA of 1965 contained an equity component, but it diluted to the point that this legislation never came close to achieving between comparable schools across a school district. The major focus of NCLB and other federally funded program is accountable. We argue that educational equity among schools at the local level will produce better educational results than a program aimed at individual students. This model treats the school as a social organization designed to help all students; therefore, we posit that federal funds should be a motivating force for educational equity and greater academic results will follow. Today, ESEA of 1965 is essentially the same, but the name has changed over the years to No Child Left Behind has greater recognition in the public media (Peterson & West, 2003). The focus for NCLB continues to be Title I designed to provide compensatory education for poor and disadvantaged children (Doyle & Cooper, 1988). In general Title I students are two grade levels behind their peers in academic achievement and come from poor families. In general, Title I funds must be spent on these students an individual or as a group, these funds must not be spent on non-Title I students unless the school is populated with 70 percent of the students qualify as Title I students. This suggest that in most schools, Title I students receive separate Title I educational treatment with other poor and academically
xvii
Introduction
disadvantaged students, a double disadvantage is required to received treatment with Title I funds. Thus, NCLB requires accountability procedures for Title I schools only, but some states apply their accountability standards to Title I and non-Title I schools. Title I will be celebrating 40 years of existence soon and every major study reveals that its impact on Title I students is not significant. The first major study in 1966 (Coleman, J. S.) reached this conclusion and the next two major studies reached a similar conclusion in the 1970s and in the 1990s. The title of the first study by Coleman (1966) suggests the aim of Title I, Equality of Educational Opportunity. After the Coleman Report came the three volumes Fleischmann Report (1972, 1972, 1973) on education in New York State that drew a similar conclusion about the impact of Title I in New York State. Needless to say, attempts to implement equal educational opportunity intersects with money and politics (DeMoss & Wong, 2004; Allen, 2002; and Hunter & Brown, 2003). Finally, the modern day equal opportunity battle began with Brown v. Board of Education (1954) 50 years ago and we are still a long ways from meeting the goals of Brown (Brown, 2004). One focus of the book chapters is to review how Title I funds are allocated to local school districts (Macpherson, 1997) and getting quality teachers to all students (Plecki & Monk, 2003; Brantlinger, 1993) similar to procedures for receiving federal funds for special education (Osborne & Russo, 2003) and gifted education. The chapters will address the issues cited above. The chapter authors are well qualified to assume this task and the editors are also well qualified to undertake this important task. Editor Frank Brown participated in two of the three national studies on Title I and has written extensively on this subject. Editor Richard Hunter is a former school superintendent of several school districts with NCLB funding and a scholar in urban education. The book is divided into two sections, Educational Equity and NCLB and NCLB and Process.
REFERENCES Allen, W. R. (2002). African American education: Race, community, inequality and achievement. New York: Elsevier Science. Brantlinger, E. A. (1993). The politics of social class in secondary school: Views of affluent and impoverished youth. New York: Teachers College Press. Brown, F. (2004). Nixon’s ‘‘Southern strategy’’ and forces against Brown. Journal of Negro Education, 73(3), 191–208. Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
xviii
INTRODUCTION
Cose, E. (2004). Beyond Brown v. Board: The Final Battle for Excellence in American Education. A Report by Ellis Cose to the Rockefeller Foundation. DeMoss, K., & Wong, K. K. (2004). Money, politics, and law: Intersections and conflicts in the provision of educational opportunity. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Doyle, D. P., & Cooper, B. S. (1988). Federal aid to the disadvantaged: What future for chapter 1? New York: The Falmer Press. Hunter, R. C., & Brown, F. (2003). Challenges of urban education and efficacy of school reform. New York: Elsevier Science. Macpherson, R. J. S. (1997). The politics of accountability: Educative and international perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Osborne, A. G., & Russo, C. J. (2003). Special education and the law. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Peterson, P. E., & West, M. R. (2003). No Child Left Behind: The politics and practice of school accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Plecki, M. L., & Monk, D. H. (2003). School finance and teacher quality: Exploring the connections. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Frank Brown Richard C. Hunter Editors
PART I: EDUCATIONAL EQUITY AND NCLB
1
This page intentionally left blank
2
FISCAL EQUITY UNDER TITLE I AND NON-TITLE I SCHOOLS IN LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS James E. Lyons ABSTRACT Title I programs provide extra funding for disadvantaged students by the federal government under the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act and reauthorized under the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Title I continues to be the largest funded component of NCLB. I discuss the NCLB stated goal of closing the achievement gap between poor and minority students and their more advantaged peers. Given the modest level of Title I funding in terms of need, local school districts are only able to provide Title I services to those schools that enroll the highest percentages of disadvantaged students, leaving many disadvantaged students without Title I compensatory services. NCLB calls for funding equity between Title I and non-Title I schools, but this goal is rarely achieved. I also discuss the history of funding under ESEA of 1965 and the 2001 NCLB Act.
INTRODUCTION Public Law 107-110, which came to be known as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, was signed into law on January 8, 2002. This act No Child Left Behind and other Federal Programs for Urban School Districts Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 9, 3–21 Copyright r 2006 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(06)09001-9
3
4
JAMES E. LYONS
ushered in an unprecedented era of heightened accountability for America’s public schools. Ostensibly, the act was passed to reauthorize and extend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) initially enacted by the Congress in 1965. In practice, the act set in motion the machinery to greatly encourage and assess the academic performance of students in each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other U.S. territories. The principal goals of NCLB were to foster stronger accountability for results, provide more flexibility to states and communities, encourage proven educational practices, and provide more options to parents. Specifically, the NCLB Act’s stated fundamental purpose was to close the achievement gap between poor and minority students and their more advantaged peers. By participating in Title I, which is targeted to low-achieving and disadvantaged students, states agree to bring these students up to proficiency levels in language arts, mathematics, and science by the year 2014. The ESEA Title I program has evolved into the largest federal education initiative and it affects more school districts, schools, and students than any other singular federal education program. It was originally authorized for five years, and it has been reauthorized eight times since it was originally enacted. These reauthorizations occurred in 1966, 1967, 1970, 1974, 1981, 1988, 1994, and in 2001 as the No Child Left Behind Act (Stein, 2004). Although Title I (known as Chapter 1 from 1981 to 1994) is the cornerstone of the ESEA, there are a number of other educational programs that are authorized and funded under ESEA. Part A, which is improving basic programs operated by local educational agencies, is the central component of Title I and is the program that receives the greatest share of funding. The other eight programs now include Student Reading Skills Improvement Grants (Part B), Education of Migratory Children (Part C), Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk (Part D), National Assessment of Title I (Part E), Comprehensive School Reform (Part F), Advanced Placement Programs (Part G), School Dropout Prevention (Part H), and General Provisions (Part I). Title I of the ESEA is now over 40-years old and has represented a 12.7 billion federal investment in education in 2005 (Center on Education Policy, 2005). Educational programs, funded under Title I, are now offered in more than 75,000 schools in 94 percent of America’s school districts (Center on Education Policy, 2004; Lewis, 2004). Ninety-five percent of high-poverty schools now participate in the program. Currently, Title I is the largest source of federal aid for pre-K–12 education, representing 38 percent of all federal support for pre-collegiate education (Independent Review Panel,
Fiscal Equity Under Title I and Non-Title I Schools
5
2001). Although nearly 99 percent of Title I funds eventually flow directly to local school districts, the program serves slightly over one-third of eligible students. Given the modest level of funding for Title I in terms of the need, local school districts are usually only able to provide Title I funding to those schools that enroll the largest percentages of poor and disadvantaged students. In fact, in selecting schools to receive Title I funding, the law requires that districts rank their school attendance areas (which usually means individual schools) in which the concentration of children from low-income families exceeds 75 percent from highest to lowest according to the percentage of children from low-income families. Should allocated funds remain after this method has been initially employed, school districts must then rank the remaining school attendance areas from highest to lowest either by grade span or for the entire local educational agency according to the percentage of children from low-income families (cf. Section 1113 of the NCLB Act). Thus, the eligibility requirements and school selection methods together almost invariably lead to some schools not being selected to participate in the Title I program and thereby receive additional supplemental funding even though they may enroll an appreciable number of poor and disadvantaged students. In practice, this causes some schools to not be selected as Title I schools when they may enroll only a slightly lower percentage of students from low-income families than other schools within the district that are selected as Title I schools. Hence, some students in Non-Title I schools, who have academic needs comparable to students of similar backgrounds in Title I schools, may not receive the academic and support services they need unless the local school districts elect to provide additional funding for these Non-Title I schools. Accordingly, this may potentially lead to dissimilar funding to support educational opportunities for students who have similar characteristics in the same school districts. To examine this phenomenon in greater depth, this chapter will address fiscal equity under Title I and NonTitle I in local school districts under the No Child Left Behind law.
Historical Overview of Title I Although the U.S. Constitution does not mention education, for more than a century the Congress has used the general welfare clause that is mentioned in the Constitution to support educational initiatives and programs. The Constitution gives Congress the power to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Thus, according to Bierlein (1993),
6
JAMES E. LYONS
this provision permits it to respond to unaddressed needs and perform functions logically falling to a central authority even if they overshadow the role of the states. Therefore, when the Congress perceives that the general welfare of the country can be improved by federal intervention, it may take action by enacting legislation to create programs that are intended to enhance the public good. For example, after the Russians launched Sputnik in 1957, President Eisenhower successfully linked the quality of public schools to national defense and successfully passed the National Defense Act in 1958. In a similar vein, President Lyndon Johnson was able to use his War on Poverty Program to make the case that there were many poor and disadvantaged children in rural and urban schools that needed intensive educational assistance and support to achieve their potential and become productive citizens. For this reason, the program was initially designed so that categorical aid would be directed to this target group of students. Bailey and Mosher (1968) describe in vivid detail the consensus building that had to occur between the many interest groups whose support was needed to eventually get the ESEA passed. These included the White House, members of Congress, Bureau of the Budget personnel, state government officials and legislators, state and local school officials, professional organizations, educational reformers, educational researchers, and academics – to name a few. A particularly vexing challenge was the necessity to establish a pattern of intergovernmental relations that gave some influence and responsibility to every level – federal, state, and local. This phenomenon has characterized Title I throughout its 40-year history as the federal government, states, and local school districts have all tried to perform their prescribed respective roles and functions in accordance with the program’s guidelines. The fundamental purpose of Title I since its inception has been to provide supplemental funding to states to subsequently distribute to local school districts to enhance the educational achievement of poor, disadvantaged, migrant, and neglected and delinquent children who are at risk of academic failure. As supplemental funding, these monies were never intended to supplant any regular per-pupil funding that would normally be allocated to individual schools; rather, Title I funding has always been intended to be added to the basic instructional support of individual schools. Title I funds have most frequently been used to hire additional teachers to reduce class size, hire paraprofessionals to assist teachers and students, purchase instructional materials and supplies, establish computer labs, provide tutoring, and support parental involvement activities. Throughout its history, two concerns about Title I have been continually raised, discussed, and debated. The first concern centers around whether
7
Fiscal Equity Under Title I and Non-Title I Schools
Title I funding reaches and serves those students for whom it was intended and at what level or percentage. The second concern addresses the extent to which Title I programs have met and are meeting the goal of improving the academic achievement of poor and disadvantaged students. In respect to the first concern, Title I has never been funded at a sufficient level to reach all students who would qualify based upon family income. Michael Resnick (Hardy, 2004) notes that before NCLB, Title I was never funded at more than 40 percent of the actual need. This results, in part, from the fact that Title I is not funded up to the level authorized by the U.S. Congress, which is a unique funding practice of the federal government. In short, it means that Congress may authorize a maximum level of funding based upon the estimated real costs of the program; however, given budgetary constraints, actual funding for a given fiscal year may be less than the approved authorization amount (Accountability Works, 2004, p. 27). In the history of the United States, actual appropriations rarely match authorization levels. Table 1 shows the amounts recommended by the President and approved by the Congress for Title I in recent years (Hardy, 2004). In terms of the second concern, until NCLB was enacted, there was never any specific federal accountability requirements regarding the effectiveness of Title I programs and related activities. For, prior to NCLB, states had complete freedom in defining progress under Title I as they saw fit (The Education Trust, 2004). This was radically changed under NCLB, which required that each state develop proficiency standards for students to meet in grades 3–8 in reading and mathematics and to assess students annually to determine if they meet established standards. Students must also be tested at least once while in high school. Under No Child Left Behind, progressively increasing accountability requirements were included against which student performance is annually measured. A report card, indicating whether each public school has made ‘‘Annual Yearly Progress’’ (AYP), must be publicly issued by state education officials each year. If a school fails to meet AYP, a Table 1. Fiscal Year
Title I Funding (2002–2004).
President’s Recommendation
Congress Approved
Authorized Amount
2002 2003 2004
10.3 11.3 12.3
10.4 11.7 12.3
13.5 16.0 18.5
3 year total
33.9
34.4
48.0
Source: National School Boards Association.
8
JAMES E. LYONS
series of progressively punitive sanctions are applied and parents and students must be provided options up to and including the right for students to transfer out of the school and to be provided tutorial services. One of the most crucial elements of NCLB is the requirement that school districts employ and maintain ‘‘highly qualified staff.’’ This means that, effective 2005–2006, states are expected to have highly qualified teachers in all their public school classrooms where core academic subjects are taught and, by January 8, 2006, all paraprofessionals supported by Title I funds who perform instructional duties must complete two years of higher education or meet a rigorous standard of quality as demonstrated by performance on a test (Jennings, Rentner, & Kober, 2002).
Title I Funding Basics The basic funding strategies and funding formulas for Title I have evolved over time and have gone through several iterations. Prior to 1997, the formula for allocating funds to the respective states and territories changed only every decade, with the distribution of funds based upon U.S. census data collected every ten years. After 1997, the U.S. Department of Education began distributing funds to states based upon data made available from the Census Bureau every two years (Lewis, 2004). However, since NCLB Act has been enacted, annual census data is used to distribute funding. With the passage of NCLB in 2001, funding for each state may increase or decrease annually based on the overall level of federal funding for the program and the number of poor children residing in the state. From the beginning, Title I funds have been directed to states and to school districts with the greatest number and percentage of poor and disadvantaged children regardless of the level of state and local school district funding. Although the amounts that states and local school districts received differed based upon their resource bases and funding priorities, Title I funds were not distributed so as to compensate for variations between state and local funding levels (United States Government Accounting Office, 2002). Through the years, the method for allocating funds has undergone several revisions. From its inception to the 1988 reauthorization of Title I, state, school districts, and school eligibility were calculated using a combination of poverty indicators and student test scores. Initially, Congress developed a funding formula based upon poverty concentrations and school-aged populations to distribute Title I funds to states. Subsequently, the states then allocated money, based upon poverty levels, to the local school districts.
Fiscal Equity Under Title I and Non-Title I Schools
9
School districts then allocated money to individual schools using a combination of poverty and student performance measures (Stein, 2004, p. 88). Although this allocation formula was employed for many years, there were some weaknesses inherent in this system. First, based upon the formula, a state stood to gain more funding if it had a substantial number of students who were living in poverty and were performing poorly on standardized tests. When states, school districts, and schools had a significant number of students who were living in poverty and not performing well on standardized tests, they all were advantaged in terms of qualifying for Title I funding. Unfortunately, this formula disadvantaged districts and schools in which students performed well, and it advantaged school districts and schools in which students performed poorly. At the school level, poverty determined school eligibility and performance determined student eligibility. During this phase of Title I, students were personally identified as Title I students and were usually pulled out of their regular classes to go to Title I teachers, most frequently for remedial reading or math. Under this funding system, there was little monetary incentive for schools to have students perform well vis-a`-vis continued funding. For if a substantial number of students improved their performance, the school might not qualify for Title I funding the following year. Teachers and other staff employed in the Title I program could literally work themselves out of a job if students performed too well. Second, this system had the additional weakness of labeling students as ‘‘Title I students,’’ i.e., poor/disadvantaged students, which served to stigmatize students in many schools, particularly when teachers and administrators did not actively take steps to minimize this problem. Moreover, it had the related impact of marking and labeling the adults (teachers and teacher assistants) as members of the ‘‘Title I staff’’ who were either hired or re-assigned to work with the poor, disadvantaged, and/or migratory children. Problems and issues stemming from this practice are addressed in much greater detail in Stein’s (2004) insightful book, The Culture of Education Policy. During the 1988 reauthorization, the funding formula was revised and a new option was added, which was expanded in the 1994 reauthorization. The new option was what was termed the school-wide project, which allowed schools to use Title I funds to serve the entire school population rather than targeting specific children. The school-wide option offered many obvious advantages for Title I programs. First, it made Title I a more integral part of the total school program and eliminated the need to compartmentalize programs, teachers, students, parental activities, materials, and supplies. This undoubtedly facilitated the operation and general
10
JAMES E. LYONS
administration and supervision efforts in school buildings that had formerly been employed when Title I students were identified and targeted for special services. Moreover, it obviously enabled building principals to lead their schools and coordinate their staffs, programs, and related activities in a more coherent and unified manner. Second, and most important, it eliminated the need to identify selected students as Title I students and thereby stigmatize them by labeling them as either slower, poorer, or more disadvantaged than other students in the school. The authorizing legislation of NCLB, which became effective during the 2001–2002 school year, provided for four types of Title I grants. They are as follows: A. Basic grants are the largest source of funding and the easiest for which school districts can qualify. The vast majority of school districts participate in the basic grant program. B. Concentration grants are directed primarily to poor school districts based upon more strict eligibility requirements in comparison to the basic grant program. C. Targeted grants, which were not funded until fiscal year 2003, are directed to high-poverty states and school districts. As the number of poor children in a state increases, both absolute dollars and proportion of funding increases. D. Incentive grants, which were also not funded until fiscal year 2003, are not distributed on the basis of poverty, but are used to provide additional funds to states that demonstrate high state spending relative to their tax base and have less disparity in funding between school districts (Shaul, 2002). State–District–School Title I Funding The manner in which Title I funding is allocated to states, districts, and ultimately to individually designated Title I schools is a complex, multi-step process. States receive their funding from the federal government based upon the number of children from poor families residing in their school districts according to annual Census Bureau data. However, Title I money allocated varies widely by state from year to year and may have little relationship to the number of schools that each state has identified as needing improvement. For example, in 2004–2005, Texas identified 197 schools as needing improvement and had a Title I allocation of 44.4 million, while Virginia identified 460 schools as needing improvement but it received only
Fiscal Equity Under Title I and Non-Title I Schools
11
7.8 million to spend on them (Olsen, 2005). The respective states and U.S. territories then allocate the money to school districts after making certain adjustments for charter schools and setting aside no more than 1 percent for state administrative costs and 4 percent for school improvement activities. Subsequently, using some flexibility, local school districts then allocate funding to individual schools, giving priority to those schools enrolling the largest percentage of poor children (United States General Accounting Office, 2002). Local districts must rank all their schools with a poverty percentage greater than 75 percent before they identify any schools to be served with a poverty percentage below 75 percent. Once all schools with a poverty percentage above 75 percent have been served, a district may then serve schools with a poverty percentage below 75 percent by either continuing with the district-wide ranking or grade span groupings (i.e., K–5, 6–8, 9–12). Priority is usually given to elementary schools because school district officials generally believe that academic remediation is most important and most effective in the lower grades. Also, the elementary school curriculum and schedule typically make it easier to implement and operate Title I programs and activities at this level when compared to middle and high schools. Although school districts are not required to allocate the same per-pupil amount to each school, if they choose not to do so, they must allocate higher per-pupil amounts to schools with a higher percentage of low-income students and lower amounts per-pupil to schools with lower percentages of low-income students. Also, school districts must provide eligible private school children with Title I educational services and benefits that are ‘‘equitable’’ to those provided to eligible public schools students. It should be noted, however, that the public school districts provide those services and benefits directly to the students rather than to the private schools (Shaul, 2002).
Funding Inequities within Districts – the Well-Kept Secret Based upon the findings of recent researchers, since its inception, Title I has been funded and administered based upon a false premise. As noted earlier, a fundamental principle that has undergirded Title I since its beginning was that additional, supplemental funds needed to be spent in schools where high concentrations of poor and disadvantaged children attended to assist them in overcoming some of the learning obstacles and challenges that most of them experienced, which impeded their academic progress. The expectation has always been that Title I funds would not supplant or replace any funding
12
JAMES E. LYONS
that schools would normally receive. The assumption was that Title I would provide funding to enhance the resources in schools to provide additional staff, materials, and services over and above what would normally be available from the base-level allocation to schools within districts. However, recent research has shown that the base level of funding spent in schools within the same district is often not equal (Roza & Hill, 2004; Roza, 2000; Annenberg Institute, 2005). Research has begun to show that there are gross disparities between schools within the same districts based upon actual dollars spent at individual schools. Roza and Hill, in concert with researchers with School Communities that Work, an initiative of the Annenberg Institute for School Reform, are at the forefront of scholars who have examined this phenomenon. Amazingly, what they have found is that school districts do not track what they spend (in dollars) at their respective school buildings because individual schools are not treated as cost centers. Therefore, it is impossible, under current allocation formulas, to determine how much money is spent in individual schools for teachers, other personnel, services, and equipment. Thus, Roza and Hill contend that this system ‘‘allows for serious inequities that often hurt the schools most in need of resources’’ (p. 202). This dilemma has also been corroborated by Conley (2002), who found that, even after receiving Title I funds, the per-pupil funding in Title I schools was only $77 dollars more than it was in Non-Title I schools. Researchers with the School Communities That Work project have developed a system that may be used to assess patterns of resource distribution to individual schools (see http://scoolcommunities.org/resources/APRD/about.php; Annenberg Institute, 2002). Through the system, the actual dollars spent in individual school buildings may be determined. The most egregious inequity that usually results from this practice is the disparity in teacher salaries that occurs between schools serving poor communities and those in the same district-serving students in more affluent communities. In essence, what happens is that better qualified teachers, usually with more experience and graduate degrees, are assigned to more advantaged schools that normally enroll a higher percentage of students from higher income families. Conversely, new, inexperienced, and less qualified teachers are more likely to be assigned to schools in poor, disadvantaged neighborhoods which enroll a greater percentage of students from low-income families. Since the teachers in the more advantaged schools are most often paid higher salaries than the new and less qualified teachers in disadvantaged schools, the result is that more money is spent on teacher salaries in the former schools than in the latter ones. Given that this is not shown in dollars allocated to individual schools for salary costs, these salary
Fiscal Equity Under Title I and Non-Title I Schools
13
differentials, which may vary widely, are masked and hidden from public scrutiny. In actual dollar costs, an experienced teacher with a master’s degree might be paid 212 times the salary of a new teacher. A number of factors serve to create and sustain this imbalance of teachers’ vis-a`-vis their aggregate cost. First, the better-qualified teachers are more likely to seek positions in advantaged schools where the work environment is deemed to be more attractive and less demanding and there is less staff turnover. Conversely, new, inexperienced, and less qualified teachers are more likely to be placed in disadvantaged schools where there is less parental involvement, more students from low-income backgrounds, more discipline problems, and more student and staff turnover. In their research, Roza and Hill (2004) found that schools in wealthier neighborhoods often had hundreds of applicants for each vacancy, while schools in poor neighborhoods had only two or three applicants for each vacancy. Second, seniority rights and transfer policies stipulated in teacher union contracts usually allow teachers to transfer from less-desirable schools to more attractive teaching assignments, which tend to be in schools serving more affluent students. Thus, schools serving larger percentages of lowincome students often serve as training grounds for beginning, less qualified teachers who often move out by the time they have adequately honed their teaching skills. This causes students in disadvantaged neighborhoods to be subjected to new and inexperienced teachers to a much greater degree than students who attend more advantaged schools. Third, although few school administrators would publicly admit it, it is no secret that the perceived better, more experienced and qualified principals and teachers are often assigned to schools in more affluent, advantaged, and suburban neighborhoods rather than to inner city schools serving primarily low-income students. Predictably, this is done because the parents whose children attend schools in more affluent neighborhoods are likely to be far less tolerant of ineffective principals and teachers. Consequently, due to their social and political connections, they are usually able to bring considerable pressure to bear upon school officials to transfer or remove principals and teachers deemed to be ineffective and/or incompetent. Although it is commonly known that this occurs, it is nearly impossible to confirm this practice with empirical research because it is too controversial and politically charged for school officials to discuss it openly let alone admit their participation in it. Fourth, advantaged schools in more affluent communities usually have greater parental involvement and more active participation in parent– teacher associations. As a result, these schools often benefit from being able
14
JAMES E. LYONS
to get additional resources paid for with funds contributed by parents or through fund-raising projects undertaken by parent–teacher organizations. Seldom, if ever, do school districts attempt to track funding generated by parent–teacher association and adjust funding allocated to schools to equalize funding that is available to students. When this issue is broached with school officials, the reason most frequently given for not intervening in this is that it would stifle and impede parental initiative to support their children’s schools. Nevertheless, it should be noted that a few school districts do provide more basic funding per child to targeted schools that serve principally students from low-income backgrounds. This is done most frequently by allocating more personnel to these schools to reduce class size.
TITLE I AND NON-TITLE I SCHOOLS Based upon the requirements of NCLB, all schools in states that participate in the Title I program are measured against the state’s approved accountability system, specifically the AYP component. However, the federal requirements and sanctions for schools that do not make AYP are not applicable to Non-Title I schools unless a state has decided to place its own requirements and sanctions on schools failing to make AYP. Some states have elected to place requirements and sanctions on Non-Title I schools, while others have not done so. When states do place rewards, requirements, and sanctions on Non-Title I schools, they must bear any costs incurred in concert with local school districts rather than defray these with federal Title I funds. Based upon the available information, it appears that states vary markedly regarding how they treat Title I and Non-Title I schools. As of March 2005, 29 states reported that they did not sanction Title I schools when they failed to make AYP, while four states reported that they did. Fifteen states reported that they applied some, but not all, of the NCLB sanctions to NonTitle I schools (Center on Education Policy, 2005, p. 74). According to NCLB regulations, however, state officials are expected to develop and implement a reward and sanction system for Non-Title I schools if the state participates in the Title I program. For example, North Carolina, Virginia, and Michigan require that Non-Title I schools that do not meet AYP must revise their school improvement plans by identifying strategies and initiatives that will lead to meeting AYP in subsequent years. By comparison, in Illinois, in the school year following the second spring assessment when a school does not make AYP, the school is placed in Academic Early
Fiscal Equity Under Title I and Non-Title I Schools
15
Warning Status. After the third consecutive assessment, the school continues in Academic Early Warning Status. After the fourth assessment, the school is placed in Academic Watch Status and a school improvement panel must be appointed. After the fifth assessment, the school continues in Academic Watch Status and the district must develop a restructuring plan for the school (Center on Education Policy, 2005; Illinois State Board of Education, 2005). The fundamental difference between Title I and Non-Title I schools that do not make AYP is that Non-Title I schools do not have to: (1) report to parents regarding their AYP status, (2) offer students a choice to transfer to another school, (3) offer students supplemental educational services (which usually means tutoring), and (4) undergo corrective action such as restructuring. In contrast, all Title I schools must report their AYP status to parents, and, if they fail to make AYP, they must begin a progressive series of sanctions beginning with allowing students the option to transfer to another school. To minimize the negative consequences of failing to make AYP, some school districts have begun the practice of only selecting elementary schools to participate in the Title I program. The reason for this is that they perceive that, under NCLB regulations, it is easier for elementary schools to make AYP than it is for middle and high schools. Since middle and high schools tend to be both more diverse and larger than elementary schools, they usually have more subgroups of students that must be measured against AYP standards. Moreover, middle and high schools have more standards to meet under AYP. For these reasons, some school districts have elected to remove middle and high schools from participating in the Title I program and thereby being held responsible for meeting AYP requirements. Even when secondary schools receive Title I funding, research shows they generally receive less funding per students than elementary schools (Conley, 2002). This is caused, principally, because teacher assistants account for half of the Title I instructional staff in elementary schools, although they account for only 15 percent of total Title I expenditures and 24 percent of spending on the instructional staff (p. 4). However, they tend to be used far less frequently in secondary Title I schools than in elementary schools. Owing to the sanctions and requirements now experienced by schools that do not make AYP, some school districts have now begun to turn away Title I money or take other measures to avoid having to comply with the standards of NCLB. As examples, during the last several years, school districts in Suffolk, Virginia, Orland Park, Illinois, Connecticut, and Vermont have removed one or more schools from participating in Title I to avoid the
16
JAMES E. LYONS
consequences that ensue from failing to make AYP (Zehr, 2004). In particular, in some cases they have removed middle and/or high schools from participating because it is more difficult for them to meet AYP in comparison with elementary schools. Some school district officials have concluded that the sanctions that might come from failing to make AYP cost more than they get from the grant. In the most drastic action to date vis-a`-vis NCLB, in August, 2005, the Attorney General of the state of Connecticut filed a long threatened lawsuit, Connecticut v. Spelling, challenging the law (Archer, 2005). Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that NCLB is an unfunded mandate that the federal government has forced upon the states that will cost state and local taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. The suit was filed after the state of Connecticut unsuccessfully tried to get out of the law’s requirement that they expand their testing program and receive more flexibility in testing special education students and students who are learning English. Since federal education officials have long contended that NCLB is not an unfunded mandate, the outcome of this lawsuit is unclear at this writing. Several other states have either threatened to file lawsuits or to decline all federal funding and its accompanying mandates. This indicates that, primarily due to stretched state budgets, there are pockets of resistance to NCLB’s requirements and regulations. Moreover, it indicates that states have a major challenge in balancing the costs and benefits of receiving Title I funds and absorbing substantial financial burdens at state and local levels. Given the different resources received and the complicated guidelines and regulations that are applicable to Title I and Non-Title I schools, it is evident that there are many schools across America where the expectations and performance standards differ based upon their designation. Yet, based upon the manner in which schools are selected to be identified (or not identified) as Title I schools, it is obvious that many of these students are quite similar in terms of poverty status, academic performance, and achievement levels. Since, in many states, the sanctions and requirements placed upon Title I schools under NCLB are not applicable to Non-Title I schools, students who attend the two types of schools may not be treated equitably based upon the options that must be given to students and parents in Title I schools such as the opportunity to transfer to a different school, tutorial, and support services. Thus, clearly there appear to be some inequities between students who attend Title I schools and those who do not based upon the services and options provided to them and their parents/ guardians under NCLB.
Fiscal Equity Under Title I and Non-Title I Schools
17
CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS The NCLB Act of 2001 is the 21st century progeny of the ESEA of 1965, which was enacted by the Congress as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty. During the past 40 years, the fundamental purpose of this federal education initiative has been to support and improve the academic achievement of poor, disadvantaged students. To accomplish this, the U.S. Department of Education has continuously provided supplementary funding to states and school districts to support education and related services for this targeted group of students. Since its inception, the centerpiece of the ESEA has been the Title I program, which provides the greatest amount of federal support for elementary and secondary education and is the program that provides support to the greatest number of the country’s public school districts. The amount appropriated for Title I in fiscal year 2005 was $12.7 billion, which along with other federal spending for PK–12 education amounts to 9.6 percent of the total amount spent (Center on Education Policy, 2005). However, scholars, critics, and policy wonks have been analyzing and debating the efficacy of Title I since its inception. This chapter has addressed one element of a very complex issue: the fiscal equity between Title I schools and Non-Title I schools. Using the required formula for selecting schools to be designated as Title I schools, school districts must use their funding to supplement the basic funding in their schools that enroll the highest percent of low-income students. Since the federal funding received through Title I must be used to supplement and not supplant basic funding, the intent is to provide more funding per pupil in Title I schools than is expended per pupil in Non-Title I schools. In theory, this is to provide students in Title I schools educational experiences and services that are comparable to or more intensive than they would receive in Non-Title I schools. However, based upon available research, this is not normally what occurs in practice, as there are more than a few issues and practices that serve to thwart the intent of the architects of the Title I program. First, due to the manner in which individual schools are funded, it is nearly impossible to identify and track dollars spent in schools within districts for a number of reasons. Since funding for teachers, other staff, materials, and services are often supported by different funding streams, it is usually not possible to track costs. Moreover, school districts often retain 40–70 percent of the district’s general fund revenues for central staff, program support, and services. Thus, a sizable portion of a district’s operating funds is not allocated to individual buildings, as they are deemed to be
18
JAMES E. LYONS
expended for the support of all schools in the district. This makes it impossible to determine what amount should be apportioned to any given school, whether it be a Title I or Non-Title I school. Second, school district budgets generally only reflect average salary teacher costs and not variations in salaries of teachers that may be assigned to any given building. Roza and Hill’s (2004) research shows that this practice works to the detriment of Title I schools. Specifically, since most teachers in Title I schools tend to be new or inexperienced teachers, their aggregate salary costs tends to be appreciably lower than the aggregate salary costs of teachers in Non-Title I schools. As teacher salary costs tend to be the largest operating cost in schools, this means that less money is normally spent in Title I schools. Moreover, since the research shows that teachers in Non-Title I schools tend to have more experience and more advanced degrees, these schools usually benefit from having better trained, more experienced teachers. Conversely, Title I schools often serve as training grounds for new teachers who often transfer to Non-Title I schools that usually serve more advantaged students and provide better working conditions. This causes more teacher turnover in Title I schools in comparison to Non-Title I schools. Third, the concentration of poverty is uneven across the nearly 14,000 school districts in America. For example, particularly in large urban areas, there are often clusters of schools that have 100 percent poor kids and, therefore, receive priority for being designated as Title I schools when these districts rank their schools according to NCLB regulations. These districts usually use up their Title I allocation before they get to all schools with large percentages of low-income students. Consequently, they may have other schools where 60 percent of the students living in poverty receive no Title I money as they are not designated as Title I schools (Cook, 2005). This problem is so pervasive that Epstein (2004) contends that up to half of the children who qualify for Title I assistance are not served with any Title I funding because the program is structured to serve schools, not children. For example, when a low-income child moves from a Title I school to a Non-Title I school, no Title I money follows the student. Fourth, since research shows that Non-Title I schools tend to have more affluent parents who are able to provide more local school support in general and parent–teacher association (PTA) support in particular, they have more discretionary funding to support school programs, projects, materials, and equipment. Often this allows the school to purchase more computers, books, supplies, copy machines, etc., and to support more student field trips to complement their learning. In contrast, Title I schools often do not have
Fiscal Equity Under Title I and Non-Title I Schools
19
the level of parental support that provides these extra resources to the school. Since school district officials tend to shy away from tracking and becoming involved in local school fund raising to avoid stifling parental initiative, these funds, which are often quite substantial, are not usually considered when allocating funds to individual schools. The result is that, in many cases, Title I schools become poor schools that serve poor students. After examining the policies, regulations, and practices promulgated by the NCLB Act, the following are offered as recommendations for policy makers and educational leaders to more effectively accomplish its stated goals: 1. Since there is documented evidence that inequitable funding results from the method that most school district central offices use to budget funds that go to individual schools, school districts should revise the way they allocate funds to individual schools by making them cost centers. The current system that is normally used works to the detriment of Title I schools by masking the actual dollars that are spent in them. This would help these Title I schools get more of the funds they need to meet the needs of students who deserve it and for whom Title I monies are principally expected to serve. 2. The manner in which most states fund public education does not distinguish between poor and more affluent children because funding is usually at a per-pupil cost. This practice obviously works to the detriment of schools that serve large percentages of low-income students. Since these students disproportionately require more academic and support services than more affluent students, it costs more to educate the former students. Therefore, consideration should be given to funding school districts at a higher level that enroll higher percentages of low-income families. Similarly, local school districts should also allocate more funding per pupil to those schools that serve higher percentages of low-income students. This will assure that more resources are made available to address their special needs, such as lower class sizes, tutorial services, after school programs, etc. Moreover, it will also serve to compensate for the difficulty these schools often encounter in garnering additional financial support from parents, PTA groups, and the communities in which they are located. 3. Since NCLB does not place any sanctions on Non-Title I schools, states should develop sanctions for them that are the same or equivalent to the sanctions that Title I schools are subjected to under NCLB. Since many poor children attend schools that are not designated as Title I schools,
20
JAMES E. LYONS
school personnel in those schools should be held accountable for their academic achievement in the same manner as school personnel in Title I schools. 4. Since the research shows that teachers in Title I schools tend to be new, inexperienced, and less qualified than teachers in Non-Title I schools, local school districts should undertake efforts to remedy this inequity. This practice causes the students who have the greatest learning challenges to be taught by teachers who are less experienced and qualified to perform effectively. Developing polices and practices to assign teachers to both types of schools that are more similar in experience and qualifications will undoubtedly enhance the teaching capacity in Title I schools. 5. Since Title I funds are designated for schools and not students, when students move from Title I schools to Non-Title I schools, they may not receive some of the services they had in their Title I schools. This practice may also lend itself to unequal educational opportunities. School districts should monitor and track their intra-district transfers to determine the extent that this affects the learning opportunities of those students who are involved. If each level of government – federal, state, and local – will take the necessary action to equalize educational resources and learning opportunities between Title I and Non-Title I schools, the laudable and ambitious goals envisioned for NCLB will stand a much better chance of coming to fruition by 2014. All that is needed is the ability to cooperatively work together and the will and wallet to do so in a timely manner. Failure to do so will likely cause educational historians to judge NCLB as yet another federal education initiative that failed those students whose futures most depended on its success.
REFERENCES Accountability Works. (2004). NCLB under a microscope. Washington, DC: Education Leaders Council. Annenberg Institute for School Reform. (2002). Assessing inequities in school funding within districts. Providence, RI: Brown University. Annenberg Institute for School Reform. (2005). Assessing patterns of resource distribution. Providence, RI: Brown University. Archer, J. (2005). Conn. files long-awaited lawsuit challenging No Child Left Behind Act. Education Week (Web Only), August 22. Bailey, S. K., & Mosher, E. K. (1968). ESEA: The office of education administers a law. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Bierlein, L. A. (1993). Controversial issues in educational policy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fiscal Equity Under Title I and Non-Title I Schools
21
Center on Education Policy. (2004). Title I funds: Who’s gaining, who’s losing and why. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. Center on Education Policy. (2005). From the capital to the classroom: Year 3 of the no child left behind act. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. Conley, D. T. (2002). The role of federal funds in the quality education model. Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Policy Research. Cook, G. (2005). Title I at 40. American School Board Journal, 192(4), 24–26. Epstein, N. (Ed.) (2004). Who’s in charge here? The tangled web of school governance. Washington, DC: Brookings Press. Hardy, L. (2004). The high costs of NCLB. American School Board Journal, 191(1), 7–9. Illinois State Board of Education. (2005). Local school board review and approval of school and district improvement plans. Springfield, IL: State Board of Education. Independent Review Panel. (2001). Improving the odds: A report on Title I from the Independent Review Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Jennings, J., Rentner, D. S., & Kober, N. (2002). A new federal role in education. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. Lewis, A. C. (2004). Washington scene. Education Digest, 70(2), 68–72. Olsen, L. (2005). NCLB study: State support for schools’ improvement varies. Education Week, 24(30), 9. Roza, M. (2000). Policy inadvertently robs poor schools to benefit the rich. Seattle Post Intelligencer, p. F1. Roza, M., & Hill, P. T. (2004). How within-districts spending inequities help some schools fail. In: D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings papers on Education Policy 2004. Washington, DC: Brookings Press. Shaul, M. S. (2002). Title I funding: Poor children benefit though funding per child differs. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. Stein, S. J. (2004). The culture of education policy. New York: Teachers College Press. The Education Trust. (2004). The ABCs of ‘‘AYP’’: Raising achievement for all students. Washington, DC: The Education Trust. United States Government Accounting Office. (2002). Title I funding-poor children benefit though per poor child differs. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office. Zehr, M. A. (2004). Wary districts shift or forgo federal funds. Education Week, 24(2), 6.
This page intentionally left blank
22
NCLB AND DIVERSITY IN SCHOOLS Stephen B. Lawton ABSTRACT Diversity is key policy concept in education and public policy, although its specific meaning is subject to debate. This chapter analyzes the meanings of and the roles played by diversity in the implementation and impact of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Although NCLB does not specify how measurements are to be made to determine Annual Yearly Progress (AYP), nor does it designate the groups used in assessing learning gaps, state practices in the classification of individuals into subgroups and measurement of AYP call for the calculation of confidence intervals for proportions, an approach of questionable validity given the lack of randomness of school assignment. Instead, an approach using measurement error to decide whether a school, group, or individual achieves a certain threshold is suggested as an alternative. Emphasizing the school or creating categories of students based on personal characteristics may not be the soundest approach to developing human capital and promoting the success of all, however. Diverse students call for diverse goals and modes of accomplishing these goals; the model for developing Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for special needs students may be a best approach for individualizing education for every child.
No Child Left Behind and other Federal Programs for Urban School Districts Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 9, 23–35 Copyright r 2006 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(06)09002-0
23
24
STEPHEN B. LAWTON
INTRODUCTION Diversity has emerged as a key policy concept in education and public policy, although its specific meaning is subject to debate. For some, it is a central value; that is, a good to be sought and defended. For others, it is a fact that manifests itself in many ways, including the differing levels of educational achievement for identifiable groups of students. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the meanings of and the roles played by diversity in the implementation and impact of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Particular attention is paid to the problems created by the classification of individuals into subgroups, an operation critical to the implementation of the Act but problematic both in definitional and statistical terms.
DEFINITION Diversity, according to the Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (G. & C. Merriam Company, Publishers, 1969), is ‘‘1. a state or instance of difference; unlikeness. 2. Multiformity; variety; as diversity of opinion.’’ At the individual level, difference and unlikeness make each person unique. When one speaks of individualization in education, one means treating each child as a unique individual by adapting the curriculum and educational process to that child’s needs. In political terms, the individual and the guarantee of rights to each individual form the basis of the Western notion of personal rights and democracy; these concepts are ensconced in the notion of one-person, one-vote. Historians and philosophers view the development of the emphasis on the individual as a key element of Western social and political evolution (Rickard & Hyma, 1952; Rossiter, 1962). The Enlightenment freed individuals from their shackles inherent in their assigned roles found in feudal and socially conservative societies. The second meaning of diversity – multiformity – suggests differences among groups rather than individuals. This connotation implies quite a different notion of diversity than does the first, carrying with it the notion of the primacy of group membership rather than of individual identity within a community or polity. In education, this idea leads to the conclusion that distinct groups of persons exist and require culturally specific forms of schooling, each with its own distinct structures, content, and methods. For example, in the case of language, separate institutions would offer unilingual or bilingual education, with instructors selected to reflect the identity of groups of students. In multinational states, in which more than one
NCLB and Diversity in Schools
25
‘‘nation’’ or ‘‘peoples’’ coexist within the state, groups that form distinct peoples would be assigned to distinct schools or education systems developed to convey a particular set of values and ways of life to subsequent generations, even to the exclusion of common set of values for the nation as a whole (Kymlicka, 1995). In such states, the notion that all individuals are members of a common social and political order is rejected in favor of a confederacy of peoples or a community of communities. Nevertheless, demands or expectations for social justice imply that each group is to be treated equally in terms of economic access, benefits, and social status so that individuals are not disadvantaged by their membership in one particular group or another. Not all categories of difference lend themselves to the formation of distinct groups that could lead to its members being considered a people. For example, socio-economic status, gender, sexual orientation, and the like define both individual and group differences but lack the comprehensive nature of cultural characteristics such as language, religion, race, and ethnicity. These latter traits are those that first become ‘‘protected categories’’ when it becomes evident that the individuals who share a particular characteristic lack economic or social parity with the community as a whole or with those in non-protected categories. Secondary characteristics (i.e., those that differentiate individuals into groups but do not define a people) may also come to define protected categories both in a nation at large and within a group defined within a nation, thereby adding complexity to the notion of diversity as multiformity. In particular, rights and expectations may differ within and among groups. For example, equal treatment and outcomes maybe expected for the education of men and women at the national level, but the roles and relations between men and women differ considerably among communities defined by religion or ethnicity. Within some religions or ethnic groups, women may be given fewer rights and opportunities than men; thus a conflict emerges between rights guaranteed by the state and rights allocated within the religious or ethnic community. Whether one treats diversity as a concept that applies to groups or to individuals is a matter of considerable significance. Leaving no individual child behind implies a focus on the individual child; leaving no category of children behind – whatever the category may be – implies a focus on group, assignment of individuals to groups, and a focus on detecting differences among groups. NCLB’s approach to diversity is critical in understanding the Act’s impact on schools and the operational meaning of diversity for educators.
26
STEPHEN B. LAWTON
NCLB’S GOALS AND DIVERSITY The overriding goal of NCLB, as enunciated in its name, is to improve the academic performance of all American students. Although this goal has long been sought by the federal government, as is evident in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) with its focus on improving schooling for lower income children, a new tactic is evident in the NCLB’s focus on the assessment of academic progress as measured by tests mandated by authorities that are located outside of individual schools and school districts. That is, outside authorities, rather than teachers and principals, are responsible for determining how children’s learning is to be measured for federal purposes. Implicit in NCLB is an economic production function model linking inputs, processes, and outputs, where the outputs can be thought of as units of human capital that add to existing levels of knowledge and skill in the country’s population. International comparisons of educational attainments repeatedly demonstrate the mediocre performance for the average American student, although detailed analyses suggest that the observed average level of performance conceals exceptionally high achievement by students whose parents are at the top of the socio-economic spectrum and exceptionally low achievement for those whose parents are toward the bottom of the spectrum (e.g., Wilms, 2004). Under girding this policy is the assumption that if the U.S., through educational policies such as NCLB focusing on the quality of inputs and processes, can be equally effective for all children, then the nation will succeed internationally in both academic and economic terms. The NCLB formally departs from its focus on the individual child in two ways. Rather than focusing on what specific children learn in a particular classroom during a specific period of time, it focuses on the progress of school districts, schools, and of those in various categories within schools. This reification of districts, schools, and groups helps to explain the perception of the law as targeting collectivities rather than individuals. That is, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is not judged for each child, with that child’s teacher or teacher being held accountable, but for each school and for each defined group of children within the school. These groups include major racial and ethnic groups, low-income students, students with disabilities, and students who are not proficient in English (The Education Trust, 2004). In operational terms, then, the NCLB defines diversity in terms of group differences – multiformity – rather than individual variability. This focus appears to endorse a critical or social justice perspective that recognizes
NCLB and Diversity in Schools
27
group rights and responsibilities rather than a classical liberal emphasis on the rights and responsibilities of individuals. Logically, if one is measuring group performance rather than individual performance, it would seem to follow that the group in question should be treated as a community or social agent responsible for action. For example, if Latino students perform poorly, then leaders in that community – including parents, business owners, and religious leaders – would bear as much or more responsibility for a child’s educational success than would the individual child and the child’s school and teachers. In fact, this form of action can be observed in some communities, particularly manifested in focused public, charter, and private schools founded in part or in whole by leaders of those communities. Evidence to date, however, suggests that such entrepreneurial efforts are more focused on group cultural identity than universalistic academic criteria (Yancey, 2000; Carnoy, Jacobsen, Mishel, & Rothstein, 2005). If encouraged politically and economically, multiform diversity translates into social action that leads to diverse education systems with distinct schooling for different groups characterized by common ethnicity, race, religion, etc. This outcome has developed in such nations as Canada, the Netherlands, and Ireland. Such an evolution could come about through a combination of choice and accountability, with new schools being founded as magnet, charter, or subsidized private schools that respond to particularistic community ideas. Universalistic ideals that transcend individual groups, the traditional grounding for public school systems in the U.S., become secondary or may be rejected altogether. While an argument might be made that the NCLB facilitates this form of evolutionary change to a heterogeneous educational structure, given its emphasis on racial, linguistic, and socio-economic categories and choice in the form of vouchers and charter schools as a mechanism for bringing market forces to bear on educators and schools (The Education Trust, 2004), the actual operationalization of AYP and its dependence on group performance suggest that a very different mindset was present among its authors.
DIVERSITY OPERATIONALIZED NCLB does not specify how statistics are to be collected or measurements are to be made in order to determine AYP, nor does it designate the groups or strata that must be formed in order to assess the sizes and changes in learning gaps among groups. Instead, it offers guidelines that require states
28
STEPHEN B. LAWTON
to report how they will implement the policy, albeit with provisions for administrative approval by an agency of the federal government. Each state has taken its own approach. For example, Florida has identified eight subgroups for its schools; each subgroup must have at least 30 students to be used in the calculation of a school’s AYP, so long as they represent 15% of the student body. The eight groups include five ethnic or racial categories (white, African American, Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian), economically disadvantaged students, students who lack English proficiency, and students with disabilities. Proficiency is judged by a given percentage of students scoring at least 3 on a 5 point scale; targets increase from about 40% in 2005 to 100% by 2014 (Florida Department of Education, 2005a, b; Erpenbach, Forte-Fast, & Potts, 2003). In contrast, Texas defined just six groups, including three racial/ethnic (white, African American, and Hispanic), economically disadvantaged, special education, and limited English proficient (LEP). Groups had to number at least 50 and be 10% of schools enrollment or 200 even if they represented less than 10% of enrollment. Proficiency is judged by scoring 53% at or above the standard set in reading and language studies and 40% above the standard set in mathematics (Texas Education Agency, 2005a), where the appropriate cut points for three levels of performance (Commended Performance, Met the Standard, Did Not Meet the Standard) were set based by the state board of education based on recommendations developed by a series of expert and stakeholder panels (Texas Education Agency, 2005b). While it might seem logical to use a single national test to measure such common and universally endorsed skills as reading and writing English or doing arithmetic, each state in fact uses its own set of tests to measure achievement, its own process to set minimum standards, and its own set of subgroups. As well each state sets its own Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs); these may differ from state to state, with some set as increases in a single passing percentage (i.e., meeting some threshold level of performance) for all groups and others set as target pass rates for different grades or subgroups. For example, Arizona sets different AMAOs (also referred to as AMOs) by grade but not by subgroups (Arizona Department of Education, 2005). Notably absent among groups defined by states is one defined by gender, even though the poor performance of boys on tests, graduation rates, and percentage proceeding to postsecondary education would suggest that gender is a crucial issue. As well, 15 times more men than women are in prison in the U.S., which has five times more the rate of incarceration as do
NCLB and Diversity in Schools
29
its neighbors, Mexico and Canada (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004; Walmsley, 1999). Males, however, are not a protected category. The size of subgroups to be included in assessing AYP is a critical issue that has the potential of undermining the confidence that one can place in statements that a school has or has not made AYP. Consider the situation that can occur in a K-6 school of 700 students for which a targeted 70% pass rate for all students has been met. By implication, 490 students achieved the threshold level of mastery school-wide, or an average of 70 of the 1,000 students at each grade level. However, if 10% of all students were Latino (70 students) and only 50% (or 35) of these passed, the failure of this subgroup to achieve the target could result in a ‘‘failed’’ rating for the school. As a result, the school would be subjected to a variety of possible sanctions. In such a situation, the school’s administration will tend to focus on Latino students since an improved performance by 20% of the 70 Latino students – i.e., by the 14 students – would win the school a ‘‘pass’’ rating. In a case of the tail wagging dog, the well-being of the other 686 students depends on the success of just 14. In a similar school with just 350 students, the numbers would be halved and the school’s future would depend on 7 students. To place the burden for success on so small a number requires highly precise measurement practices. A few points of error in a handful of cases can make a difference. Sizes of subgroups and their relationship to AYP have been approached in practice in a probabilistic manner. Novak and Fuller (2003) demonstrate a negative relationship between the number of subgroups in a school and the probability of the school achieving AYP, although Rogosa (2004) holds that much of the relationship is due to the decreasing sizes of subgroups rather than number of subgroups per se. Nevertheless, it is evident that for two schools of the same size, the more groups there are in the school, the lower its chance of success. As a result, homogeneous schools have an advantage in that they have few or no subgroups while heterogeneous schools with many have a higher probability of failure – the so-called ‘‘diversity penalty.’’ The problem is magnified in small schools whose subgroups are likely to be small. Many schools with fewer than 100 or even 50 students exist, particularly in rural areas. Charter schools, too, typically have small enrollments as do schools-within-schools, a popular reform to produce more intimate learning schooling environments. Small enrollments mean that grouping students into grade levels or by social characteristics for testing produces groups of fewer than a dozen students. In a number of states, a statistical technique has been adopted to address this problem, although it use is of questionable validity. Guidelines call for
30
STEPHEN B. LAWTON
the calculation of confidence intervals using formulas applicable to the calculation of interval estimates for proportions. For example, if a school’s observed pass rate (i.e., the proportion of students who achieve a given threshold) or the upper bound of the confidence interval for this rate equals or exceeds the Annual Measurable Achievement Objective, then the school is deemed to have passed (Arizona Department of Education, 2005). For example, if 11 of 30 (i.e., 36%) of students in a group meet the standard but the AMAO calls for 50%, the group (and hence the school) has failed. However, applying the formula used in Arizona for a 99% confidence interval, the upper bound is 0.36 plus 2.33 times the square root of [p(1 p)/n], where p ¼ 0.36 and n ¼ 30. The resulting upper bound is 0.56, so the school passes! This approach, it must be admitted, is quite generous; however, does its use make sense? One problem with the confidence interval technique when applied to AYP is that the theory on which the formulas are based assumes that the members of the group in question are selected at random. That is, its use implies that one believes that all of the students in a given grade or socio-economic, racial, or special education group are equivalent to random samples of all such students in a state. In fact, this is not the case as students will tend to cluster according to the socio-economic and ethnocultural status. Minority students in middle-class high school are not similar to minority students in an urban area primarily minority in composition. In all likelihood, groups of students are more homogeneous than random samples would be, implying that use of a confidence interval for random samples provides too large an interval and makes it easier for a school to pass than honest statistics would dictate. More critical, however, is the fact that the students in a school or group within a school actually form populations and subpopulations, but not samples. For example, if one asks for the average age or height of a student in these schools, one could calculate an exact measure of the population parameter. Why confuse the matter by acting as if students in schools or groups are random samples? While sampling error is in fact irrelevant, one should take account of measurement error in deciding whether a school or group – or an individual – achieves a certain threshold. We tend to ignore measurement error for matters like age, gender, or height since inaccuracies in their measurement are relatively very small. For example, a half-inch error in measuring a person five-feet tall yields less than a 1% error. The likelihood of misclassifying child’s gender is even less. However, measurement of academic achievement or knowledge is not nearly so reliable. A typical standardized test might have reliability of 0.90, implying that on a 100 point scale with a
NCLB and Diversity in Schools
31
standard deviation of 15, the average measurement would miss the hypothetical true score by 5 points (see, for example, Texas Education Agency, 2005b, Chapter 13, and Appendices. Reported reliabilities for state tests in Texas are between 0.81 and 0.92). In a state with a target score of, say, 75, two students with scores of 60 and 70 might be considered to have failed to achieve the standard. However, if a confidence interval approach using measurement error is adopted (as opposed to sampling error) for the person scoring 70 on this test, we can be 95% confident that the true score lies between 60 and 80. For a person scoring 60 the confidence interval would range from 50 to 70. Therefore, the person scoring 70 would be given a ‘‘pass’’ since their confidence interval included the target of 75, while the person scoring 60 would still ‘‘fail’’ since their confidence interval did not.1 Assuming states do not take measurement error into account when categorizing students’ achievement levels, which as far as I can determine they do not, there must be a number of mis-assignments occurring even for a test of high reliability. Placing the fate of a school on a handful of students whose placement in the ‘‘pass’’ or ‘‘fail’’ category is sometimes erroneous will result in many incorrect decisions concerning AYP. While it might be countered that measurement errors tend to cancel out when averages for groups are calculated, this argument does not hold when, as we have seen, a school’s AYP outcome may rest on a single student.
NCLB AND RACIAL OR ETHNIC CLASSIFICATION One sensitive challenge for officials or individual students themselves is classifying students by race or ethnicity. Conventional categories are challenged by, among other matters, increasing rates of marriage and childbearing by individuals of different races and ethnicities. How does one classify a child of Asian and African-American descent? And, while for the Navajo Nation an individual’s blood heritage is tracked to the level of 1/4th ancestry (i.e., a grandparent who was Navajo allows one to become a member of the tribe), how should a school classify a child who has three White ancestors and one Navajo? The child is be eligible for tribal membership but is three-quarters non-native. Classification of children of mixed backgrounds matters not only for NCLB, but also social research in general. For one study, analyzing the impact of vouchers on minority schools, whether or not vouchers were judged to have a positive impact could be swayed by how one classifies children of mixed White/Black descent (Peterson & Howell, 2004).
32
STEPHEN B. LAWTON
This problem is at root a measurement and definition problem, and raises again the question of how one defines diversity. If adults are intermarrying (or at least bearing children from mixed relationships), their children certainly provide diversity to the population but may not be seen as members of a multiform diverse groups. Indeed, the issue of identity and social place of children of mixed descent is a lively topic of research and debate, with over 100,000 children of mixed race or ethnicity born in the U.S. every year (Wardle, 1999/2000). In the meantime, it would be logical for those in schools to engage in strategic classification, i.e., placing children within the groups that will most likely help the school make AYP. Although I can find no evidence that schools recruit or assign mixed-race/ethnic students to groups with this in mind, it would make as much sense as does for schools to seek outstanding scholars, athletes, or musicians. The issue of proper classification nearly prevented three schools in Phoenix, Arizona from making AYP. In one school, ‘‘failing hinged on just four students y . It turned out that two of the students listed as Anglo were Hispanic. One Anglo boy did not take the test; but a second did, though is results were not recorded y . With the boy’s exam duly recorded, and the two Hispanic students correctly identified, the school did meet the required 95% of Anglo students’’ taking the state test (Bland, 2005). ‘‘Correct identification’’ may become the catchword for many schools seeking to attain AYP.
SOCIAL JUSTICE VS. DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES Three decades ago in Inequality, Christopher Jencks (1972) argued that if public policy demands higher wages for low-income individuals, then paying these individuals higher rates of pay is a more direct and effective policy than improving schools in the expectation that the next generation will have higher wages. NCLB, although differing from the equity-oriented allocation mandated in the original ESEA, seeks the same fundamental goal of improving the education of those who belong to groups that have not enjoyed average or above-average economic success in the U.S. From a philosophical perspective, NCLB appears to focus on the development of human capital by increasing the knowledge and skills of youth. Yet, as evident in the forgoing discussion, the division of schools into groups and the emphasis on closing the learning gaps between groups, combined
NCLB and Diversity in Schools
33
with an emphasis on choice mechanisms when schools ‘‘fail,’’ suggests that it also reflects concern about social justice in the sense of allocating resources in a manner that helps groups – rather than individuals – achieve greater success. Would NCLB be more successful if a social justice perspective was explicit and groups of various types – cultural, religious, ethnic, etc. – were encouraged to draw upon their collective cultural and social resources to achieve greater success? Other nations have adopted explicitly multiformed, diverse school systems. Why not the U.S.? In fact, de facto choice of residence, the clustering of religious and ethnic groups in cities and in charter schools, and the like, suggests that such a scenario is already emerging. Yet, the notion of ‘‘separate but equal’’ haunts this approach given the nation’s past use of such a policy to deny opportunity. On the other hand, the challenges of having valid and reliable measures of how well groups do within schools are such that the credibility of existing practices is in doubt. A change to focus on individual students and individual teachers – the two critical parties to the production of learning – would seem to offer a more sensible prescription for success. However, states would have to overcome their reluctance to report individual test scores rather than simply the percent reaching a standard. Reliable measures of individual growth and the impact of individual teachers on that growth may be more amendable to meaningful progress. Reifying the school or creating categories of students based on personal characteristics may not be the soundest approach to developing human capital and promoting the success of all. Diverse students call for diverse goals and modes of accomplishing these goals. In fact, the process of developing Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for special needs of students (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.) may present a model for individualizing education for every child. IEPs could provide individual annual standards for each child which could be compared with their actual achievement, which is now often being maintained in state-wide every-student databases. They could include recognition of particularistic values related to cultural identity, the arts, and community. This model is truly a professional model consistent with professions such as law and medicine where the very notion that one would judge success primarily on the basis of success with groups would be ludicrous. To be sure, data could still be reported for various categories of the population at large, as it often is for health care or the legal system, but success would be judged on the basis that counts most: the success of each student.
34
STEPHEN B. LAWTON
NOTES 1. Figures used in the text are rounded to the nearest whole digit. The standard error of measurement (SEM) equals the standard deviation (s) times the square root of 1 minus the reliability (r). Since s ¼ 15 and r ¼ 0.90, SEM ¼ 15 times the square root of (1–0.90), or 4.74, which is rounded to 5 in the text to simplify the presentation. The actual confidence interval for a score equals the score plus or minus 1.96 times SEM. The actual confidence intervals, accurate to two decimal places, are (60.77, 79.23) and (50.77, 69.23); the first centered on 70 includes the target score of 75 and the second centered on 60 does not.
REFERENCES Arizona Department of Education. (2005). Arizona’s accountability systems: 2005 NCLB and AZ LEARNS. PowerPoint. Phoenix, AZ: Author. Retrieved November 5, 2005 from http://www.ade.state.az.us/azlearns/AccountabilitySystems/2005AZ%20LEARNS NCLBWorkshopPresentation.ppt Bland, K. (2005). All city high schools now meeting federal standards. The Arizona Republic, October 29, p. B4. Carnoy, M., Jacobsen, R., Mishel, L., & Rothstein, R. (2005). The charter school dust-up: Examining the evidence on enrollment and achievement. New York: Teachers College Press. Erpenbach, J. E., Forte-Fast, E., & Potts, A. (2003). Statewide educational accountability under NCLB. Washington, DC: The Council of State Chief School Officers. Retrieved November 5, 2005 from http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/StatewideEducational AccountabilityUnderNCLB.pdf Florida Department of Education (2005a). Letter to the honorable Margaret sellings. Retrieved November 5, 2005 from http://www.fldoe.org/NCLB/FactSheet-AYP.pdf Florida Department of Education (2005b). Fact sheet: NCLB and Adequate Year Progress. Retrieved November 5, 2005 from http://www.fldoe.org/NCLB/FactSheet-AYP.pdf G. & C. Merriam Company, Publishers (1969). Webster’s seventh new collegiate dictionary. Springfield, MA: Author. Jencks, C. S. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books. Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Novak, J. R., & Fuller, B. (2003). Penalizing diverse schools. Policy brief 03-04. Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education. Peterson, P. E., & Howell, W. G. (Eds) (2004). Voucher research controversy. Retrieved on October 30, 2005 from http://www.educationnext.org/20042/73.html Rickard, J. A., & Hyma, A. (1952). Ancient, medieval and modern history (12th ed.). New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc. Retrieved November 5, 2005 from http://www.pace. berkeley.edu/policy_brief_03-4_Pen.Div.pdf Rogosa, D. (2004). Rejoinder: Being fair to NCLB. Retrieved August 22, 2005 from www-stat.stanford.edu/rag/nclb/pacerejoind.pdf Rossiter, C. (1962). Conservatism in America (2nd ed.). New York: Vintage Books.
NCLB and Diversity in Schools
35
Texas Education Agency (2005a). 2005 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) guide. Austin: The Author. Retrieved November 5, 2005 from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/2005/guide.pdf Texas Education Agency (2005b). Technical digest 2003–2004. Austin: Student Assessment Division, Texas Education Agency. Retrieved November 5, 2005 from http:// www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/resources/techdig04/ The Education Trust (2004). The ABSs of ‘‘AYP’’: Raising achievement for all students. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved November 5, 2005 from http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/ rdonlyres/37B8652D-84F4-4FA1-AA8D-319EAD5A6D89/0/ABCAYP.PDF U.S. Department of Education (No date). A guide to the individualized education program. Retrieved November 6, 2005 from http://www.ed.gov/parents/needs/speced/iepguide/ index.html U.S. Department of Justice (2004). U.S. prison population approaches 1.5 million. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved November 5, 2005 from http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/ohs/Press/ 11-07-04_DC.pdf Walmsley, R. (1999). World prison population list. Research findings no. 88. Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, London. Retrieved November 5, 2005 from http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/r88.pdf Wardle, F. (1999/2000). Children of mix race – no longer invisible. Understanding Youth Culture, 57(4), 68–72. Retrieved November 5, 2005 from http://www.ascd.org/ed_topics/ el199912_wardle.html Wilms, J. C. (2004). Reading achievement in Canada and the United States: Findings from the OECD programme for international student assessment. Final report. Learning Policy Directorate, Strategic Policy and Planning, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Ottawa. Retrieved November 5, 2005 from http://www.pisa.gc.ca/sst2E.pdf Yancey, P. (2000). We hold on to our kids, we hold on tight: Tandem charters in Michigan. In: B. Fuller (Ed.), Inside charter schools (pp. 66–97). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
This page intentionally left blank
36
SCHOOL CHOICE AND EDUCATIONAL EQUITY UNDER NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND IN THE POST-BROWN ERA Frank Brown ABSTRACT America began the process of funding public education beyond the military colleges and American Indian School in 1965 with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). ESEA has evolved over the past 40 years to be called No Child Left Behind (NCLB). NCLB has had three major evaluations in which I participated in the last two evaluations by the U.S. Department of Education and each evaluation found that NCLB did not make a difference in the education lives of the students who received services from the program; but it did not harm. This chapter explored all the school choice options available to k-12 students in public and private schools; and reviewed the evaluation of these school choice options. Research reveals that for disadvantaged students, traditional public schools outperform private schools and charter schools. Voucher programs are also reviewed. This chapter concludes that educational equity is not adequately addressed by NCLB, school choice programs, charter schools or the traditional public schools.
No Child Left Behind and other Federal Programs for Urban School Districts Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 9, 37–60 Copyright r 2006 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(06)09003-2
37
38
FRANK BROWN
INTRODUCTION In America, there are 50 different state educational funding systems and within the state the amount of funding varies between each local school district based upon local support based upon local property taxes. This situation makes for inequality in access to quality by all children across states and local school districts within states. But, the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education promised equal educational opportunities within local school district by the U.S. Supreme but ended this process in 2001 with its decision in Belk v. Capacchione (2001). The Federal Government with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 attempted to equalize educational opportunities for at-risk or educational disadvantaged students with compensatory education programs through its Title I/Chapter I programs, and continues that progress under the revised ESEA statute now called No Child Left Behind (NCLB). NCLB continues the original Title I program without the fiscal equity component but added required standardized testing of Title I students by sub-groups. The tests and sub-groups are to be determined by each state for Title I students in public and nonpublic schools only, but several states test Title I and non-Title I students. It should be noted that 90 percent of all elementary and secondary school children in America attend public funded schools and 10 percent attend private schools. Further, because public schools in America are financed with local and state funds, generally, rich children attend wealthy public schools, middle-class parents send their children to moderately funded schools and the poor send their children to less well-funded schools. When I speak about privatization (Brown, 2001, 2005) of education, I address three situations. First, most public and private schools contract out for certain services such as to supply the students and faculty with food, transport children to and from school, and purchase school supplies. Second, states allow local school districts to employ private companies to manage public schools for a fee. Typically, privately managed schools are low performance ones regarding students test scores; and most are ‘‘charter’’ schools. Charter schools are public schools with special exemptions from standard state regulations. Third, privatization involves public educational vouchers for children from low-income families to attend private schools including religious schools (public grants to attend a public or private school outside of a child’s school attendance zone). The three cities with educational vouchers are Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Cleveland, Ohio, and Washington, DC (the nation’s capital controlled by the U.S. Congress). The public voucher programs are limited to one city in each state and the District of
School Choice and Educational Equity under NCLB
39
Columbia. Public vouchers have ruled unconstitutionally in the states of Colorado (Lewin, 2003) and Florida (Dillon, 2006). However, the Florida State Supreme Court held this program to be unconstitutional and will terminate it after the end of the 2006 school year (Dillion, 2006). Privatization of public schools is designed to improve education by injecting market incentives into the system (Brown, 2002a, b, 2005). In America, there are several major influences on education such as political (and ideological), economic, and educational ‘‘markets.’’ Politics ‘‘trumps’’ other markets, as it defines them and other areas of interest (Levin & Belfield, 2004). Yet, in reality, educational reform is a metaphor for political, economic, and educational agendas. However, due to the complexity and confluence of issues involved, the goals of privatization in education become muddled. Other common metaphors for privatization of education are family choice, deregulation, and democratic values. Even so, the one thing that is clear about low academic productivity in public education is that most poorly educated children are located in poorly funded schools. Most low-performing schools are located in urban communities where most students come from racial and ethnic minority households. These residents possess less economic and political power than those who live outside of these communities. Yet, many educational reformers proposing radical solutions to the problems of urban schools are traditionally the opponents, if not the enemies, of residents in these communities. This new trend is often referred to as neo-liberalism (Groff & Lavwers, 2005, pp. 40–45). They cite that in Europe the poor and minorities are underrepresented in education for nationals and non-nationals. Education in the 1930s through the 1960s was considered a public good, but by 1980 governments were under pressure to reduce spending which formed the basics for the economic ideology of neo-liberalism. This new ideology called for the removal of all forms of government interventions in economic issues and move toward all notions of competition and privatization of public services. Due to mass participation in higher education there was no longer a need for state incentives to increase participation in higher education as a public good. King, Swanson, and Sweetland (2003, pp. 5–6) state this globalization impact on education way. First, nation states have lost control of economies due to economic globalization. Second, Neo-liberalism or free market forces are in complete control in America and there is little hope that state or national government will try to bridge the gap between the haves and the have nots with higher taxes to provide greater services for the poor, including education. The new philosophy is you the individual earn private benefits from more and better education; therefore, the individual should
40
FRANK BROWN
pay for their own education. Neo-liberalism or ‘‘Freakonomics’’ as popularized by Steven D. Levitt is becoming the mainstream economics in colleges and universities nationwide (Uchitelle, 2006). School Choice The movement toward the use of educational vouchers, charter schools, and the private manage of public schools is based upon the principle of the free market; hence more competition produces better results (Levin & Belfield, 2003, 2004). The use of public vouchers to attend private schools is legal in Cleveland, Ohio, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia; and formerly in the states of Colorado and Florida. Private management of charter public schools were also approved by their respective state governments (Brown, 2005). In 31 states, school districts are allowed to experiment with charter schools, autonomously operated in public. Since Minnesota passed the first charter schools law in 1991, several states and the District of Columbia has statutes authorizing charter schools. The charter school movement has expanded from 252 schools with 58,620 students in 1995 to approximately 2,695 schools in 2003 with 684,000 students. Some charter schools are managed by community groups and some of these community controlled charter schools hire outside private venders to manage these schools. The federal government encourages charter schools with start-up funding. Federal support rose from $51 million in 1995 to $85 million in 2000. There is no evidence that charter schools educate children better than regular public schools (Buckley, Schneider, & Shang, 2004) as shown by comparing schools in the District of Columbia with 17 percent of their students enrolled in charter schools; and the charter schools in Minnesota with almost 15 years of experience has yet to demonstrate positive results when compared to traditional public schools (Levin & Belfield, 2003, 2004). The District of Columbia study also revealed that charter school students were no more difficult to educate than students in traditionally administered public schools as some had claimed, because most charter schools serve children from poor families, and often children from poor minority families. Lubienski and Lubienski (2006) provide the most recent and the comprehensive study of several choice programs – charter schools, private and public schools – and a review of previous studies on the subject. Using data on mathematics results from the 2003 National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) (Lubienski & Lubienski, 2006, p. 6) found that on average public school students lower than non-public student in the 4th neo-liberalism or ‘‘Freakonomics’’ as popularized by Steven D. Levitt are becoming
School Choice and Educational Equity under NCLB
41
the mainstream economics in colleges and universities nationwide (Uchitelle, 2006). But when they researched differences between students enrolled in public schools, charter schools, or Catholic and other private schools there were differences in academic achievement in mathematics (Lubienski & Lubienski, 2006, p. 4); public schools out-scored Catholic and Lutheran schools in 4th and 8th grades; Christian schools were the lowest performing but the fastest growing private schools; and charter schools scored lower than traditional public schools in the 4th grade but scored slightly higher in the 8th grade. The private school models and charter schools have no academic advantage over traditional public schools. The 2003 NAEP mathematics samples are much larger than previous NAEP samples: 190,147 4th graders (up from 13,855 in 2000), 153,189 8th graders (up from 15,930 in 2000); and from public and private schools (7,485 schools at the 4th grade and 6,092 schools at the 8th grade) (Lubienski & Lubienski, 2006, p. 119). Black 8th Graders scored an average of almost grade levels lower than white students within the same school with identical demographic measures which led Lubienski and Lubienski (2006, p. 39) that targeting inequalities among students could have a greater potential for closing the achievement gap than attending private schools. This study concludes that math students in traditional public schools do significantly better than comparable student in private schools when we control for demographic variables such as social class, race, and ethnicity (Lubienski & Lubienski, 2006). For example, while the raw scores of Catholic schools were higher than those in public schools but lower when controlled for demographic variables were considered. The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Education and conducted by independent investigators. Among the private, the 5,400 conservative Christian schools performed the worst and the private Lutheran schools performed the best (Schemo, 2006). The researchers used math scores and not reading scores because math was considered a better measure of schooling effectiveness on students’ academic achievement. Maybe, people support private school attendance for reasons other than academic achievement. For example, conservative Christian schools are the fastest growing private schools with the lowest academic performance in mathematics, faster than higher performing private schools. Vouchers The Cleveland, Milwaukee and the District of Columbia voucher programs are designed for low-income students and formerly in the state of Florida
42
FRANK BROWN
(Kronholz, 2002, p. A28). In Milwaukee, the state established a voucher system initially for poor inner city children, where most were African Americans, accommodates 1.5 percent of the district’s student population. The Cleveland and Ohio have a public voucher program for a small number of inner-city students which is in operation. Information from the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education (http://www.ncspe.org.) provided much of the data for this review. Vouchers allow families to make decisions regarding how public money should be spent on their children (Levin, 2001). The voucher program is expected to create an educational market where schools must compete for students. Opponents of vouchers fear that education does not respond to market forces and in the end will create greater inequalities. Cleveland Program The Cleveland program gained more attention because it was the test case for vouchers in religious that reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The Cleveland Voucher Program is one of three such programs operating across the country. The Cleveland Voucher Program began in 1995 for low-income students to attend private or suburban schools with the state paying $2,250 in tuition for each student. In 2001–2002, about 4,300 students received vouchers to attend private or religious schools. Suburban schools refused to participate and almost all of the students are enrolled in religious schools. In 2000, the Cleveland program enrolled approximately 3,000 students for a total cost of about $12 million of which $7.5 million go directly for vouchers and remainder for related costs of transportation. Most assistance went to students attending private schools or kindergarteners; only about 200 students from public schools received vouchers. The two independent for-profit schools enroll most of the students from the public schools. Most parents used the vouchers to enroll their children in religious schools. White suburban schools refuse to participate in the voucher program. There are more than 75,000 children in the Cleveland City Schools and more than 80 percent are from low-income and minority families. The Cleveland voucher/tuition aid is distributed to parents according to financial need (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 2002). Families with incomes below 200 percent of poverty are given priority and are eligible to receive 90 percent of private school tuition up to $2,250. These lowest income families, participating private schools may not charge a co-payment greater than $250 per child. But for all other families, the program pays 75 percent of tuition costs, up to $1,875, with no co-payment cap. These higher income families receive tuition vouchers only if the number of available scholarships/
School Choice and Educational Equity under NCLB
43
vouchers exceeds the number of low-income children who participate. Where voucher scholarship/tuition depends upon where parents choose to enroll their child. If parents choose a private school, checks are made payable to the parents who then endorse the checks over to the private school. For parents who choose to keep their child in public school district and seek tutorial assistance through grants must arrange for registered tutors to provide assistance to their child and submit bills for those services to the State for payment. Students from low-income families receive 90 percent of the amount charged for such services up to $360; and all other children receive 75 percent of $360. The number of tutorial grants offered in a covered district must equal the number of vouchers provided to students enrolled in participating private or adjacent public school districts. In the 1999–2000 school year, 56 private schools participated in the voucher program, 46 or 82 percent were religiously affiliated. No adjacent schools district participated. Approximately, 3,700 students participated in the program and 96 percent were enrolled in private religious schools, 60 percent were from families with incomes below the poverty line, and about 1,400 students received tutorial assistance. In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay in a 5 to 4 decision, permitting the Cleveland voucher program to continue after a Federal District Court had issued a preliminary injunction to halt the use of voucher to attend religious schools and before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit had a chance to hear the case. In 2001, the Bush administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the case (Greenhouse, 2001, pp. 7–8). In September 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments for and against the Cleveland voucher program; and in 2002 the Court (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 2002). This request occurred after President Bush lost his fight in Congress for an educational voucher program (Rothstein, 2001, p. 14). In 2000, approximately 96 percent of the students receiving public vouchers in Cleveland attended religious schools. Milwaukee Program In 1997, the Milwaukee voucher program paid up to $5,100 per student in 2000, $38 million for 4,200 students enrolled in religious schools and for 2,300 students enrolled in private non-religious schools (Nelson, Drown, Muir, & Meter, 2001, p. 176). Wisconsin State Democratic Representative Polly Williams of Milwaukee, an African American, and the early national spokesperson for vouchers recently admitted that she ‘‘knew that once they (conservative white Republicans and the right wing foundations) figured they didn’t need me as a Black cover, they would take control of vouchers
44
FRANK BROWN
and use them for their own selfish interest’’ (Peterson & Miner, 2000, p. 819). She felt that the conservatives would remove the separation of church and state, remove the income cap set at $23,000 per year level for a family of four, and the white city administration would use the voucher program to attract white people back into the city by promising that ‘‘you don’t have to go to Milwaukee schools with Black children because we have opened a way for you’’ to send your children to school with other white children (Peterson & Miner, 2000, p. 821). But as Representative Polly Williams discovered her goal of pursuing a better education for poor Black children was less important in the bigger scheme: a return to racially segregated schools. Florida Program In Florida, the state allows the use of state funds to educate children from failing public schools to private schools, and allows corporations to give money to state-approved scholarships for low-income students and get their state taxes reduced dollar-for-dollar based upon the total amount of their contributions to the program (Kronholz, 2002, p. A28). The Florida voucher program allows parents of children from low-performing schools to enroll their children in a private with a $4,500 per year voucher. However, the state will only cover the cost of educating a child in a private school for that cost and the parents must pay any additional costs for a private education. However, this policy allows parents of special education children with the money to enroll their children in selective private schools and poor parents cannot afford such costs; and private schools are not required as with public schools to monitor the progress of special education students. The Florida State Supreme Court held the state’s voucher program to be unconstitutional and will terminate the program after the end of the 2006 school year (Dillion, 2006). Federal Programs The U.S. Federal Government (Brown, 2004) is getting into the school choice movement with its financial support of charter schools, magnets schools, and the ability of school districts to use federally funded Title I money to allow students to transfer out of low-performing schools to higher performing schools. The federal government will now require a local educational agencies (LEA) to provide choice options for Title I students enrolled in low-performing schools for two consecutive years, unless forbidden by a court ordered school desegregation plan or by state statute (Paige, 2002). This requirement seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy because
School Choice and Educational Equity under NCLB
45
by definition, Title I programs are located in low-performing schools and low-income communities. The Washington, DC legislation permits Secretary of Education to launch a five-year pilot program at $14 million per year to provide annual, taxpayer-funded grants of up to $7,500 a year for 1,600 district school children to attend private and parochial schools. These ‘‘Opportunity scholarships’’ would be limited to children in families earning up to 185 percent of the poverty level – about $36,000 for a family of four with priority going to children attending low-performing public schools. The DC voucher program began with the 2005 school year (Haynes, 2005, p. 1). The voucher program reached full capacity in its second year of operation, with 1,733 students attending private schools. But 47 students who won vouchers were unable to use them because there was not enough high school space (Haynes, 2005, p. 1). About 700 vouchers went unused in the first year of operation sue to a lack of applicants given the short start-up time. The program received 1.7 applications for each available voucher the following school year (Haynes, 2005, p. 1).
SCHOOL CHOICE RESULTS AND PROMISES To understand the impact of vouchers on students and school districts we need to know: the size of the voucher in dollar terms, who qualifies for a voucher, the financing of the voucher, the rules governing private schools that accept vouchers, and how individuals and private schools react to specific voucher policies (Goldhaber, 2001, p. 48). We do know that given a choice in selecting schools for their children, most parents give the most weight to the demographics of the school’s population their child attends, which generally results in greater segregation of students by race and social class (Goldhaber, 2001, p. 51). What are the limits to the use of vouchers to educate children from lowincome families? The two states statutes with vouchers allow these vouchers to be used in private schools or in another public school district. The costs of attending many private schools are beyond what a public voucher can purchase. But what about using these vouchers to attend schools in another public school district? Vouchers have strong support from wealthy individuals and business leaders, but at the same time wealthy school districts where these wealthy individuals live are opposed to children from poor school districts attending school in their wealthy districts (Finn, 1997, p. 17). Public school districts outside of Milwaukee, Cleveland, and the District of Columbia are not required to participate in the voucher programs in these
46
FRANK BROWN
cities designed for mostly African American children from poor families by accepting students from these two cities. Wealthy public school districts do not participate in voucher programs and typically place a ‘‘bounty’’ on nonresidents who fraudulently enroll children in their schools. This situation poses a problem for voucher programs trying to enroll low-achieving students into high-achieving public schools. A Cleveland, Ohio mother went to jail for enrolling her son in a wealthy suburban school (Lewin, 1997, p. 1). Illinois makes illegal school registration in another school district a misdemeanor punishable by up to 30 days in jail, a $500 fine, and tuition reimbursement. Privatization implies that under free market conditions, maximum output and efficiency can best be accomplished by an organization if there is an opportunity to make a choice by parents and a profit by private management companies; and citizens should encourage private vendors to enter public education with the profit motive in mind to increase the productivity. There is a belief by voucher advocates that the profit motive should be an advantage whether a school is operated with private funds or with state funds via a state voucher or a performance contract with a local public school system because it increases competition; and competition in education is good. But the history of ‘‘markets’’ in education has not been positive (Richards, Rima, & Sawicky, 1996; Levin & Belfield, 2003, 2004). The Cleveland voucher program has done little to educate poor minority children. Approximately, 90 percent of the children in the Cleveland voucher program are white and attend Catholic schools, and only 10 percent are Black children from the mainly Black Cleveland School System (Zernike, 2002, p. 3). Further, there are not enough places in the private schools to accommodate all the low-performing students with a voucher program. School choice options promoted to improve education for African American children lack evidence that these options are superior to those offered by public schools (Levin & Belfield, 2004; Lubienski & Lubienski, 2006; Schemo, 2006). The promoters of school choice give the impression to Black parents that simply having the option to choose the school their children will attend, give these parents control over education of their children. The history of such programs is that there are a limited number of options because of geographical distance to some schools and the attractness of these schools for middle-class families with more political influence. Also once parents leave their children at a private schoolhouse, there is no evidence that they will have control over what happens inside the school. The country of Chile has 25 years of experience with voucher program and the
School Choice and Educational Equity under NCLB
47
results are similar to those in America with voucher programs (Gonzalez, Mizala, & Romaguera, 2005; Elacqua, Gobierno, & Ibanez, 2005). Researchers into the effectiveness and choice of parents with the Chilean experience (Gonzalez, Mizala, & Romaguera, 2004; Elacqua, Gobierno, & Ibanez, 2005) found that parents surveyed about getting their choice of a school for their children were positive but the evidence revealed that middle and wealthy parents were enrolled in higher performing schools than children from poor families. These parents may have less of a voice or influence with private schools than with public schools; and multiple private school options may not be available. It is true that parents can exercise influence by withdrawing their child from a private school but what are the options if they take this action, return to the public schools or enroll their child in a private school of less quality (assuming that their first choice was of superior quality). In the absence of more politically powerful consumers, vouchers may not purchase superior schooling for poor minority children; and an expansion of vouchers to all income groups may further segment schools by race, ethnicity, income, and ability (Sawhill & Shannon, 2000, p. 278). Educational voucher program in American focuses on the education of children from low income families. In 2002, the Cleveland program enrolled 5,147 students; Milwaukee enrolled 11,670 students; Florida enrolled statewide 9,270 students from failing schools; the Denver, Colorado voucher program was approved but facing legal challenge; and the Washington, DC program will become operational in the fall of 2005 (Levin, 2005a).
Charter Schools and Private School Management Many states have authorized local school districts to grant parents or teachers the right to operate semi-autonomous public schools known as ‘‘charter’’ schools. In these states parents may organize a charter school, if they can recruit enough students to enroll, with public funds on the same per pupil expenditure basis as other schools in the district. The parents may operate the school themselves or contract with a private company to manage the school for a fee. These private companies generally try to make a profit by reducing administrative cost. A private management company may contract directly with a local school district to manage their schools or contract to manage a charter school within the district controlled by parents. In theory, charter schools foster competition since they may accept students from within or outside a single school district. To date, most charter
48
FRANK BROWN
schools are located in urban areas and operate in poor minority neighborhoods. But getting parents in the ‘‘better’’ economic parts of the district to enroll their children in a charter school in a poor neighborhood is not proving to be successful. It will take years to systematically evaluate the academic success of charter schools. However, several state accountability systems that mandate annual testing of students in charter schools should provide better data on their effectiveness. In general, students in charter schools score below students in traditional public schools on standardized achievement tests, except for the few charter schools organized and operated by middle-class parents (Zermike, 2001). Recently, 86 charter schools have closed and some granted charters failed to open because of a lack of enough students, staff, or adequate facilities. Charter schools are likely candidates for management by private for-profit companies. In 28 states, school districts are allowed to establish charter schools. About 2,695 charter schools out of 85,000 public schools nationwide are in operation. Most are small and aimed at disadvantaged elementary and middle-school students. Federal and state support is available to aid with planning and start-up costs of charter schools. Charter schools receive state and federal categorical funds to meet the need of high-cost students such as Title I students and special literacy programs. Federal planning and implementation grants provide funding for charter schools for up to three years of operation. Many states provide transportation for children attending charter schools comparable to that for the school district or mandate that the school district provide transportation at no cost. A few states provide funds for transportation for students attending charter schools. In 2001, private companies manage more than 200 public schools that enroll approximately 100,000 students (Addonizio, 2001, p. 165). However, the number of charter schools continues to increase. This is a small portion of the 53 million public school enrollment and financial success for these private management companies is rare. The Tesseract Group, Inc. that evolved from Education Alternatives, Inc. failed to get its school management contracts renewed in Dade County, Florida, Baltimore, and Hartford, and recently sold two Arizona charter schools and business college due to mounting financial losses (Addonizio, 2001, p. 166). However, Nobel Learning Communities, Inc. of Media, Pennsylvania bought the schools and now operates 151 small, private, and public charter schools in 16 states (Addonizio, 2001, p. 166). Edison, the largest private company of public schools is in a battle with a Detroit area school district that may force it to withdraw from a school
School Choice and Educational Equity under NCLB
49
that was one of the first schools to sign with the company. The company president and founder, H. Christopher Whittle, stated that the company intends to reduce its growth figures and terminate contracts with several school districts. Edison manages 133 public schools enrolling approximately 74,000 students but has never made a profit. What can Philadelphia expect now that the Edison Corporation is set to take over their public school system? Based upon what the company is doing in Flint, Michigan’s lowincome neighbors with at-risk students at Garfield Edison Partnership School Philadelphia can expect 90 min of reading lessons each morning in which teachers follow a set curriculum called Success for All; standardized tests taken on computers each week; quick disciplinary hearing for students who misbehave in class; and soon a computer in each home (Steinberg & Henriques, 2002, p. 17). Today, Edison manages for-profit 134 schools in 22 states, including schools in Las Vegas, Boston, and Detroit, and they have lost schools in New York City and Wichita, Kansas. However, Edison results are mixed; in 2002 the company lost two-thirds of its value in the last year (Steinberg & Henriques, 2002, p. 17). In general, charter schools have not shown academic advantages over traditional public schools, but are just an advanced model of magnet schools that surfaced in the early 1970s (Lubienski & Lubienski, 2006; Schemo, 2006). A study of charter schools in the State of Michigan (Miron & Nelson, 2002, pp. 195–214) suggests that charter schools in that state are not ‘‘public’’ in the sense of control over what and how the students are taught and how the schools are administered. Charter schools in Michigan received more funds than public schools for the same number of students for producing less for more, and there appears to be less of an incentive on the part of state officials to provide meaningful oversight or to close failing charter schools (Miron & Nelson, 2002, pp. 204–208). In 1995 there were 252 charter schools with 58,620 students and in 2003 there were 2,695 charter schools nationwide with 684,000 students across 28 states (Levin, 2005b). The three states with the largest number of charter schools were Arizona, California, and North Carolina (Brown, 2003). However, most charter schools are small in size compared to traditional schools and most are elementary and middle schools. Charter schools continue an uphill battle for acceptance due to the single race membership of most charter schools and their failure to meet their stated goals; many are being closed due to financial problems; a failure to recruit enough students; and strong opposition from traditional public schools (Gootman, 2006).
50
FRANK BROWN
CHOICE AND PRIVATE MANAGE OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS Contracting with a private vendor to manage a public school generally provides parent more choices. Parents, generally, enroll their children in the same school, with the same teachers and schoolmates, regardless of who administers the school. Also, because of distance, money, peer pressure, and parental knowledge, school choice for the urban poor is more limited than for those who have the means to leave the district, enroll their children in private schools, or secure special treatment for their children in public schools (Wilgoren, 2001). This inability of inner-city parents to choose quality schools for their children is central to a discussion of school choice because they involve children from poor urban communities with a high concentration of racial minorities (Molnar, 1996; Henry, 1996).
OTHER STATE-SPONSORED PRIVATE INITIATIVES Six states provide programs that allow parents or corporations tax incentives to fund private education. Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania provide tuition tax credit to parents who enroll their children in private schools (Kronholz, 2002; Levin, 2005b). Arizona, Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota applies tax credits to all citizens in their respective states, but Florida and Pennsylvania granted tax credits only to private corporations who assisted with payment of tuition to attend private or out of district schools (Kronholz, 2002). At least two Florida corporations have given $5 million to the Florida scholarship program (Kronholz, 2002). The Florida program is capped at $50 million total and limited to $3,500 per student. In Pennsylvania, a business may provide up to $100,000 yearly to a scholarship fund or to projects that improve public schools and take as much as a $90,000 tax credit (Kronholz, 2002). The state has capped the program at $30 million per year. Arizona, Minnesota, Illinois, and Iowa offer similar programs designed for individuals to help fund public or private schools. Arizona taxpayers may take up to $650 credit of contributions to a ‘‘school-tuition organization’’ providing scholarships to children other than their own. Illinois parents get a credit for up to $500 in costs of tuition, books, and laboratory fees at private or public schools. Iowa parents get a credit of up to $250 for private school tuition, public school fees, or home schooling costs. In Minnesota households with incomes of up to $33,500 can
School Choice and Educational Equity under NCLB
51
receive up to $2,000 credits against tuition, tutoring, and other school expense. Higher income households can reduce taxable income by expenses of up to $1,625 per child. Privatization and Politics The genesis of the modern privatization movement was put in motion by the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Brown v. board of education, which declared state-supported school segregation, by race to be unconstitutional (Levin, 1999; Brown, 2005). Brown motivated school systems, first in the Southern schools and later in Northern schools, who were opposed to school desegregation experiments with school choice as opposition to the racial integration of public schools. The backlash against school integration increased after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Law, which gave the U.S. Justice Department the authority and resources to process through the federal courts compliance with Brown by offending school systems. School desegregation in the South and race riots in urban centers in the North combined to give the Republican Party a powerful weapon to attract conservative voters using the rhetoric of school ‘‘choice’’ which became known as the Southern strategy to win office (Brown, 2004). The Southern strategy worked North and South. Republican presidential candidate applied this strategy by promising parents that they would support federal tax-exempt credits for tuition to help families offset the cost of enrolling their children in segregated academies; and federal vouchers and tax tuition credits against federal income taxes to support attendance at these private academies. These federal tax credit proposals were never enacted but it started the movement to implement family choice measures such as the use of educational vouchers, charter schools, and tuition tax credits. But in 2003, Congress enacted a voucher program for the District of Columbia. Summary The privatization of public education involves the use of ‘‘market’’ incentives to improve education generally without additional financial resources. There are no for-profit schools in America but public are managed by private companies. This sounds confusing because the general public calls the private management of public schools, ‘‘privatization’’ of public schools. It merely means that private for-profit companies are allowed to manage public schools for money.
52
FRANK BROWN
School choice movement in public schools should decline because: the Federal budget deficits will slow plans to expand charter schools with startup funds and add new voucher programs; the strong preference for neighborhood schools; public school vouchers cannot constitute a viable option to public education; the profits that can be made from managing schools are not enough to entice more private companies into the field; parents of children in failing schools will increase their opposition to the private management of their children’s schools; elected public schools officials will continue to oppose the private manage of public schools; teachers’ unions will continue to oppose this process; wealthy school districts have not found a need to use private companies to manage their schools or get involved with voucher programs; and the major incentive behind the school choice movement was the opposition of white parents to court ordered school desegregation has ended, and is no longer a major factor in drafting school district boundaries by the U.S. Supreme Court (Belk v. CharlotteMecklenburg Board of Education, 2000). Those who support vouchers argue that they promote innovation and diversity, competition among students, competition among teachers, and a more flexible employment relationship. Financial access is not an issue with public education, they argue, because public schooling is available to everyone. Opponents of vouchers argue that innovation and diversity are best served by the public schools; competition for students is not fair where all parents are not equally informed or interested; and vouchers will weaken the teaching profession, destroy the public schools, and return religion to the public schools. To better understand the impact of vouchers on students and school districts and to make informed decisions about their merits and demerits, we need more information. We need to know: The size of the voucher in dollar terms; who qualifies for a voucher; how the voucher is financed; the rules governing private schools that accept vouchers; and how individuals and private schools react to specific voucher policies (Goldhaber, 2001). There are not enough private schools to accommodate a large shift of public school students to private schools, and we do not know what type of private schools will be established to meet such a demand. Neither do we know whether these private schools are more effective in attracting high-quality teachers. The desire for school choice, vouchers, or privatization should not be based solely upon benefits to students. Using vouchers or the private management of school to educate the urban poor in any form is a risky enterprise, and it is often a metaphor for other social and political goals. When
School Choice and Educational Equity under NCLB
53
the Southern strategy is complete, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices will be individuals with racially and socially conservative views and the conservatives are now in complete control. The U.S. Supreme Court has ended court ordered desegregated public education program (Belk v. Capacchione, 2001). This action should decrease the demand for vouchers and privatization of public education. A few minorities have sought the use of vouchers to ‘‘fix the system’’ with parental choice in where their children are educated are simply no match with the resources compared with the resources available to the white conservatives to push their agenda (Wilgoren, 2000). Yet, most poor parents will not have the money to have viable choices beyond the public school system. There are not likely to be major changes in improving the education for poor minority children with voucher program such as the one in Cleveland. This voucher program provides private education to mainly poor white Catholic students, and not poor Black students enrolled in the largely Black Cleveland Public School System (Zernike, 2002, p. 3). Further, there are not enough places in the private schools to accommodate all the low-performing students and suburban schools have shown no desire to participate in voucher programs, charter schools or magnet schools advanced to improve education for poor children and to increase school desegregation. It should be remembered that the Court’s decision in 1954 Brown v. Board of Education did little to desegregate the public schools because of such strong political opposition to it, and most poor Black children continue to attend segregated substandard schools (Zernike, 2002, p. 3). The first voucher program in Milwaukee was designed to give public money to educate middle class white children. However, 90 percent of the children in the Cleveland voucher program approved by the U.S. Supreme Court are white children and attend Catholic schools, and only 10 percent of the Black children in the mainly Black Cleveland School System continue to attend the public schools. Suburban schools refuse to participate in the voucher program for the same reason they opposed busing to integrate publics, they did want to open their schools up to children from the inner cities (Zernike, 2002, p. 3). If we assess privatization from an educational perspective, the experiment is just beginning and we need more data over time before we can judge its success or failure. However, if we assess its impact on improving education for inner-city children, the experiment is a failure; most continue to be poorly educated. But, if we view school choice issues from a perspective, it is enjoying temporary success. Political candidates who use this symbolism as
54
FRANK BROWN
a political strategy are always favored to win elections. Big business and suburban voters who feel that their taxes are paying for wasteful government programs, for the poor favor vouchers, and the privatization of urban schools but not for their schools. Even if Americans were not divided along racial and social class lines, politics would still play a significant role in the allocation of school resources for the simple reason that education is the largest component of local and state budgets. Second, educational resources are not evenly distributed throughout the population. Inner-city schools are generally underfunded compared to suburban schools. It is easier to get a program started for the poor and expand the program later to help the rich. Again, we will have to await the education success of the several choice options for more long-term evaluations before conclusions may be drawn. A confluence of other social and economic issues may help determine the success or failure of school choice program. On the political side, politicians who support these efforts won more votes than their opponents. Most choice programs are aimed at inner-city children. Wealthy communities have been content to watch the privatization movement with neutrality, and with the rich on the sidelines it is difficult to predict the long-term future of the movement. Polls reveal that most Americans oppose government tuition vouchers (Rose, Gallup, & Elam, 1997, pp. 41–58). This is not a new finding and politics do not always follow public opinion. Experiments with choice programs will have to produce dramatic results for inner-city children to change the direction of public opinion about vouchers, charter schools and the private management of public schools. School districts that are contracting out for instructional services must provide administrators with the training necessary to enter into agreements that will benefit children and meet the public’s demand for fiscal accountability (Richards et al., 1996; Flam & Keane, 1997). However, the Chilean experience with vouchers over 20 years reveal that when poor parents believe that they get to choose good academic schools for their children, the results reveal that they do not get the best available schools for their children (Gonzalez et al., 2004; Elacqua, Gobierno, & Ibanez, 2005). I see school choice plans and privatization of public schools coming to halt within a decade and the country will refocus on accountability measures which may lead to greater equality of funding for children enrolled in educationally disadvantaged schools. Choice and privatization plans separate school children by race and social class. But in the near future the minority population will become the majority and should bring changes in the education system. Given the winner take all format of national presidential
School Choice and Educational Equity under NCLB
55
elections in the United States, it will be difficult for a candidate to win with a Southern strategy within a few years and continue to promote choice plans that separate children by race and social classes. In general, middle-class parents want their children in schools with other middle-class students and poor parents want their children in schools with fewer poor children. Parents and their children are not the only constituents of public schools, but teachers are also major players in the school choice movement (Buss, 1999); and in general, teachers are oppose school choice options unless it is within the public school system. Experience with school choice reveals that after the first year most students get their first choice because they select the same school as their first year. Thus, market conditions only operate in making the first choice, and the mechanism of withdrawal and competition does not work with schools, because their options are limited (House, 1998, p. 103). Educational suppliers are limited to the number of children living in a specific community due to the fact that public funds are finite and limited based upon enrollment, and once parents with more information and resources make their choices, it limits the choices of other households. This is not the same market model that comes to mind when we shop for food and other household goods; and these markets conditions are not available to the urban poor where suppliers are few. Many markets do not seek consumers from among the poor, and education markets follow this trend. High-quality education suppliers have not fought to take advantage education vouchers that serve poor minority children. Public education does not respond to true market conditions. Education as a market bases its quality upon state funding, not consumer demands (assuming all parents want the best for their children) by: employing less qualified teachers, a higher student/teacher ratio, and fewer support services. If there is a hidden agenda by the rich to offer greater choices to poor parents, it may be tied to the larger economy and tax burden for their corporations; the rich will pay less for education if instructional services were contracted out to non-state employee the cost of education and subsequent tax burden may be less (King et al., 2003, pp. 6–9). If contracted teachers taught most public school classes, the state would not have to provide these teachers fringe benefits such as retirement plans, and medical plan; and these teachers would lose constitutional protection under the Bill of Rights only due to public employees. There is a theory in education, that educational reform is always a plan to redistribute power among individuals or groups (King et al., 2003, p. 7). However, this is merely a speculation about motives and we have awaited more positive results from school choice
56
FRANK BROWN
plans in America and elsewhere in the world: Belgium, Chile, Colombia, Czech Republic, Holland, New Zealand, Scotland, and Sweden (Gonzalez et al., 2004). Finally, it must remember that all choice programs are different depending upon the state and country, which make comparisons difficult based upon the several components of such programs.
CONCLUSION The school choice movement in America commenced with the 1954 school desegregation decision by the U.S. Supreme Court (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954). This school choice movement included privatization of education with the use of public funds. The school privatization movement has two components, the private management of public instructional programs and the use of public-funded vouchers/grants to attend private or religious schools. The two major political parties in America tend to agree on school choice but split on privatization of public education. Supporters of most forms of school choice programs including voucher programs claim that choice promotes competition with the use of market forces and thereby improves the efficiency and effectiveness of education for all children. Opponents of voucher programs and privatization of instruction claim that education does not lend itself to market forces like those in industry because education is compulsory and serves a more diverse population. Opponents also claim that privatization is a political ploy to keep inequities of financial resources between children of the wealthy and children of the poor. Supporters of privatization are generally wealthy citizens who live in wealthy public school district with less diverse student populations where choice is not sought and these students cannot qualify for public vouchers as now in operation. Financially, major corporations seek tax breaks from local, state, and the federal governments to reduce the cost of doing business in order to compete with international competition under the globalization of national economies. Research on privatization, vouchers, and other forms of school choice programs are about a decade away (Dillon, 2005), but the political of privatization will continue. The Republicans support all forms of privatization of public education, the private management of public schools and voucher programs with grants for students to attend private schools at public expense. The Democrats support choice within the public school system with programs such as charter schools and specialized public schools that focus on a specific academic program.
School Choice and Educational Equity under NCLB
57
Research on privatization, vouchers, and other forms of school choice programs continues (Dillon, 2005). But a recent study concludes that math students in traditional public schools do significantly better than comparable student in private schools when we control for demographic variables such as social class, race, and ethnicity (Lubienski & Lubienski, 2006; Schemo, 2006). For example, while the raw scores of Catholic schools were higher than those in public schools but lower when controlled for demographic variables were considered. The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Education and conducted by independent investigators. Among the private, the 5,400 conservative Christian schools performed the worst and the private Lutheran schools performed the best (Schemo, 2006). The researchers used math scores and not reading scores because math was considered a better measure of schooling effectiveness on students’ academic achievement. The U.S. Government reported that the income gap between the corporate elites and the poor widened to its largest gap in history. President Bush stated that the gap was due to differences in education and he has plans to close the income gap through better education (Johnston, 2006, p. A21). Will the federal NCLB program help solve this problem for the President. NCLB accountability standards apply only to state nominated Title I school; and non-Title I schools are not required to participate in the accountability process under NCLB. For example, the Texas identified less than 197 schools as Title I schools, while Virginia labeled almost 480 schools as Title I schools. Texas applies NCLB to only 197 schools but Virginia includes all of its public schools under NCLB. Each state is also allowed to construct its own assessment tests and determine the kind and number of sub-groups. The ability of each state to determine the number of Title I schools covered under NCLB; determine the number of sub-groups for comparisons; establish their own assessment instruments and make it almost impossible to make national comparisons between states; and therefore, national standards are impossible under these rules, established and allowed by NCLB. NCLB requires that low-performing school should be provided technical assistance based upon scientific-based research principles, and most states provide technical assistance to low-performing schools. It seem fair and logical to conclude that NCLD is not a replacement for Brown in reducing the achievement gap and the rules that allow each state to set its own standards and determine what sub-groups will be involved that makes it unlikely that national standards will evolve from NCLB. Finally, given the nature of the educational process, it would take decades to see the final product from a better-funded educational system. Globalization of world
58
FRANK BROWN
economies will impact both lower education and higher education. President Bush’s tax cuts are squeezing state revenues in tuition rates and interest rates on student loans will increase while Pell Grant funds and federal student aid programs are rolled back (Byrd, 2004, p. 264).
REFERENCES Addonizio, M. F. (2001). New revenues for public schools: Blurring the line between public and private finance. In: S. Chaikind & W. J. Fowler, Jr. (Eds), Education finance in the new millennium (pp. 159–171). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Belk v. Capacchione (2001). U.S. court of appeals for the fourth circuit, 269 F.3d 305, September 21. Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (2000). 233 F.3d 232 (4th Cir.). Brown v. Board of Education (1954). 347 U.S. 483. Brown, F. (2001). Privatization of public education: The past, present and future. In: C. Russo (Ed.), School reform. Reston, VA: Association of School Business Officials International. Brown, F. (2002a). Privatization of public elementary and secondary education in the United States of America. Education and The Law, 14(1–2), 99–116. Brown, F. (2002b). Nixon’s ‘‘Southern Strategy’’ and forces against Brown (Summer 2004). Journal of Negro Education, 73(3), 191–208. Brown, F. (2003). The voucher movement after Brown: The end or the beginning? School Business Affairs, 69(1), 4–8. Brown, F. (2004). Nixon’s ‘‘Southern strategy’’ and forces against Brown. Journal of Negro Education, 73(3), 191–208. Brown, F. (2005). Privatization of elementary and secondary education in America. In: C. J. Russo, J. Beckmann & J. D. Jansen (Eds), Equal educational opportunities: Brown v. Board of Education at 50 and democratic South Africa at 10 (pp. 164–180). Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik Publications. Buckley, J., Schneider, M., & Shang, Y. (2004). Are charter school students harder to educate? Evidence from Washington, DC: National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, http://ncspe.org/kpublications-files/OP96 Buss, W. G. (1999). Race and school choice. In: S. D. Sugarman & F. R. Kemerer (Eds), School choice and social controversy: Politics, policy, and law (pp. 300–331). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Byrd, R. C. (2004). Losing America: Confronting a reckless and arrogant presidency. New York: W. W. Norton. Dillon, S. (2005). For parents seeking a choice, charter schools prove more popular than vouchers. The New York Times, July 13, p. A23. Dillon, S. (2006). Florida supreme court blocks school vouchers. The New York Times, January 6, p. A14. Elacqua, G., Escuela de Gobiero, & Universidad Adolfo Ibanez (2005). School choice in Chile: An analysis of parental preferences and search behavior. National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, May, http:// www.ncspe.org/publications_files/OP97_update.pdf
School Choice and Educational Equity under NCLB
59
Finn, C. E., Jr. (1997). Cheating the child to save the ‘system’. The New York Times, May 17, p. 17. Flam, S., & Keane, W. G. (1997). Public schools/private enterprise: What you should know and do about privatization. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publications. Goldhaber, D. (2001). The interface between public and private schooling: Market pressure and the impact on performance. In: D. H. Monk, H. J. Walberg & M. C. Wang (Eds), Improving educational productivity (pp. 47–76). Greenwick, CT: Information Age Publishing. Gonzalez, P., Mizala, L., & Romaguera, P. (2004). Vouchers, inequalities and the Chilean experience. National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, http://www.ncspe.org/publications_files/voucher_chileOP94.pdf Gootman, E. (2006). Fight looming as New York weighs adding charter schools. The New York Times, January 9, p. 21. Greenhouse, L. (2001). White house asks justice for a ruling on vouchers. The New York Times, July 8, p. 7–8. Groff, J. de, & Lavwers, G. (2005). Increasing access to education throughout European society. In: C. J. Russo, J. Beckmann & J. D. Jansen (Eds), Equal educational opportunities: Brown v. Board of Education at 50 and democratic South Africa at 10 (pp. 35–54). Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik Publications. Haynes, V. D. (2005). Senator drops plan to allow use of D.C. vouchers in Va., Md. schools. The Washington Post, July 15, p. B5. Henry, T. (1996). Are school vouchers worthwhile? USA Today, p. 1D. House, E. R. (1998). Schools for sale: Why free market policies won’t improve America’s schools, and what will. New York: Teachers College. Johnston, D. C. (2006). Corporate wealth share rises for top-income Americans. The New York Times, January 29, p. A21. King, R., Swanson, A., & Sweetland, S. R. (2003). School finance: Achieving high standards with equality and efficiency (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Kronholz, J. (2002). High court’s ruling will fuel fight over school vouchers: Judgment on Cleveland’s taxpayer plan will subject Florida’s program to more scrutiny. The Wall Street Journal, (February 19), A28. Levin, B. (1999). Race and school choice. In: S. D. Sugarman & F. R. Kemerer (Eds), School choice and social controversy: Politics, policy, and law (pp. 266–299). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Levin, H. M. (2001). A comprehensive framework for evaluating educational vouchers. National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, http://ncspe.org/publications-files/OP05 Levin H. M. (2005a). Where can I find out more about publicly funded vouchers. National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, March 4, http://www.ncspe.org/inforead.php?mysub=6 Levin, H. M. (2005b). Where can I find out more about charter schools. National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, March 15, http://www.ncspe.org/inforead.php?mysub=2 Levin, H. M., & Belfield, C. R. (2003). The marketplace in education. Occasional Paper no. 86. National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, December, http://www.ncspe.org Levin, H. M., & Belfield, C. R. (2004). Vouchers and public policy: When ideology trumps evidence. National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, June, http://ncspe.org/publications-files/OP95
60
FRANK BROWN
Lewin, T. (1997). Schools get tough on illegal students from other places. The New York Times, April 20, p. 1A. Lewin, T. (2003). Colorado’s new voucher law struck down in state court. The New York Times, December 4, p. 1A. Lubienski, C., & Lubienski, S. T. (2006), Charter, private, public schools and academic achievement: New evidence from NAEP mathematics data. National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University. Miron, G., & Nelson, C. (2002). What’s public about charter schools? Lessons learned about choice and accountability (pp. 195–214). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Molnar, A. (1996). Giving kids the business: The commercialization of America’s schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Nelson, F. H., Drown, R., Muir, E., & Meter, N. V. (2001). Public money and privatization in K-12 education. In: S. Chaikind & J. F. William, Jr. (Eds), Education finance in the new millennium (pp. 173–192). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Paige, R. (2002). Dear colleague letter to education officials regarding implementation of No Child Left Behind and guidance on public school choice. U.S. Secretary of Education, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, Unpublished Press Release. Peterson, B., & Miner, B. (2000). Vouchers, the right and the race card. In: J. Birnbaum & C. Taylor (Eds), Civil rights since1787: A reader on The Black Struggle (pp. 819–822). New York: New York University Press. Richards, C. E., Rima, S., & Sawicky, M. B. (1996). Risky business: Private management of public schools. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Rose, L., Gallup, A. M., & Elam, S. M. (1997). The 29th annual Phi Delta Kappa/gallup poll of the public’s attitude toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 29, 41–58. Rothstein, R. (2001). Lessons: Vouchers dead, alternatives week. The New York Times, June 20, pp. A6, A20. Sawhill, I. V., & Shannon, L. S. (2000). Vouchers for elementary and secondary education. In: C. E. Steuerle, G. P. Van Doorn Ooms & D. R. Reischauer (Eds), Vouchers and the provision of public services (pp. 251–291). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Schemo, D. J. (2006). Public-school students score well in math in large scale government study. The New York Times, January 28, p. A10. Steinberg, J., & Henriques, D. (2002). Edison schools gets reprieve: $40 million in financing. The Wall Street Journal, (June 5), C1, C7. Uchitelle, L. ( 2006). Students are leaving the politics out of economics. The New York Times, January 27, p. C3. Wilgoren, J. (2000). Young blacks turn to school vouchers as civil rights issue. The New York Times, October 9, p. 9. Wilgoren, J. (2001). Chicago uses preschool to lure middle class. New York Times, June 15, pp. A1, A20. Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002). No. 001751 U.S. Supreme Court, June 27. Zermike, K. (2001). Charting the charter schools. New York Times, March 25, p. 3. Zernike, K. (2002). Vouchers: A shift, but just how big? The New York Times, June 30, p. 3.
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: THE BALM OF GILEAD HAS ARRIVED IN AMERICAN EDUCATION$ Philip T. K. Daniel ABSTRACT This chapter addresses the accountability standards expressed in the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the legislative history of this federal statute on education. The author states that the Act recognized that many students are ‘‘left behind’’ and some ‘‘way behind’’ and analyses how this Act will reduce the academic deficit for those students left behind? This review makes it clear that the fiscal equity movement never got off the ground or close to becoming a major part to the legislation. Legal challenges to NCLB is extensively reviewed which raises the question as the amount of support for this legislation. The chapter closes with the note that NCLB is an under-funded mandate placing the fiscal responsibility on the budget-strapped states.
$
The Balm of Gilead has been taken from Jeremiah 8:22 (King James).
No Child Left Behind and other Federal Programs for Urban School Districts Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 9, 61–89 Copyright r 2006 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(06)09004-4
61
62
PHILIP T.K. DANIEL
INTRODUCTION The byword today in American education is ‘‘accountability,’’ expressed as an obligation imposed by law or regulation primarily concerned with a system of standardized testing, a demonstration of achievement through testing, and documentation of both by local school districts through annual reporting to their respective state offices of education and to the United States federal government. This national movement to reform education was brought into sharp focus at the dawn of the 21st century in a speech by President George W. Bush: Our reforms insist on high standards because we know every child can learn. Our reforms call for testing because the worst discrimination is to ignore a school’s failure to teach every child (Bush, 2004).
President Bush reiterated concerns that the nation’s system of state-run public schools presented an overall substandard form of education for all students, but especially those representing protected populations. Borrowing from a slogan of the Children’s Defense Fund (Children’s Defense Fund, 2005),1 he introduced legislation entitled the No Child Left Behind Act (hereinafter, NCLB), a federal spending statute authorizing and combining under one rubric those funds to be allocated for K-12 education programs (NCBL, 2002). This represents a foray into education never before experienced with a policy shift of influence over educational policy tilted toward the national government and somewhat away from the states (Bush, 2002). The Act encompasses a mandate for the improved achievement of all students with the ultimate goal of reaching 100% proficiency in academiccontent standards and achievement standards for the entire K-12 population by the year 2014. The target of the legislation is made up of students who traditionally have not done well within the education enterprise. Indeed, a major goal of this reform movement is to close the achievement gap between high- and low-achieving students including students of color and students with special needs (Improving America’s Schools Act, 1994).2 While the movement to reform education, particularly for those students who over the years have been clearly ‘‘left behind,’’ the effort has been roundly criticized and the legislation and the results of the legislation has left much to be desired. In addition to the concern brought by states relative to a lack of federal funding, critics have raised major questions about the usurpation of state hegemony over education and the authority to construct educational policy. There are also questions about the efficacy of federal government practice whereby ‘‘some states are permitted to change how
The Balm of Gilead Has Arrived in American Education
63
they evaluate [school] district performance for accountability purposes’’ (Tracey, Sunderman, & Orfield, 2005), y some school districts strongly encourage students to drop out of school (Mathis, 2003; Reardon & Galindo, 2002), and some school officials under-report the results of assessments for the targeted subgroups (Dallas Morning News, 2002, 2004). Educational researchers have also questioned the utility of high-stakes tests with the admonition that such an approach to assessment places disadvantaged students in further academic jeopardy. Although not a part of the current study some educators have questioned the impact of NCLB on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, legislation originally designed to foster the academic improvement of students with disabilities (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004).3 The debates surrounding the effect and supposed benefits of the law on the students meant to protect are important; they suggest either a turning back of the clock to pre-reform or a continuation of discrimination against the educationally disadvantaged. The legislation was designed so as to render to all students a boost in the race toward total academic achievement. Instead, many denounce the Act as placing disadvantaged students further behind, ‘‘way behind’’ (Herbert, 2005). In any case, these are concerns that must be reported to governmental officials, educators, and the parents and attorneys who have the responsibility of representing the best interests of such children.
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: AN OVERVIEW The basic tenet of NCLB is that ‘‘all students have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments’’ (NCBL, 2002). This represents an attempt, at one and the same time, to allow states to continue to maintain the responsibility of education, but to also nationalize education standards such that each state must develop and consistently apply a statewide accountability system for monitoring student progress. Congress received reports declaring the mediocrity of American education even so far as to say that it lagged behind some third world countries (Bush, 2002); as a reaction to these critical comments legislation was enacted for the purpose of high achievement buttressed by the lawmakers’ constitutional authority to support the ‘‘general welfare’’ (South Dakota v. Dole, 1987, p. 207).4 Within the core of NCLB Congress and the Bush administration created a number of measures designed to drive broad gains in student achievement
64
PHILIP T.K. DANIEL
and to hold states, school districts, schools and school personnel accountable for student progress. States must establish ‘‘challenging academic content standards’’ and ‘‘student achievement standards’’ for an adequate education for all students (NCBL, 2002). For example, beginning in the 2002–2003 academic year, states had to furnish annual report cards showing a range of information, including student achievement for students and for targeted ethnic and socioeconomic populations; this report card responsibility also had to be demonstrated through school-by-school data (NCBL, 2002). Furthermore, by the year 2005–2006, states were compelled to begin testing students in grades 3–12 against statewide standards in literacy, mathematics, and science (NCBL, 2002). The tests must be aligned with state academic standards and a sample of 4th and 8th graders in each state must participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress testing program in reading and math to form year-to-year comparisons of achievement (NCLBa, 2002, sec. 6311(c)(1)). The state tests must be aligned with Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) principles, a formula prescribed by the federal government whereby state officials set numerical targets for certain academic subjects to be taken by students all the way to the 12th grade (Elementary and Secondary Education Act Q&A, 2005). With the national NCLB mandate, states must bring all students up to the proficient level on state tests. Individual schools must meet state adequate yearly progress targets toward the proficiency level goal for both the student population as a whole and certain demographic populations (NCLBa, 2002, sec. 6311(H)). The testing method must be supported by scientific research for states to receive federal funding and all tests must conform to the following standards: (1) all students, no matter what demographic group they represent must take the same tests; (2) the tests must be aligned with the state’s identified academic content and academic achievement standards; (3) the tests may only be used for the purposes they were purported to measure following evaluations based on reliability and validity; (4) for each test the state must certify adequate technical quality; and (5) the state must ensure that it includes contemporary assessment of the tests for higher-order thinking skills and cognitive understanding in students (NCLBa, 2002, sec. 6311(b)(3)(C)(iv)). In order to reach AYP at least 95% of every student group, including subgroups, must annually take the tests and if any one group is unsuccessful all groups are deemed to have failed for that year (NCBLa, 2002, sec. 6311(b)(2)(i)). Each year, local school districts are compelled to use the results of the annual statewide-standardized tests to review the progress of its schools, and its students. These results must be widely disseminated to school personnel, parents, the community, state
The Balm of Gilead Has Arrived in American Education
65
education officials, and, ultimately, the United States Department of Education. Of importance to note is that failures in any of the above may cause the loss of federal funds; moreover, these dollars may go to parents in order to make other educational choices for their children, including charter and private schools, but, specifically, student options are expanded in that those who do not improve their scores within two years may transfer to another school within the district (NCLBa, 2002, sec. 6311(b)(3)(C)(ix)). If improvement does not occur in three years, students, especially low-income students, may use the federal funds going to the school district to purchase supplementary educational services from educational providers of the public or private sector (NCLBa, 2002, sec. 6311(b)(2)(H)). Continued failures could cause corrective action against offending schools, including the demotion or termination of school personnel (accountability) or the ‘‘reconstitution’’ of schools where whole staffs may be relocated (NCLBa, 2002, sec 6311(a)(1)). Failure of achievement may result in imposition of accreditation sanctions, including the closing of schools, the de-licensure of teachers and administrators, and the termination of teachers and administrators (Texas v. United States, 1998). Moreover, schools whose students fail to meet appropriate achievement standards may be taken over by private management companies (NCLBa, 2002, sec. 6311(b)(2)(A)(i)).
INITIAL SUPPORT FOR THE LEGISLATION The legislation was met with much support around the country. The new law was viewed as a comprehensive overhaul of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Elementary and Secondary School Act, 1965). NOTE emphasizing high standards and accountability of results. Bipartisan support occurred in both houses of Congress: the House passed the legislation by a vote of 381-41; the Senate agreed to a conference report and voted overwhelmingly 87-10 (Congress Votes on NCLBa, 2002). Congress readily agreed that closing the achievement gap between high-performing students and low-achieving students was important for the general welfare of students and of the nation. A majority of the nation’s governors endorsed the goals of the reauthorization ‘‘attributed to four factors: consistency of purpose with state-level education reform initiatives, the use of NCLB by governors to leverage change within the educational system, the relative newness and lack of public awareness of the law itself, and fears of retribution from federal officials’’(Fusarelli, 2005). The law would actually
66
PHILIP T.K. DANIEL
address and target results for ‘‘at risk students’’ or those who are economically disadvantaged, migratory, disabled, or with limited English proficiency; in other words, students who were originally profiled through Title I funds to receive a broader and more meaningful education. National organizations supporting the rights and education of low-achieving students also supported the reauthorization. The Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE), a not-for-profit corporation of parent and community groups, applauded NCLB calling its passage a significant development which is enormously helpful in causing states to foster a rigorous, achievement-based education for all students (Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York, 2003). Attorneys for CFE successfully argued in a finance equity case against the New York State Board of Education that the NCLB language ‘‘meant states were responsible y specifically for y the achievement of economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency’’ (Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York, 2003, p. 337). Moreover, the group was able to obtain judicial agreement that, because of NCLB, ‘‘any extra services these subgroups required became an inherent part of the curriculum intended to impart minimal competency’’ (Redalevige, 2005). The National Urban League, the second largest civil rights organization in the country, called the legislation ‘‘landmark’’ congratulating the Bush administration for its attempt to promote excellent schools for all students (National Urban League, 2004).5 Researchers for the Civil Rights Project heralded the NCLB Act as an important new step toward fulfilling the principle of race-conscious academic accountability (Losen, 2004). Title I of NCLB provides the largest single source of federal education funding targeted to help the states meet the needs of low-income students (NCLB, 2002, sec. 6302(a)(1)–(6)). In passing NCLB, a bipartisan Congress included language in the revised statute targeting race comparison achievement data. The Act’s Statement of Purpose includes ‘‘[c]losing the achievement gap between high and lowperforming children, especially the achievement gaps between minority and nonminority students, and between disadvantaged and their more advantaged peers y’’ (NCLB, 2002, sec. 6301(3)) According to these supporters, the Act should be endorsed because of its ‘‘accountability provisions [that are] intended to y ensure racially equitable outcomes at a basic level of educational achievement’’ (Losen, 2004, p. 258). Those organizations supporting the needs of special education students have also praised the legislation. The Disability Rights and Education Defense Fund stated that the Act ‘‘bolster[ed] the right of special needs children to participate y and
The Balm of Gilead Has Arrived in American Education
67
make progress under a standardized curriculum y It put[s] an end to the processing and hoop jumping that students y endure y to improve their chances of getting the support they need’’ (Rosenbaum, 2004). Student disability rights organizations support the notion that the law has an even stronger incentive than some disability statutes to align the education of special needs students with a state’s general education content (Southern Disability Law Center, 2004). This means that such students would be more integrated in regular classrooms beyond just social opportunities. Most of these students would be expected to reach the same level of proficiency as their non-disabled peers. No question this amendment to ESEA was viewed as significant and representing a noteworthy cause. Hence, few would disagree with the intent of this statute, i.e., to help educators and parents to reconcile educational approaches with the needs of all students, particularly those with low-achievement scores, so as to substantially improve the chances of academic success.
CRITICISM FROM MANY SOURCES Concerns of State Governments and Educator Organizations What was initially praise on the part of state governments quickly became a cacophony of denunciation. The governors of many states registered concern that NCLB might upset the balance of power within state government – ‘‘elevating the state education agency while decreasing the power and influence of governors, state legislators, and local school boards’’ (Fusarelli, 2005, p. 121). In the year 2004, state legislatures in 20 states passed resolutions critical of the statute (MacPherson, 2004). Officials with the Education Commission of the States wrote that NCLB will bring an unprecedented level of federal involvement into education and ‘‘shift the locus of educational decision making from local and state officials to the federal government’’ (MacPherson, 2004). According to some researchers, ‘‘by bestowing money and authority directly to the state education agencies, it leaves legislatures with a much less influential role in setting state education agendas’’ (Michelau & Shreve, 2002). An official with the National Governors Association said many governors were concerned about possible usurpation of their leadership and power to shape education policy under the legislation (Fusarelli, 2005, pp. 121–122). Additional criticism from state government was that NCLB was a usurpation of power for states that are trying but, for a variety of reasons, have
68
PHILIP T.K. DANIEL
not succeeded in moving education in their geographical boundaries toward positive student achievement. The law provides the withholding of federal funds from states that have not fulfilled requirements for a successful student achievement program. But, according to state officials, while states are compelled to report performance and progress, there is little detail in the legislation for federal monitoring or oversight of the state process. States were given flexibility to determine their standards and requirements for proficiency, subject to minimal review. States must create programs and report the status of tests and the outcomes of such testing to the United States Department of Education. This is submission data, self-selected by school authorities, which results from the mandate of creating a ‘‘state y accountability system y effective in ensuring that [school districts and their schools] make adequate yearly progress y’’ (NCLBa, 2002, sec. 6311(b)(2)(B)). The National Secretary of Education has the discretion to sanction a state for not reporting appropriately as regards students, especially members of targeted populations. While the data is voluminous, timeconsuming, and costly to produce, there is no real national government determination as to whether the information is accurate. The enforcement mechanism is only triggered when a state fails to submit the data, or the data demonstrates, based on state selected standards, that students, especially the subgroups, have not met AYP. States and municipalities have complained bitterly about this process. The claim is that all of this information is to be collected with no oversight or direction from the governmental entity demanding the activity. A number of states have criticized the law since they could find themselves without federal funds if they test less than 100% of the targeted populations of students in a year (Christian Science Monitor, 2004). Some states are critical because of what they perceive as national intrusion into a state-based responsibility (Christian Science Monitor, 2004). The criticism most heard, however, is that state government is responsible for funding this program (Christian Science Monitor, 2004). Indiana, for example, has had to increase funding per pupil by over 31% to accommodate the NCLB Act (Mathis, 2003). The additional funds do not reflect support of disabled students. Nebraska has estimated a 45% increase in state funds to educate students, without accounting for the cost escalation for at-risk and special needs students (Mathis, 2003). New York estimates a total increase of 16% for extra remedial costs under the Act (Mathis, 2003). No state has put forth concerns greater than Ohio. Ohio created a plan to achieve a level of 75% proficiency under its pre-NCLB state standards. The state had been praised by the United States Department of Education as one of six states to have in place
The Balm of Gilead Has Arrived in American Education
69
a proficiency exam at the time of the federal legislation. With NCLB the achievement levels had to be raised dramatically, including those for disadvantaged students and students with disabilities. A recent state study concluded ‘‘[that NCLB] would cost the state $1.5 billion a year to achieve 100% proficiency (a theoretical goal most educators see as impossible)[;][s]tates worry that, amid their own tight budgets, they’ll pay for tutoring, transferring, and other mandates’’(Mathis, 2003). In fact, NCLB retained the formula based on the education of only Title 1 students. Such students were the targets of the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1964, emanating from the Johnson administration’s war on poverty. Title 1 schools are defined as those whose students are largely low-income or otherwise disadvantaged. The federal performance standards of NCLB, however, apply to all students. The enormity of state or local funding to cover the shortfall in dollars has caused school districts in some states to refuse federal funds, and for good reasons (Christian Science Monitor, 2004). Congress, despite political protestations, has reduced appropriations since the program was instituted in 2002 (Christian Science Monitor, 2004). As of the writing of this article the current administration has proposed a reduction of overall funding of education by $529 million for fiscal year 2006 (National Education Association, 2005a, b, c). The House of Representatives approved a version in June, 2005 with a $802 million cut in spending for NCLB (National Education Association, 2005a). The Senate is discussing a slight increase in overall education funding, but is promoting a decrease in NCLB by $750 million (National Education Association, 2005a). These circumstances would clearly exacerbate differences in achievement between advantaged and disadvantaged students since reduced resources could undermine the Act’s comprehensive accountability requirements. The low level of funding also generated adverse comments from legislators who claimed that NCLB represented an unconstitutional unfunded mandate. George Miller (D-CA) and ranking member on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, has complained that the Act shortchanged students by over $40 billion between its inception in 2002 and the year before reauthorization, 2006 (Miller, 2005a). The National Education Association contends that $42 billion is needed per year just to keep pace with the law (National Education Association, 2005b). The National Conference of State Legislatures asserts that, ‘‘new costs to give all students adequate standard-based opportunities to achieve proficiency could add up to $139 billion per year’’ (Miller, 2005b). From these complaints legal action in some states has ensued. The National Education Association, in coalition
70
PHILIP T.K. DANIEL
with school districts in the states of Michigan, Texas, and Vermont and professional education associations in Washington, DC, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Ohio declared that state and local funds had been diverted to meet NCLB mandates and that even the authorized level of Title I funding fell well short of NCLB’s demands. The suit requested the recovery of costs for the revision of curriculum standards, test development and administration, and calculation of AYP (National Education Association, 2005c). The State of Connecticut sued the federal government in August, 2005 alleging the ‘‘No Child Left Behind law falls far short of what is needed to meet the law’s testing and accountability requirements y [and contends] the failure to fully fund the law violates a provision of y the education statute itself y’’ (Education Week, 2005) In other words, the suit rests largely on the so-called unfunded mandates provision in the law which states, ‘‘Nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the federal government to y mandate a state or a subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this act’’ (NCLB, sec. 9527(a)). Criticism Notwithstanding: The General Welfare Clause and Sufficient Protection The NCLB Act brought an unprecedented increase of federal hegemony over public education by tying the national purse strings to demonstrated student achievement levels and the imposition of sanctions against school districts that were unsuccessful in meeting state-imposed standards. Despite their condemnation of the federal expanded venture into education, it is unlikely that the suits from education associations, with the backing of state government, or brought on behalf of the states themselves, will prevail in a legal battle to overturn NCLB. States, through the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution are viewed as the governmental entities ultimately responsible for public education (United States Constitution, Amendment 10).6 Moreover, two United States Supreme Court decisions examining education issues on other grounds have placed the ultimate responsibility for pedagogical issues squarely within the purview of state government (Brown v. Board of Education(a), 1954; San Antonio v. Rodriguez, 1973). The NCLB Act and no other federal statute may regulate the structure of the educational enterprise, but it can command state attention by attaching conditions to the funds it makes available through its power to protect the general welfare of the populace (United States Constitution, Artilcle 1, sec. 8, clause 1). The Supreme Court decision in
The Balm of Gilead Has Arrived in American Education
71
South Dakota v. Dole (1987) provides sufficient legal protection of the federal government as it exercises its power under Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. In Dole, Congress determined that federal highway money would be conditioned upon states establishing a minimum drinking age of at least 21 (South Dakota v. Dole, p. 207). The Court ruled that highway safety was reasonably related to the imposed condition for federal funding, i.e., the creation of a national minimum drinking age. The Court found that a uniform age supported the Congress in its protection of the general welfare by discouraging young people from crossing state lines to purchase alcohol. At the same time, this had the potential of reducing interstate traffic fatalities. This analysis would have equal applicability to NCLB. The statute has as it most important premise the desire that ‘‘all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments’’ (NCLBa, sec. 6301). Such a statement highly suggests that the federal government is providing for the general welfare in that the funding legislation emphasizes for the nation the importance of education to ‘‘awaken in [students] y good citizenship y cultural values, prepar[ation] for y professional training, and adjust[ment] to [the] environment’’ (Brown v. Board of Education(a), p. 493). High-Stakes Testing High-stakes testing, or what was originally referred to as competency-based testing, had its impetus in the educational accountability movement from the 1970s. The premise for employing such evaluation tools is based on demands of public accountability growing out of studies that public schools had low academic standards, thus producing students with low-level skills (National Commission, 1983; Commander, 1980). Reports of functional illiteracy fueled the fervor for proficiency testing and high-level exit exams before graduation. The result was the promotion of polices conditioning grade promotion and high school diploma acquisition to a level of knowledge or skill in certain basic courses such as reading, math, and science. A number of states promulgated accountability statutes designed to hold school districts more responsible for demonstrating measurable educational objectives and assuring the public that high school graduates were at least minimally competent (Reardon & Galindo, 2002). The NCLB Act absorbed this competency approach combined with the desire to reduce the wide disparities in student achievement. This common set of standards is promulgated so as to eliminate the ‘tracking’ of low-performing students into less
72
PHILIP T.K. DANIEL
challenging and presumably less-relevant curriculum and thus close the achievement gap between groups of students (McLaughlin, Emblem, & Nagle, 2004). There are no nationally prescribed instruments for pupil assessment; instead, each state is responsible for constructing an accountability system, attaching consequences – or stakes – for student performance (McNeil, 2005).7 The state must conduct annual testing assessments to ascertain student progress including student participation rate. In other words, the federal government through NCLB did not preempt the states’ power over education or over testing to demonstrate achievement. Instead, it associated federal funding with the accomplishment of measurable results capitalizing on the fact that many states administered high-stakes tests to use in decisions about promotion, school funding, and graduation. The NCLB Act simply based its educational reform on the assessment component of what many states were already engaged in, i.e., achievement tests; the Bush administration went further in requiring all states to engage in such evaluation with annual reporting to the United States Department of Education. In that capacity, every school district is required to accomplish 95% student participation taking the tests, including those of all subgroups. States are to report rate of success with students progressing from year to year. The ultimate goal is for students to reach 100% proficiency by the 2013–2014 school year. Hence, in this system of academic performance, the federal purse is the carrot and the pressure, using sanctions, of measurable student performance through high-stakes testing, is the stick. The argument on the part of supporters of high-stakes testing is that when faced with federal fiscal incentives and sanctions for poor performance educators will expend more time and energy into exhorting students to work harder and smarter. High-Stakes Criticism Opponents of high-stakes argue, however, that there is nobody of evidence that such an approach through standardized tests improves student proficiency. Many students who take the tests and demonstrate gain in one year show regression the next. Moreover, there is disagreement as to whether the standardized assessment approach adequately measures education quality or student achievement. A study on the high-stakes testing system in Texas has claimed that such an approach to public education causes students, particularly students of color, to fall behind their white counterparts. This form of education is negatively impacting educational quality and, as a result, many
The Balm of Gilead Has Arrived in American Education
73
African-American and Hispanic students are leaving school early (McNeil, p. 57). The study relates that all aspects of education including teaching, classroom facilities, subjects taught, teacher training, and even library collections become secondary to instruction toward taking standardized tests (McNeil, p. 59). As such schoolteachers and school administrators are held accountable for producing passing scores on the state-based exams. Compliance is the regulatory scheme with administrator contracts and teacher tenure tied to the annually reported scores. Under these circumstances, learning is translated only to a centrally controlled bureaucratic system and test scores have little to do with academic subject matter. Moreover, there is no correlation of the testing with retention of knowledge from year to year and even less reciprocation with future education in other grades or even to graduation (McNeil, p. 61). Texas students, according to the study, needed remediation in substantial numbers in many subjects before graduation. Specifically, 60% of students found themselves ill-prepared for college and since the start of the high-stakes testing approach to education in that state students passing the tests for college readiness went steadily down to where less than 30% passed all sections for college recommendation. The report warned that the Texas system of testing ‘‘provides a cautionary tale’’ to other states finding that a high-stakes system of educational evaluation ‘‘reduces quality, produces unnecessary failures, and fakes its claims to more equitable schooling’’ (McNeil, p. 58). Quoting a similar study in Texas, the report stated the following: ‘‘If academic achievement did not change after stakes were attached to a state test or if achievement decreased, the effectiveness of the high-stakes policy as a means of improving student performance must be called into question’’ (McNeil, p. 71).8 In a longitudinal national survey of 25 states between the years 1990 and 2003, researchers from the Educational Policy Research Laboratory measured the impact of high-stakes testing pressure on achievement of public school students (Nichols, Glass, & Berliner, 2005). The authors of the report indicate that the ‘‘pressure created by high-stakes testing has y almost no important influence on student academic performance’’ (p. i) and ‘‘unintended effects of this form of evaluation lead to perverse and corrupt educational practice.’’ The analyses of the study reveal that: Increased testing pressure generated no gain in the reading scores of fourth and eighth grade students and many recidivated in performance on the same tests the following year (p ii); High-stakes testing is negatively associated with the likelihood that eighth and tenth grade students will move to the twelfth grade. In fact, this sort of testing pressure is related to larger numbers of students being held back or dropping out;
74
PHILIP T.K. DANIEL States with greater proportions of minority students implement systems that exert greater pressure. This suggests that many problems associated with high-stakes testing will disproportionately affect America’s students of color.
The authors surmise that much of what accounts for achievement may be nothing more than teachers teaching to the tests. Teachers report that the pressure of doing well ‘‘seriously compromises educational practice’’ (p. 1) This suggests that educators have the limited responsibility of being test oriented, neglecting other cognitive and affective needs typically part of the curriculum. Said differently, ‘‘[l]earning is a complicated endeavor and as most educators would argue, extrinsic rewards alone cannot overcome the range of background experiences and individual differences in learning and motivation students need to bring to school’’ (p. 2) For these reasons the authors conclude: there is no convincing evidence that the pressure associated with high-stakes testing leads to any important benefits for students’ achievement y [and] call for a moratorium on policies that force the public education system to rely on high-stakes testing (p. 105).
The high-stakes approach of testing has also revealed a disparate impact on large school districts serving minority populations as regards student academic progression. In another 2005 study, researchers from the Harvard University Civil Rights Project surveyed school districts in six states using the accountability standards suggested under NCLB (Tracey, et al., 2005). The study confirmed that districts serving large numbers of culturally diverse populations had greater difficulty in achieving AYP than homogenous, mostly white, school districts which had fewer performance targets (p. 7). The data showed that the larger inner city school districts enrolled substantial numbers of students of color and students with limited English proficiency. According to NCLB, the respective states designate the minimum number of students in a subgroup and also set percentage levels of proficiency. This meant that: (1) larger school districts were more apt to meet minimum state standards for reporting on more subgroups; (2) there would be sufficient numbers of students in those subgoups for minimum participation rates; and (3) those districts would be forced to confront the greater responsibility of demonstrating multiple group proficiency (pp. 7–8). The aggregation of reporting all groups meant that larger districts were forced to improve at much faster rates than the smaller districts, thus more often finding themselves under the category of ‘‘needs improvement’’ (p. 8). The authors found that reliance on mean proficiency, requiring all students to reach the same academic levels, ‘‘fails to take into account the starting point for each school district’’ (p. 8). Accordingly, even if students in
The Balm of Gilead Has Arrived in American Education
75
lower-performing districts are making progress they must make greater gains then students in higher-performing districts. This suggests that the law with its absolute performance standards tends to exacerbate academic problems for student subgroups. It also suggests that the accountability system with its centralization controls limits evaluation of students and assessment of educator accomplishment. Only standardized test scores are targeted. No plan is highlighted by NCLB that addresses other aspects of schooling. No attempt is made to envelop a student’s education with a look at methodologies or techniques in the classroom so as to include learning style. A one-size-fits-all approach is used and subject matter content is in the hands of the states and away from teachers, administrators, and even the local school board. Moreover, the infrastructure of education is all but abandoned. The accountability concept undermines, even frustrates influences on education such as libraries, school facilities, sports, arts programs, sports programs and other extracurricular activities, and even school trips. All roads in public education lead to high-stakes testing whether teaching is good or poor and whether students connect to teachers. Educator effectiveness is based on compliance and job security is correlated with group-based AYP. Unlike other aspects of education, individual achievement is unimportant. No Enforceable Rights Despite the findings and the protests, it is unlikely that students who are the targets of these educational intervention strategies will be able to find redress through the courts. In the event of failed implementation of the high-stakes provisions, the statute itself provides no enforceable rights and no federal opportunities to individually redress grievances. The remedy is limited to the possible loss of federal funds when the Office of Education renders a finding of failure to comply with the law or compliance cannot be secured through voluntary means (NCLBa, sec. 1232(h)). An important feature of high-stakes assessment is the training of personnel and students under the Act are entitled to be taught in the classroom by a ‘‘highly qualified teacher’’ (NCLBa, sec. 7801(a)(23)). At the minimum, such a person has an appropriate degree in the subjects taught, is fully licensed by the respective state in such subjects, and demonstrates competence in these subjects predicated upon a ‘‘highly objective uniform state standard of evaluation (HOUSSE)’’ (NCLBa, sec. 7801(a)(23)). This provision was placed in the law because of the large percentage of educators said to be under-trained working in urban-based institutions. Under these
76
PHILIP T.K. DANIEL
circumstances, NCLB provides for specific steps the states must take to ensure that schools and school districts provide instruction by highly qualified instructional staff (NCLBa, sec. 6314(b)(1)(C)) and also provide assurance that school officials will identify high-quality effective curricula to be used in the respective classrooms (NCLBa, sec. 6315(c)(1)(E)). While the Act’s general provisions specify that each state must develop a complaint system, no language exists that provides a formal complaint procedure for filing claims with a federal agency. In fact, the rules of construction are explicit in that the law may not affect ‘‘the rights, remedies, and procedures afforded school district employees under y law or y the terms of collective bargaining agreements or y [any other] agreement between y employees and their employers’’ (NCLBa, sec. 6316). Students are equally unlikely to find any aid in opting out of the high-stakes approach to matriculation or assessment. Students often raise fairness claims and the manner in which such tests are administered. In the seminal case of Debra P. v. Turlington (1981), a federal appeals court stated the following: We do not question the right of the state to condition the receipt of a diploma upon the passing of a test so long as it is a fair test of that which is taught. Nor do we seek to dictate what subjects are to be taught or in what manner y Those decisions would properly be left with the school authorities (p. 406).
In Debra P., the Federal Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit considered the question of whether students’ due process rights were infringed when a minimum competency exam recently required for high school graduation was imposed. The students claimed a violation of property rights under the due process clause of the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution because of alleged inadequate notice and insufficient opportunity for students to learn the material covered by the exam. In this first iteration of the case the court agreed that students did have a property right in their education and that students were not given sufficient notice for taking the exam to receive a diploma (pp. 403–404). The court also found the test fundamentally unfair because it contained information not covered in the curriculum of the schools of the state. The court ruled that the test was not validly related to a related state interest (pp. 404–406). The court enjoined the test’s use as a diploma sanction until the 1982–1983 school year, but allowed the state to use the test in the interim for remediation, which the court found violated neither the Constitution nor statutes. On remand, a federal district court found that the state proficiency test content was valid, which would allow the state to use it as a diploma sanction after 1982. The
The Balm of Gilead Has Arrived in American Education
77
lower court concluded that the state had met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the competency examination is ‘‘instructionally valid,’’ i.e., a fair test of that which is taught in Florida’s schools (Debra P. v. Turlington, 1983, p. 186). Using the decision in Debra P. as a backdrop plaintiff in Texas claimed fundamental unfairness because the state’s proficiency tests held students accountable for an inadequate education system. In G.I. Forum v. Texas Education Agency (2000, p. 674) the court acknowledged a long history of racial discrimination and inequality in the Texas education system (p. 674). A federal appeals court ruled in favor of the state, however, because the tests used were said to address this past discrimination, not to hold students responsible for those past failures. The court relied solely on the intent of the test usage disregarding complaints of de facto discriminatory impact of the educational system. In other words, the court agreed with school officials that current student deficiency occurred because of other, more societal-based reasons. The state, according to the court, had a direct and supportable interest in remediating educational inequality by choosing a program that was designed to help every student show academic competency. The statutory references and the case law taken together demonstrate that state education agencies and their local school districts have responsibility for aligning course content and student performance standards with appropriate assessment tools. Moreover, students must have sufficient notice of tests and sufficient preparation in courses for taking competency exams. The NCLB Act requires of states that they show evidence of students having an opportunity to learn the requisite skills and to show proof that there is enough of a curricular and instructional foundation for demonstrating adequate yearly progress. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee of a significant change of achievement under the law and no provision for an enforceable right. Courts have determined that students have property rights in their educations and high-stakes testing is subject to fairness claims and due process requirements. Courts, however, have found that academic deference in school assessment will highly influence any judicial decision-making; as such, they will be slow to interfere with educator activity without a provable claim of unfairness (Brookhart v. Illinois State Bd. of Education, 1983, p. 182). In light of the fact that states have used high-stakes tests for over 35 years and NCLB has been in existence for almost four years, it is unlikely that students will be able to argue either insufficient notice or that such tests are not validly related to an important state interest.
78
PHILIP T.K. DANIEL
Left Behind, Way Behind The interlocking of high-stakes tests and promotion and high school exit exams is premised upon the notion that this symbiosis will create incentives for school districts to revise curricula and create programs resulting in demonstrated student proficiency. Opponents of these ideas claim, nevertheless, that creating additional hurdles, particularly for low-performing students in low-performing schools, will cause further deprivation. Part of the rationale for this criticism is that there is currently no scientific support that such students can reach meaningful standards at the pace required under NCLB. There is equally no proof that standardized tests contribute to learning outcomes. What has been shown is that such high-pressure tests contribute to student drop out rates. A nation-wide study determined that students of color are more than twice as likely as white students to be subject to 8th grade high-stakes promotion tests (Reardon & Galindo, p. 13). Minority group students are also twice as likely to drop out of school by the 10th grade; the presence of an 8th grade promotion test is strongly associated with the increased probability of 10th grade dropping out. The National Center for Educational Statistics found that young adults in families in the lowest 20% of incomes were six times as likely as their peers in the top 20% of the income distribution to drop out of high school (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2002(a)). Each of the studies determined that high-stakes exams are strongly associated with an increased probability of dropping out prior to 10th grade and that this association persists even after controlling for a moderate range of school and individual-level characteristics. Authors of one study remark that the difference in dropout rates between students taking and not taking promotion tests is not trivial, particularly for students with low achievement, low-grade point average, and from low-socioeconomic status families (Reardon & Galindo, p. 16). The law provides sanctions for under-performing schools and school districts. The sanctions are associated with the accountability scheme. The NCLB Act requires each state to provide a formula for measuring success defined by AYP. As noted, previously factors in the formula must include test scores, and at least a 95% rate of all students including those in subgroups. AYP is achieved each year only if students attain the stateprescribed incremental improvement which must eventually reach 100%. If schools or school districts have not made AYP for two years they are designated as ‘‘in need of improvement (INI)’’ (NCLBa, sec. 6311(b)(2)(D)(ii)). Schools so designated may be compelled to develop two-year academic improvement plans. Parents may also be offered the option of transferring
The Balm of Gilead Has Arrived in American Education
79
their children to a school that has reached AYP. To be relieved of the INI designation, schools or school districts must achieve AYP status for two consecutive years (NCLBa, sec. 6311(b)(2)(H)(i)). If INI status continues beyond the second year schools face other sanctions including loss of federal funds, options for parents to send their children to other schools including charter schools and private schools, and possibly, school restructuring (NCLBa, sec. 6311(b)(1)(E)). School personnel may also be held professionally responsible for the absence of student achievement facing ‘‘reconstitution’’ where all school personnel are transferred to other schools or, ultimately, face termination (Daniel & Nance, 2002). The sanctions were instituted within the law in order to compel student advancement. Interestingly, the result is that schools may be forced to improve with less money since federal funds could be withheld. For many schools, particularly those serving large subgroup populations, the academic improvement called for in the law may not be reached and students will fall further and further behind. Sanctions may have caused other more nefarious activities in an attempt to circumvent the law. For example it has been reported that students are counseled or ‘‘pushed out’’ even though state law may permit a longer time in school (Mathis, 2003). In the New York City Schools, for example, 25–30% of students drop out of school each year and many of them, according to the school superintendent, are pushed out (Lewin & Medina, 2003). In Texas, research shows that school principals have great incentive to ‘‘lose’’ low-performing students as this helps to increase scores on the tests (McNeil, 2005, p. 74). An independent longitudinal state study listed dropouts across the state at a minimum of 40%, a contradiction of most of the official state reports (p. 75). As importantly, after the introduction of high-stakes evaluation the state was graduating so few students that the city of Houston dropped from a ranking of 67th to 87th among the largest cities in the country (p. 77). These statistics are significant because of the requirement of AYP under NCLB. Subgroup reporting, for example, requires a state determination of a requisite number of students. It is unnecessary to report this information if the group number falls below sufficient size to report statistically reliable results (NCLB, 2004, sec. 200.20(c)(1)(ii)). In addition the law requires that school districts not include students in AYP reports who ‘‘were not enrolled for a full academic year’’ (NCLBb, sec. 200.20(e)(1)(2)). This means non-reporting occurs for ‘‘push out students’’ as well as those sent to alternative schools because of suspension or expulsion or other disciplinary punishments. According to data collected by the National Center for Educational Statistics black students are expelled at over three times the number of whites and suspended two and a half times
80
PHILIP T.K. DANIEL
the number of whites (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2000b). Hispanic students suffer expulsion twice the number of whites and are suspended at a level one and a half times the number of whites. In recent years, data analysis regarding the use of accountability-based education has uncovered strong evidence of organized, educator-led cheating on standardized test scores. Schools across the United States are under investigation. In Texas, for example, most of the schools exhibiting a positive change in scores are accused of undermining the process. Even a National Blue Ribbon School that in the year 2003 was touted by national education officials as an example of top academic achievement has been brought under scrutiny. The investigation is said to raise ‘‘serious questions about the ability of the state’s accountability system to reliably measure how schools are performing’’ (Dallas Morning News, 2004). This is exceedingly important since, as noted above, the Texas education system and its testing components provided the model for NCLB. The results in Texas and other states, because they are so overwhelmingly positive in the changes in the test scores of low-income and academically impoverished students, is said to be ‘‘theoretically conceivable but realistically impossible’’ (Dallas Morning News, 2004). A far reaching academic report in Indiana found that student scores swung wildly from year to year and many schools made jarring testscore leaps from mediocre to stellar in a year’s time. What was actually found, when educators did not help or otherwise coach students on taking the tests, is that students lose much of their academic abilities as soon as they leave elementary schools (Indiana State Board of Education, 2001). These maligning consequences may exist even in school districts with good academic reputations so as to continually meet AYP. School officials, for example, may attempt to manipulate the pool of students for whom they have responsibility. Measures such as school transfers or other attempts at removal, including suspension or expulsion, may be used so that students are not included in subgroups or within the main student body of test reporting. According to one study in this area, ‘‘the focus on disaggregated scores y may well give principals, teachers, and perhaps superintendents (at least those in more affluent and white schools) both financial and professional incentives to place their political support behind fluid student assignment systems such as neighborhood schools (which facilitate residential sorting by race and socioeconomic status) or on parental choice (which allows more educated parents to direct their children toward the ‘‘winner’’ schools)’’ (Boger, 2003). In the aforementioned Civil Rights study conducted by Harvard University some highly regarded school districts were found labeled as failing, thus
The Balm of Gilead Has Arrived in American Education
81
facing possible sanctions (Tracey, 2005). Protests emerged and agreements were arranged between at least 19 states and the United States Department of Education whereby these states were able to change how their school districts reported adequate yearly progress (p. 21). Instead of assessing progress across all grade levels, the new agreement permitted the use of the ‘‘grade span method’’ where test scores are reported only for, say, the elementary school levels, but not those of middle or high schools (p. 20). The effect of the change is to significantly reduce the number of school districts with more homogenous populations needing improvement. There is little or no effect on school districts in states serving large populations of students of color, students with limited English proficiency, or students with disabilities. According to the authors of the study this change in the definition of AYP means that accountability decisions are founded on considerations other than the claimed improvement of educational performance. The changes are said to be arbitrary, further disadvantaging student populations already suffering low levels of achievement growth (p. 26). A ‘‘Practical Flexibility’’ The NCLB Act rests on the admirable goal of helping students gain educational proficiency with special reference to closing the achievement gaps between white students and students of color and between ‘‘advantaged’’ and ‘‘disadvantaged’’ students (NCLB(a), sec. 6301(a)(3)). There is some question, however, whether, beyond the sanctions listed above, real change can be accomplished within the law. For example, differences in test scores and achievement levels resulting in academic disadvantage may be rooted in past discrimination. Redress, nevertheless, may have little constitutional foundation given a line of reasoning through the federal courts. The case of Brown v. Board of Education(a) (Brown I) promoted the notion of an equal educational opportunity. One year later, Brown v. Board of Education (Brown II,) indicated that court-ordered remedies must be based on equitable principles characterized by a ‘‘practical flexibility’’ and ‘‘by a facility for adjusting and reconciling public and private needs’’ (Brown(b), 1955). In other words the concerns of those most discriminated against may not be immediately addressed or perhaps not at all. The Court of Federal Appeals for the First District, for example, has ruled that finding past discrimination is not enough (Wessman v. Gittens, 1998). There must be a direct and tangible connection between what has occurred in the past and school activity in the present; moreover, students making claims of being so disadvantaged must also prove that it is they who are the current victims.
82
PHILIP T.K. DANIEL
The court found that there was no strong basis in evidence for redressing achievement problems through preference to students of color in high-level academic programs. Even if such a connection is found courts have determined that government may not create programs for victims of past discrimination at the expense of current ‘‘innocent individuals’’ even though those individuals may be current beneficiaries of the unconstitutional past practice (Regents, 1978). This is the ‘‘interest-convergence’’ approach to addressing ethnic disadvantage in American social systems (Bell, 1980).9 The theory is that advances in education for students of color will be tolerated so long as there is a commensurate outcome for white students. Under this collectivity of circumstances, it would appear that the progress of disadvantaged students under the Act may only go so far as the concomitant progress of white students. A Conflict of Rhetoric There is no question that NCLB has important features of race and cultural comparisons with the goal of reducing the achievement gap. There is a conflict of rhetoric, however. Supporters of the law, on the one hand, complain of the disparaging racial differences criticizing all levels of government for abysmal education results (Bush, 2003a); on the other, these same persons label intervention programs based on race unlawful or unconstitutional (Bush, 2003b). This internal inconsistency is reflected in the statute itself. For example, a provision of the Act enables students attending a school listed as failing for two years to have the opportunity for transfer to a school labeled as reaching AYP. The law specifically identifies disadvantaged students for this benefit. Note, however, that school districts are neither encouraged nor mandated to participate in inter-school district transfers. No extra funds are provided for this effort, except those cut from the budgets of the failing schools, and no sanctions are instituted, including the loss of federal education funds. A similar phenomenon took place after the United States Supreme Court decision in Zelman v. SimmonsHarris (2002). The Court upheld an Ohio pilot program providing for a voucher program for students in the City of Cleveland to attend suburban public schools or local private schools. Finding that the ‘‘Establishment Clause’’ was not violated by such a program the Court determined that this was a bona fide educational opportunity with parents deciding how the voucher funds would be spent independent of religious influence. In the aftermath of the decision it was found that only private, religious institutions in the City of Cleveland took part in the program. Not a single
The Balm of Gilead Has Arrived in American Education
83
suburban school, public or private, accepted city school students. From the decision in Zelman to the enactment of NCLB educational researchers surmise that the vast majority of urban school students who want to opt out of failing schools will find few choices (Edweek.org & Choice, 2002). Rules of Construction Courts have also ruled that disparities in test scores may compel educational opportunity, but not commensurate achievement outcomes. In a recent decision on the relationship of student achievement to desegregation orders, the United States Supreme Court found that disparities in student test scores represented an insufficient basis for continuing court orders and lower courts had no authority to command additional state funding for such purposes (Missouri v. Jenkins, 1995). The Court found that the state’s role of such programs is limited to funding decisions and not implementation and states have no obligation to demonstrate the improvement of test scores under these circumstances. Such a ruling impacts the NCLB Act in three ways. First, according to the Court, racial imbalance prompted by private and personal decisions that might include questions of race, like where parents decide to live or send their children to school, are not unconstitutional. Second, as noted above, student achievement influenced by race or disadvantaged status cannot be ameliorated at the expense of ‘‘innocent victims.’’ Finally, the statute itself is ambivalent on the procedures of achievement progress to be pursued for the sake of AYP. For example, one would think that an important measure of student academic accomplishment would be information on promotion and graduation rates. The NCLB Act initially considered graduation rates as one indicator of whether school districts were reaching adequate yearly progress. This was deemed necessary because students in lowperforming school districts were receiving diplomas at a level of only 50% of their numbers. In the statute promulgated by the Congress, however, rules of construction indicate that there is no prescription for either the use of academic assessments for promotion or graduation. Moreover, regulations pronounced by the United States Department of Education indicated that rates do not have to be reported for subgroups for accountability purposes. Hence, for ethnic groups and for otherwise disadvantaged students such rates could be very low; yet, given the enabling regulations such scores are only reported in the aggregate unless a school district is in line for intervention and can demonstrate that graduation rates increased over the previous year. There is internal conflict among the purveyors of the NCLB Act; moreover, the cases cited in this section of the research suggest that the
84
PHILIP T.K. DANIEL
important elements of the Act calling for a change in the achievement gap may falter long before the ultimate year of the legislation, 2014. The case law, for the most part, contributes to the conflict, and as of late, does not promote the requisite expansive academic programs necessary for disadvantaged students and students of color.
CONCLUSION In a press release, President George W. Bush announced generous funding for the newest iteration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2003). The legislation links high standards of achievement with state and school district accountability. We are told that the federal government is now spending more money than at any other time for public education with a great deal being expected from school officials as regards student academic progress. The communication spreads a balm of comfort leading toward achievement targeting the most needy students. The incense of federal protection is said to render hope; a healing salve of federal spending will help mend the gap between the performance of all students. Finally, in 2002 the Balm of Gilead arrived in American education with the label of NCLB. This commentary describes this latest federal intervention as reasonable in its desire to address major, longitudinal problems in American education. It should be observed however, that debates surrounding NCLB suggest that there is little accord as to its success. Many suggest that the law represents an under-funded mandate placing the fiscal responsibility on the backs of budget-strapped states. Criticism abounds at the attempt toward a quick fix in education focusing on high-stakes testing; research indicates that such an approach gives little information about achievement and promotes rote-like methods and techniques in the classroom that will have little lasting academic benefit. Sanctions, part of the foundation of the Act, might produce some short-term advantage. By and large, however, this approach has promoted activities of under-reporting subgroup participations. These students represent those who are drop outs or ‘‘push outs’’ or students who are being left further behind. There is internal conflict among the promoters of the law and this is exacerbated by judicial decisions that lately have not supported education initiatives favoring the disadvantaged or students of color, the populations targeted for better education in the heart of the original legislation. The creation of this law alone does not ensure that education for these students will be improved. As found in this study the
The Balm of Gilead Has Arrived in American Education
85
statute has more often frustrated the delivery of education by distracting educators from the long-term cognitive and affective learning needs of students. It has even been argued that this legislation undermines achievement by its hard concentration on ill-founded accountability systems. Thus far, in other words, the legislation is no balm and the most needy students still await pedagogical healing.
NOTES 1. Children’s Defense Fund, ‘‘President’s Similarly Named Education Bill Fails to Give Poor Children What They Need to Succeed,’’ http://www.childrensdefense.org/ pressreleases/2003/030212.aspx (Visited October 21, 2005). The slogan reads in part as follows, ‘‘The mission of the Children’s Defense Fund is to Leave No Child Behindy’’ 2. This is another borrowed element of the law. In 1994, President William Clinton introduced the Improving America’s Schools Act, 20 U.S.C. y 6336. This law reinforced Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act with emphasis upon content and performance standards; the accomplishment of demonstrated achievement through testing was tied to federal aid to state education systems. The term ‘‘Adequate Yearly Progress’’ was introduced emphasizing student achievement and ‘‘continuous and substantial yearly improvement’’ through annual testing. 3. 20 U.S.C. yy 1400 et. seq (1994) (amended 2004). Regulations of the No Child Left Behind Act, 34 C.F.R. y 200.13 (2004), permit school districts to use alternate achievement standards to evaluate the performance of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Beginning in 2003, schools could include these assessments of 1% of all students within their annual yearly progress totals. In summer, 2005, Margaret Spellings, U.S. Secretary of Education, announced new guidelines to allow an additional 2% of students to be tested alternatively, ‘‘Spellings Announces New Special Education Guidelines, Details Workable, ‘‘Common – Sense’’ Policy to Help States Implement No Child Left Behind (May 10, 2005). http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/05/05102005.html (Visited June 1, 2005). These are the so-called ‘‘gap kids’’ or disabled students with ‘‘persistent academic difficulties,’’ but who do not fit into the category of children with ‘‘significant cognitive difficulties.’’ Such students are permitted to be assessed on modified academic standards and will take their tests based on these standards. These scores may also be blended in annual yearly progress reports. The two alternative assessments taken together would represent testing for 3% of all students and approximate 30% of students with special needs. There is no provision in the statute or enabling regulations for the alternative assessment of non-disabled, disadvantaged students. 4. Congress’ power relative to its ‘‘general welfare’’ authority is broad and is not delimited by the ‘‘direct grants of legislative power found in the constitution,’’ (South Dakota v. Dole, 1987). Such power may be used for the general welfare; states receiving funds under this power must do so knowing and unambiguously understanding federal conditions, and conditions on federal grants must be related to Congress’ ‘‘interest in particular national projects or programs.’’
86
PHILIP T.K. DANIEL
5. National Urban League. To date the National Urban League has received over $4 million in grant funds under the No Child Left Behind Act. See, e.g., National Urban League Receives $2.7 Million No Child Left Behind Grant, http:// wdcrobwwwp01.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2004/10/10262004.html (Visited October 22, 2005). 6. U.S. Const. amend 10. ‘‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.’’ 7. It should be noted, however, that the state of Texas and its educational accountability system has served as the driving force for educational policy for the nation. It is the prototype and the foundation for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2002. Under this system high-stakes testing is the single indicator of student academic progress at the expense of other teaching or learning methods in the classroom. In fact, one researcher of the Texas system has indicted that high-stakes preparation occurs at the expense ‘‘science, art, social studies’’, and other subjects. See McNeil, 2005. 8. Id. at 71, quoting Audrey Amrein and David Berliner, The Impact of HighStakes tests on Student Academic Performance: An Analysis of NAEP Results in States with High-Stakes Tests and ACT, SAT, and AP Tests Results in States with High School Graduation Exams, http://www.asu.edu/educ/eps1/EPRU/ epru_2002_Research_Writing.htm 9. Derrick Bell, Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest-Convergence Dilemma, 93 Harvard Law Review 518 (1980). The author surmises that Brown I was shaped by the interests of northern liberals, southern moderates and AfricanAmericans. He writes that the decision represents a temporary interest convergence where each race was being accommodated. He also informs us that this quickly dissipated when African-Americans furthered their quest for civil rights into jobs, housing, higher education, and other forms of social welfare.
REFERENCES Bell, D. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 93, 518–533. Boger, J. (2003). Education’s ‘‘Perfect Storm’’? Racial resegregation, high-stakes testing, and school resource inequities: The case of North Carolina. North Carolina Law Review, 81, 1375–1462. Brookhart, v. Illinois State Bd. of Education (7th Cir. 1983), 697 F.2d 179. Brown v. Board of Education(a) (Brown I). (1954). 347 U.S. 483. Brown v. Board of Education(b) (Brown II). (1955). 349 U.S. 294, 300. Bush (2002). President George W. Bush in signing the law stated, this ‘‘begins a new era, a new time in public education in our country. As of this hour, America’s schools will be on a new path of reform, and a new path of results.’’ President Signs Landmark No Child Left Behind Education Bill, January 8. http://whitehouse.fed.us/news/releases/2002/01/ 20020108-1.html (visited October 22, 2005).
The Balm of Gilead Has Arrived in American Education
87
Bush (2003a). No Child Left Behind. http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/presidentplan/ proposal.pdf (Visited August, 2005). Bush (2003b). Remarks on the Michigan Affirmative Action Cases, Roosevelt Room, The White Hours, January 15. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/print/ 20030115-7.html (Visited July, 2005). Bush (2004). Bush Defends Criticisms on No Child Left Behind (January 3). http:// www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/03/bush.dems.radio.ap/index.html (Visited August 24, 2005). Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York (2003). 801 N.E.2d 326. Children’s Defense Fund (2005). President’s Similarly Named Education Bill Fails to Give Poor Children What They Need to Succeed. http://www.childrensdefense.org/pressreleases/ 2003/030212.aspx (Visited October 21, 2005). The slogan reads in part as follows, ‘‘The mission of the Children’s Defense Fund is to Leave No Child Behind y’’ Christian Science Monitor (2004). http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0211/p01s02-ussc.html (Visited March 20, 2004). Commander, M. (1980). Minimum competency testing: Education or discrimination? University of Richmond Law Review, 14, 769–790. Committee on Education and the Workforce (2003). Boehner Praises President Bush for Education Budget Announcement, Challenges Education Reform Opponents to Use Funds to Get Results. http://edworkforce.house.gov/press/press107/bushradioaddress10403. htm (Visited November 1, 2005). Dallas Morning News (2002). Cheating May be Pervasive, 2002 WL 103274159. Dallas Morning News (2004). Celebrated School Accused of Cheating, 2004 WL 103276573. Daniel, P. T. K., & Nance, J. (2002). The role of the administrator in Instructional Technology Policy. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 2002, 211–232. Debra P. v. Turlington (5th Cir., 1981). 644 F.2d 397. Debra P. v. Turlington (M.D. Fla., 1983). 564 F. Supp. 177. Education Week (2005). Connecticut Files Long-Awaited Lawsuit Challenging No Child Left Behind Act. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/08/22/1conn_web.h25.html (Visited August 24, 2005). Edweek.org, Choice (2002). http://ewdev.edweek.org/rc/issues/choice (Visited November 1, 2005). Elementary and Secondary Education Act Q&A, (2005), http://www.nea.org/ esea/images/eseaqa.doc (Visited, September 11, 2005). Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965). Pub. L. No. 89-10, 79 Stat. 27 Fusarelli, L. (2005). Gubernatorial reactions to No Child Left Behind: Politics, pressure, and educational reform. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 120–136. G.I. Forum v. Texas Educational Agency (2000). 87 F. Supp.2d 667 (W.D. Tex.), p. 674. Herbert, B. (2005). Left behind, way behind. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/ 08/29/opinion/29herbert.html?th&oref=login (Visited August 29, 2005). Improving America’s Schools Act (1994). 20 U.S.C. y 6336. Indiana State Board of Education (2001). Quarterly report. http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/frss/ publications/92130/ (Visited August18, 2005). Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004). 20 U.S.C. yy 1400 et. seq. Lewin, T., & Medina, J., (2003, July 13). Cut failure rate, schools shed students. New York Times. http://www.enidlee.com/world_news.htm (Visited August 29, 2005). Losen, D. (2004). Challenging racial disparities: The challenges and pitfalls of the No Child Left Behind Act’s race conscious accountability. Howard Law Journal, 47, 243–298.
88
PHILIP T.K. DANIEL
MacPherson, K. (2004). Change of heart on No Child Left Behind. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04081/288540.stm (Visited October 23, 2005). Mathis, W. (2003). No Child Left Behind: Costs and benefits. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(9), 679–686. McLaughlin, M., Emblem, S., & Nagle, K. (2004), Students with disabilities and accountability, the promise and the realities: Should there be alternatives. Center on Educational Policy. http://www.ctredpol.org/pubs/Forum14September2004/McLaughlinPaper.doc (Visited May 29, 2005). McNeil, L. (2005). Faking equity: High-stakes testing ands the education of Latino youth. In: A. Valenzuela (Ed.), Leaving chidlren behind: How ‘‘Texas-style’’ accountability fail Latino youth (pp. 57–111). New York: SUNY Press. Michelau, D., & Shreve, D. (2002). Education reform from the top down. State Legislatures, 28, 21–51. Miller, G. (2005a). FY 2006 Bush budget: Breaks promises, underfunds K-12 funding, and forces students to pay more for college. http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/photos/ FY06budgetsummary.pdf (Visited October 22, 2005). Miller, G. (2005b). Education not a Bush budget priority. http://edworkforce.house.gov/ democrats/releases/rel21104b.html (Visited October 22, 2005). Missouri v. Jenkins (Jenkins III). (1995). 515 U.S. 70, p. 71. National Center for Educational Statistics, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000 (2002a). http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/droppub_2001/index.asp (Visited June 19, 2005). National Center for Educational Statistics, Office of Civil Rights Survey Redesign (2000b). http://www.doe.state.in.us/legal/pdf/quarterly_reports/2001_julsep.pdf (Visited November 5, 2005). National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. National Education Association (2005a). Urge Congress to fund education programs. http:// www.nea.org/lac/funding/index.html (Visited October 29, 2005). National Education Association (2005b). No Child Left Behind Act/ESEA. http://www.nea.org/ esea/more.html (Visited October 22, 2005). National Education Association (2005c). Stand up for children: Pontiac v. Spellings (lawsuit filed April, 2005). http://www.nea.org/lawsuit/index.html, (Visited October 22, 2005). National Urban League (2004). National Urban League receives $2.7 Million No Child Left Behind Grant. http://wdcrobwwwp01.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2004/10/10262004.html (Visited October 22, 2005). NCBL (2002). 20 U.S.C. yy 6301 et. seq (2002). NCLB (2004). 34 C.F.R. y 200.20(c)(1)(ii). Nichols, S., Glass, G., & Berliner, D., (2005). High stakes testing and student achievement: Problems of the No Child Left Behind Act. Educational Policy Studies Laboratory. http://www.asu.edu/ educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL-0509-105-EPRU-exec.pdf (Visited October 1, 2005). Reardon, S., & Galindo, C. (2002). Do high-stakes tests affect students’ decisions to drop out of school? Evidence from NELS, Population Research Institute. http://www.pop.psu.edu/ general/pubs/working_papers/psu-pri/wp0301.pdf (Visited June 10, 2005.) By the year 2000 18 states required students to pass a proficiency test for high school graduation and 8 additional states planned for such a requirement. Redalevige, A. (2005). Adequacy, accountability, and the impact of ‘‘No Child Left Behind.’’ Educational and Policy Governance. http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/events/ Adequacy/PEPG-05-27rudalevige.pdf
The Balm of Gilead Has Arrived in American Education
89
Regents of the University of Calif. v. Bakke (1978). 438 U.S. 265, 294 n.34 (opinion of Powell, J.). Rosenbaum, S. (2004). Aligning or maligning: Getting inside a new IDEA, getting behind No Child Left Behind and getting outside of it all. Hastings Women’s Law Journal, 15, 1–37. San Antonio Independent (1973). School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1. South Dakota v. Dole (1987). 483 U.S. 203. Southern Disability Law Center (2004). Advancing the rights of persons with disabilities across the south. http://www.sdlcenter.org/issues.htm (Visited June, 22, 2005). Texas v. United States (1998). 523 U.S. 296. Tracey, C., Sunderman, G., & Orfield, G. (2005). Changing NCLB District accountability standards: Implications for racial equality, The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University. http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu (Visited July 15, 2005), p. 7. United States Constitution, Amendment 10. United States Constitution, Article I, sec. 8, clause 1. Wessman v. Gittens (1998). 160 F.3d 790, p. 795. Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002). 536 U.S. 639.
This page intentionally left blank
90
NCLB AND THE NEW ESEA TITLE I PROGRAM: POVERTY AND EDUCATION Richard C. Hunter ABSTRACT The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act is the most sweeping policy legislation in the history of public education in the United States. It is an umbrella for many federal government initiatives impacting public education, including ESEA, Title I, the large federal compensatory education program that began as part of President Johnson’s ‘‘Great Society’’ program in the mid-1960s. A brief review of selected interventions to improve public education and social justice for poor African-American public school students, whose education was heavily impacted by decades of slavery and other forms of racism are discussed. Specific requirements of NCLB are presented in detail, including a review of advantages and disadvantages of this legislation. Since its implementation, NCLB has been unpopular with many public school districts and professional education organizations because it seeks to hold them accountable for results obtained with different subgroups of students. Several recent challenges to NCLB are discussed as well as concessions to reduce requirements for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) recently negotiated between the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) and state departments of education will permit more school to make AYP. Parents views of NCLB and public No Child Left Behind and other Federal Programs for Urban School Districts Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 9, 91–110 Copyright r 2006 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(06)09005-6
91
92
RICHARD C. HUNTER
education in general are presented. Finally, a discussion of poverty, as seen through the revealing lens of Hurricane Katrina, and its impacts on achieving the laudable goals of NCLB are presented in this chapter.
INTRODUCTION The effects of racial isolation in the United States have been documented and have had a detrimental and profound impact on educational quality for millions of public school children (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1965, p. 106). The history of racial segregation is extensive and has not been restricted to any geographical region of the country. It is an outgrowth of the institution of slavery and the ‘‘separate but equal doctrine’’ promulgated by the United States Supreme Court in the famous case, Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which governed social interactions of Afro-Americans in this country for 58 years. Futile efforts to eradicate vestiges of racial segregation in public education were attempted, when plaintiffs in Brown successively argued segregation in public education violated the ‘‘equal protection clause,’’ of the Fourteenth Amendment. On May 17, 1954, at 12:52 P.M., Chief Justice Warren announced the famous unanimous decision of the United States Supreme Court in Brown and ended the ‘‘separate but unequal’’ doctrine (Raffel, 2002, p. 17). During the hearing on Brown, there was considerable expert testimony from psychologist, Kenneth Clark, who presented compelling evidence that segregation was harmful to Afro-American public school children (Stephan, 1980, p. 17). The original Brown decision did not result in immediate desegregation, but called for admitting students to public schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with ‘‘all deliberate speed.’’ Thus, the Court did not provide a remedy for segregation in public education; instead, remanded each case to federal district courts for review. The United States Supreme Court handed down another decision on school desegregation one year later in Brown II. This decision gave: federal district court’s authority to determine if dual public school systems should be eliminated, local school districts and state government responsibility for implementing decisions of the courts, and required these courts to monitor implementation of their orders (Stephan, 1980, pp. 16–17). The ‘‘all deliberate speed’’ language in Brown proved problematic for public school desegregation and gave rise to a decade of ‘‘massive resistance,’’ which was part of the shameful legacy of this nation, particularly in the south. It also indicated why optimism of plaintiffs in Brown should have been tempered. Again the initial Brown decision did little to eradicate student racial segregation in public schools (Raffel, 2002, p. 23).
NCLB and the New ESEA Title I Program
93
ESEA, TITLE I President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society Program included the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, which was passed during the period of massive resistance to public school desegregation. This compensatory education legislation was designed to address deep educational deficits existing for many poor African-American students by providing large amounts of federal funds to improve the quality of their education (American Youth Policy Forum, 2005, p. 1; Robelen, 2005a, pp. 1, 42). This legislation contained many requirements and made the federal government an important player in public education (Wirt & Kirst, 1982, p. 200).
SCHOOL REFORM AND RESTRUCTURING According to Reed (1984), who at that time was Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education in the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE), the school reform movement of the 1980s and 1990s was created by the report, A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). This report was the brain-child of former Secretary of Education, Terrace Bell and was used to divert President Reagan’s attention from implementing vouchers in public education and to encourage him to focus energy on improving the present educational system. Many changes were implemented in public schools as a result of recommendations in this report, such as more stringent graduation requirements for high school students. School restructuring followed and attempted to mirror practices in business and industry, which were using high-performing work teams to increase productivity. School-based management became a buzzword in public schools, as school districts began to devolve central control of decision making to individual schools. However, according to Murphy and Beck (1995) school-based management was not very successful. Nevertheless, in 1988, the Illinois legislature passed the Chicago School Reform Act. This legislation included a provision to reallocate financial resources in the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) to local schools and created Local School Councils (LRCs) in over 400 schools. LRCs were given sweeping responsibilities for schools, including the right to hire and fire principals and approve operating budgets. In the initial years, LRCs dismissed several school principals (Hess, 1991, pp. 106–111).
94
RICHARD C. HUNTER
SCHOOL FINANCE LITIGATION In the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and continuing even today, a series of lawsuits were initially filed in federal courts, but later in state courts to require states to more equitability distribute their financial resources to public schools. There were huge funding disparities in funding between wealthy school districts and those situated in economically poor communities. These disparities have produced a two-tiered public education system in this country, one for the rich and another for the poor (Kozol, 1991, pp. 20–21).
STATEWIDE ACCOUNTABILITY MODELS During the late 1980s and early 1990s, the results of the ‘‘Education Summit’’ for the nation’s governors called by the first President Bush was responsible for the ‘‘standards movement’’ and led to the development of comprehensive statewide systems of accountability. Most state accountability models developed during this period included: Standards identifying what students were supposed to know and be able to do in all major areas of the curriculum. Annual administrations of statewide assessments designed to determine whether students met state expectations on curriculum standards. State report cards on each school presenting student achievement on statewide assessments. Statewide rating systems to classify schools into groups indicating how well students performed on statewide assessments. Systems providing technical assistance to schools that failed to meet established expectations on state standards. Systems of rewards for schools that met expectations on statewide assessments, including pay bonuses for schoolteachers, etc. Systems of sanctions enabling state government to takeover schools that performed poorly on statewide assessments (Hunter, 2002, pp. 4–5).
SCHOOL TAKEOVERS School takeovers are a drastic step for an educational agency and consist of replacing teachers and principals in failing schools. This technique has been used by state departments of education to address low-performing schools
NCLB and the New ESEA Title I Program
95
in several public school districts, such as Baltimore City (Maryland) Public Schools (BCSP), where the state took over several elementary schools. Large urban public school districts have also taken over low-performing schools. Prince Georges County (Maryland) Public Schools replaced the principal and teachers at low-performing schools in this district. Finally, state governments have passed legislation to permit takeovers of school districts, such as the large school district of Chicasgo, Illinois, Detroit, and Michigan. Where boards of education were dissolved and school superintendents were replaced with chief operating officers (Hunter & Donahoo, 2001, pp. 21–23).
PRIVATIZATION Another strategy used to improve public education has been contracting with for-profit companies. This method was used by the Maryland Department of Education for several elementary schools in Baltimore City (Maryland) Public Schools. These schools are currently being operated by the Edison Company, the largest for-profit company operating public schools in the United States. In the privatization model, for-profit companies hire principals and teachers to provide instruction to students, using their own curriculum and instructional materials (Brown & Hunter, 1996, pp. 8–10).
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 (PL 107–110) was signed into law by President Bush on January 8, 2002, after being overwhelmingly approved by bipartisan legislation in the United States Congress by votes of 87-10 in the Senate and 381-41 in the House of Representative. NCLB was based on elements of President Bush’s educational reform agenda formulated during his tenure as the governor of Texas and represented by his 2000 presidential campaign slogan, ‘‘Leave No Child Behind.’’ NCLB is clearly the largest education bill passed by Congress. This legislation consists of 300,000 words and 1,100 pages (Jehlen & Winans, 2005, p. 1; U.S. Department of Education, 2005a, p. 3). President Bush submitted a request for $56 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of Education in FY 2006. This included funding for NCLB, increasing spending for public education to $25.3 billion, up by nearly $1 billion over the previous year’s budget request. NCLB represents the reauthorization of several important pieces of federal legislation, including ESEA Title I. ESEA Title I is the
96
RICHARD C. HUNTER
largest federal education program for which President Bush requested $13.3 billion in FY 2006 for compensatory education for public school students from low-income backgrounds (U.S. Department of Education, 2005a, p. 2).
HOW TITLE I WORKS? The ESEA, Title I program provides formula grants to public school districts, which are reallocated to individual schools through state departments of education. The grants are based on the number of low-income students attending public schools. Guidelines enable schools with 40% or more lowincome students to spend funds on all students in a school (Wilhelm, 2002, p. 5). Other Title I schools with small concentrations of low-income students, must follow the ‘‘targeted assistance’’ model, which allows funds to be spent only on selected students in a school. Title I funds are used to improve reading and mathematics instruction for low-achieving students who attend schools with high concentrations of poor students. This is done using extended day and summer school programs for preschool through high school students (U.S. Department of Education, 2005b, pp. 36–37).
PROVISIONS OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND NCLB contains many provisions in addition to ESEA, Title I that are changing the way states and public schools educate students. The provisions of NCLB are organized under four pillars: stronger accountability for results, more freedom for states and communities, proven education methods, and more choices for parents. In the next few pages, selected provisions of NCLB are presented by pillar.
Stronger Accountability for Results State Assessments Each state is required to develop statewide academic assessments to measure what students in grades 3–8 have learned about reading and mathematics. This was not a problem for most states, since all states, except Iowa, had already developed academic assessments systems. These assessment systems were developed to determine what students know and are able to do regarding state standards. Progress on state assessments is measured and
NCLB and the New ESEA Title I Program
97
reported annually for each major subgroup, including students who are from different racial and gender groupings. A minimum of 95% of students in each subgroup must be tested and their scores included in data presented by schools, states, and districts (Hunter, 2002, pp. 4–5; U.S. Department of Education, 2005b, p. 37). Adequate Yearly Progress Schools are required by NCLB to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) on the state assessments. AYP goals have been established by states for statewide performance assessments, which change annually and apply equally for each student target group for which the assessment data is disaggregated. By 2014, 100% of students in public schools are expected to make AYP. Data representing the progress of each subgroup of students and mean scores on school district and state groups are presented annually in report cards (U.S. Department of Education, 2005b, pp. 73–78). Report Cards States and school districts are required to publish annual report cards indicating the performance of students in each school on statewide assessments. Data, in the report cards, must be disaggregated to show scores of students by race, gender, low-income, special needs, and limited Englishproficiency groupings. As mentioned earlier, schools must test a minimum of 95% students to keep schools from excluding scores of low-performing students on the assessments. Ambitious goals or benchmarks have been established for each test and schools failing to make AYP for each subgroup are identified as low performing. States and school districts must make report cards available to parents and other interested citizens, usually presenting them on state departments of education and public school district websites. Unfortunately, most states have long lists of schools that do not make AYP, even economically affluent suburban schools with high overall student achievement (U.S. Department of Education, 2005b, pp. 16, 18). School Improvement Schools failing to make AYP for two consecutive years or more are placed in school improvement status by state departments of education. This means schools are required to submit school improvement plans which are monitored by state departments of education (U.S. Department of Education, 2005b, pp. 52–53).
98
RICHARD C. HUNTER
Sanctions and Rewards States under NCLB are required to provide sanctions and rewards to schools that meet and exceed benchmarks established under the legislation. This provision permits states to hold schools and school districts accountable for progress with each subgroup. States are also permitted to takeover low-performing schools, as discussed earlier. They may also provide salary bonuses and other forms of recognition to teachers working in schools who meet or exceed state benchmarks for student learning. Research on state accountability models discussed earlier in this chapter, indicate states have given teachers salary bonuses when schools have met or exceeded goals for school performance. Before NCLB, salary bonuses were provided by several states that did not operate under collective bargaining legislation. NCLB may now make it possible for school districts with collective bargaining agreements to grant pay bonuses to teachers without contract negotiations (Hunter, 2002, pp. 4–5; U.S. Department of Education, 2005b, pp. 51, 83). More Freedom for States and Communities Flexibility in Use of Funds States and school districts have been given great latitude regarding how to use federal categorical educational financial aid. When I was a consultant for compensatory education, you could only use funds in schools identified as Title I schools and for services identified specifically in district Title I applications. You also could not use Title I funds on students that were not achieving below certain established levels of academic performance, i.e. two years below grade level in reading. Finally, you could not use Title I funds on students that were not in certain grade levels, generally Pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and high schools. Later, when I was a superintendent of a school district with a large Title I program, we were given permission to spend Title I funds on any student in schools if the school had a very high percentage of low-income students. Now, school districts can use up to 50% of federal formula grant funds, without obtaining special approval from state departments of education, who are responsible for administering Title I programs (U.S. Department of Education, 2005b, pp. 49–50). Proven Education Methods School districts and states are to spent Title I funds on educational programs that have been proven successful by scientific research studies. This is
NCLB and the New ESEA Title I Program
99
important for over the years school districts have spent Title I funds on programs that have not been: scientifically evaluated or demonstrated effectiveness. Federally supported programs such as the Reading First and Early Reading First programs are examples of such programs (U.S. Department of Education, 2005b, pp. 36–37).
More Choices for Parents Highly Qualified Teachers and Aides NCLB requires teachers of core academic subjects to be ‘‘highly qualified’’ for subjects taught, as defined by individual state teacher licensing regulations. By January of 2006, teacher aides must also have a minimum of two years of college. In cases where teachers or teacher aides are not highly qualified, parents must be notified of their status, by the school district (McClure, 2002a, pp. 1–3; U.S. Department of Education, 2005b, pp. 63–65; Cochran-Smith, 2005, pp. 100–101). School Transfers If schools do not meet AYP for two or more years, parents must be given the opportunity to transfer their children to other schools in the district that have met AYP. This provision is also available to parents whose children attend schools that are unsafe. The school transfer feature can create a nightmare for large urban public school districts, who organize transportation services in grids to reduce bus riding times and costs. These grids also permit students from neighborhoods to attend the same schools in a consistent feeder system throughout their elementary, middle, and high school experience (McClure, 2002b, pp. 1–2). Supplemental Services Students, from low-income backgrounds, whose children attend schools that fail to meet AYP for two or more years maybe eligible to receive supplemental services after school. Providers, who are certified by state departments of education, may offer tutorial and other instructional services to eligible students. Parents are free to choose for the tutorial services provider, school districts must make arrangements, and pay for these services. Districts may use Title I funds for these services, which have created new opportunities for the private sector to use federal educational funds (U.S. Department of Education, 2005b, pp. 51–52). School districts have created programs to provide supplemental services for students from other school
100
RICHARD C. HUNTER
districts, which have created a new revenue stream. School districts identified for district improvement cannot be certified by a state department of education to provide supplemental services. Recently, the Chicago Public Schools was informed they were no longer eligible to provide tutorial services to the district’s low-performing students; Chicago is a low-performing school district (Gewertz, 2005, pp. 1, 15). Dangerous Schools Parents of students attending schools that are dangerous can transfer children to other safe schools within the district. This feature calls attention to the reality of urban living. Because of economic and other society factors, such as crime and drug usage found in neighborhoods in urban centers, many students live in unsafe conditions. I was superintendent of schools of Baltimore City (Maryland) Public Schools (BCSP) in the 1990s and made a practice of visiting the district’s 182 schools. Because of this, I saw first hand every neighborhood in this city of 750,000 people and witnessed crack houses, prostitutes, and decaying neighborhoods that cried out for intervention. Schools, with locked doors, were often the safest place in these communities. To often crime spilled over into the schools in these communities. During my first two months on the job, there were gang and drugrelated shootings in three of the 24 comprehensive high schools. This required my administration to implement costly programs, and to provide increased security services in these locations to better ensure the safety of students and employees, particularly in middle and high schools. In Baltimore, we had a school police force of 100 full-time officers, which took considerable funds away from the primary mission of the school district. Student and employee safety is a real issue in many urban centers in the United States (U.S. Department of Education, 2005c, p. 1). Free Transportation School districts are required to provide free transportation for students who are served under choice provisions of NCLB (U.S. Department of Education, 2005b, p. 44).
PARENT’S VIEWS Rose and Gallup (2005, pp. 3–5, 8, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20) presented a comprehensive assessment of parent’s views of NCLB and public education.
NCLB and the New ESEA Title I Program
101
Some of these views are presented in the following statements: Twenty percent of parents surveyed identified the lack of adequate funding as the major problem facing public education. This has been the number one problem for parents for each of the past fifteen years. Parents, who have children attending public schools, continue to support their schools, with 57% giving them an A or B grade. Parents continue to oppose allowing parents to send their children to private schools at taxpayer expense by a 57–38% margin, with 5% indicating no opinion. Parents by a large margin continue to prefer school reform to occur in the public schools, as opposed to other venues, 68% as opposed to 23% who feel an alternative system might be better. Regarding the amount of testing, parents feel the amount of testing is just about right. Forty percent of parents hold this view, as opposed to 17% who do not. Also, 67% of parents believe that high school students in grades 9–11 should also be tested. Fifty-two percent of parents believe student test scores should be only one measure to assess school quality and 44% do not. Ninety percent of parents believe closing the achievement gap is very important or somewhat important. Only 40% of parents indicated they know a great deal about NCLB. However, this is an increase of 16% over parent’s response to this question a year ago. Fifty-seven percent of parents, who were familiar with NCLB, indicated they were dissatisfied with strategies used in NCLB and 36% viewed them as favorable. Sixty-seven percent of parents, who were familiar with NCLB, indicated they approved of the practice of disaggregating test scores by subgroups. Seventy-nine percent of parents indicated they would prefer schools to make additional effort to improve the education of students, who do not make AYP, rather than transfer them to other schools. Sixty-two percent of parents indicated that special education students should not be required to meet the same performance standards as other students. Eighty-five percent of parents indicated a better way to assess school performance is to measure gains students have made from year to year, as opposed to using an absolute standard. Parents were almost equally split regarding who should be responsible for students not making AYP, public schools or NCLB. The scores on this
102
RICHARD C. HUNTER
question were 45% who would choose to blame public schools, while 43% would blame NCLB. It should be noted, that 12% did not know who should be blamed.
CHALLENGES TO NCLB There is increasing discontent with NCLB. Olson (2005, p. 1) reported the USDOE has given 16 states greater flexibility in implementing NCLB. These changes would make it easier for them to show greater progress in student academic achievement. Illinois Association of School Boards, 2005, p. 3, reported several changes have been approved by USDOE to make it easier for school districts in Illinois to make AYP, including the following: The minimum size of subgroups will be increased from 40 to 45 students. This means that schools with fewer than 45 students in special education will not be required to report scores on these students. Schools will be allowed to add 14% to scores of disabled students. This is a new allowance. School districts will not be able to make AYP if specific grade spans, such as grades 3–8 and 9–12 do not make AYP, as a whole. This is different. In the past, schools did not make AYP if any subgroup did not make AYP. Students will not be required to enroll until May 1, instead of September 30. This means school districts will be permitted to exclude scores of students who enroll late. These provisions will go into effect when 2006 exams are administered. According to NCLB Grassroots.org (2005, pp. 2–3) 21 states have considered legislation critical to NCLB; 15 states have prepared legislation permitting them to opt out of NCLB; four states have considered legislation to prohibit the use of state resources to implement NCLB; and Colorado have passed legislation to permit school districts to opt out of NCLB. Lawsuits have been filed opposing NCLB by Michigan, Texas, Vermont, Connecticut, and the National Education Association (NEA). These groups allege that the federal government is requiring states to spend their funds on requirements of NCLB.
NCLB and the New ESEA Title I Program
103
ANALYSIS OF NCLB Positive Features Some positive features of NCLB are presented in the following statements: First, disaggregating test data for student subgroups, mentioned earlier, has created a sense of urgency for school administrators, teachers, and parents regarding all students. This, since of urgency, has even been felt in wealthy suburban schools with few minority and special need students, who do not make AYP. Second, giving parents options to remove their children from lowperforming and unsafe schools is forcing principals and superintendents to develop ways to increase student achievement and school safety to retain these students. Providing greater flexibility for administrators on how to use Title I funds is a positive future of NCLB. In the past, administrators misused Title I funds for such unintended purposes as school construction. The accountability provisions of NCLB are excellent. Most states already had similar requirements for school districts before NCLB became law. Getting principals, superintendents, and teachers to focus on data in school and district report cards has caused administrators to target strategies for improvement. Labeling previously high-performing schools as low performing has created greater unity among all locations of public education, rural, suburban, and urban. These groups are united in opposition to NCLB, because of the lack of full funding and the discomfort it is creating for them. Establishing high-performance benchmarks for all students is good policy. Schools are capable of providing a higher level of education for students. Education is the great equalizer in a modern industrialized society. Therefore, all children should be given an equal opportunity to obtain a highquality public education. The use of scientifically based research for school programs is an excellent requirement. For too long, teachers have relied on educational fads and intuition to determine strategies for school improvement. Because of this, money and time have been wasted on implementing unproven programs (Schmoker, 1999, pp. 70–71). Has provided more resources to support school improvement. Federal funds for public education have increased by 59.8% from 2000 to 2003.
104
RICHARD C. HUNTER
However, this is still not enough to fund requirements of NCLB (Wikipedia, 2005, p. 4). Negative Features The failure of the federal government to fully fund NCLB has placed a greater burden on school districts and states. At the same time, the federal government is requiring school districts to: fund supplemental services, pay costs for children to attend safe schools, and provide additional transportation services for students who are being transferred to other schools within the district. In addition, NCLB has required states and school districts to spend additional funds on technology connected with the implementation of NCLB. This indicates a major shift in education technology policy has occurred as a result of NCLB. Under the Clinton administration, federal education technology policy was devoted to opening new educational horizons. The Bush administration, on the other hand, is committed to using computer technology as a tool to analyze student achievement data. States and school districts are now spending millions of dollars to provide online student-data systems to help teachers plan better for instruction (Technology Counts, 2005, p. 8; Hendrie, 2005, pp. 1, 22; Keller & Sack, 2005, pp. 1, 18; Archer, 2005, pp. 23, 27). Goals are too high. NCLB requires 100% of students to reach AYP by 2014. This will result in many schools being labeled as low performing and perhaps the entire educational system being viewed as a failure. Wiley, Mathis, and Garcia (2005, p. 1) indicate most schools in the Great Lakes region will not make AYP in 2014. Other states predict very high failure rates for schools in their locations, California (99%), Virginia (93%), and Massachusetts (75%). Some believe the 2014 goal will support dismantling the American public education system, which has been a goal of the Republican Party and conservative think tanks (Berliner & Biddle, 1997, pp. 1–3; Clinchy, 2001, pp. 495–496; Wikipedia, 2005, p. 4). Requires school districts to provide the same access for military recruiters to use facilities as required of institutions of higher learning. This will probably enable the military to meet recruitment goals (Wikipedia, 2005, p. 4). The federalizing of public education violates principles of states rights that have been consistently espoused by politically conservative groups and raises the question is NCLB constitutional legislation? This is because
NCLB and the New ESEA Title I Program
105
control over public education is vested in states, not the federal government (Wikipedia, 2005, p. 4; McColl, 2005, p. 604). NCLB’s focus on basic skills limits support for other instructional areas, such as history, social studies, art, and music instruction (Wikipedia, 2005, p. 5).
CONCLUSION In conclusion, there are two questions that will be discussed in this section of the paper. First, is NCLB a good policy? The second is what are the challenges of administering NCLB? Is NCLB a Good Policy? You should know this is not the first attempt of the federal government to hold school districts accountable for academic progress with students who are being served by ESEA, Title I. In the early 1980s, the former chair of the House Education & Welfare Committee, Representative Augustus Hawkins, a Democrat from Los Angeles who served in the Congress for 28 years, introduced legislation to withhold funding from states and school districts that did not reach benchmarks on academic achievement for ESEA, Title I, students. During this period, I was superintendent of the Richmond (Virginia) Public Schools and was invited by Chairman Hawkins to attend a briefing in Washington on his proposed ESEA, Title I, legislation. Unfortunately, the legislation did not pass (Hawkins, undated). Disaggregating Assessment Data Regarding NCLB, the good appears to outweigh the bad. Overall, it is a good policy. Disaggregating results of statewide assessments by subgroup, requiring schools to make AYP, and issuing report cards have forced school districts to pay closer attention to Hispanic, Afro-American, low socioeconomic, limited English proficient, and special need students. In some cases, these students have been overlooked, particularly in suburban and rural schools, where they are in small numbers. Because these students might not have made AYP, NCLB forces schools to develop better ways to teach these individuals. It is disturbing that schools in Illinois maybe permitted, once again, to marginalize these students (Illinois Association of School Boards, 2005, p. 3).
106
RICHARD C. HUNTER
Targeting Funds and Priorities NCLB is also getting urban school districts to spend more of their limited resources to provide supplemental services to low-performing students. They also provide funds for students, who attend unsafe schools, to transfer to other district schools. Because of this, urban school districts are required to devote more resources for improving the academic performance and safety of students in their schools. Even though these provisions in the legislation cause considerable consternation for administrators in these locations, the pressure is warranted. Students should not be required to attend schools with these conditions. It is interesting to note that changes in NCLB policy that Illinois was able to negotiate with the USDOE do not ease requirements on large urban school districts, which have large numbers of students in each subgroup (Illinois Association of School Boards, 2005, p. 3).
Challenges of Administration Pressure on School Administrators President Bush deserves credit for challenging apathy among public school administrators and for putting pressure on them to improve the quality of public education for students represented by the NCLB subgroups. Some question the motivations of President Bush, as mentioned earlier, and believe it is attributed to a desire to dismantle the system of public education in this country. Of course, this is speculation. However, putting pressure on administrators to improve educational conditions for students in the targeted subgroups is laudable. Unfortunately, some administrators have become complacent and preoccupied with other issues and may have lost their passion for these students. Superintendent Rudy Crew of the Dade County Schools, Miami, FL, is demonstrating passion for students in his school district by creating a subdistrict of 39 low-performing schools. The subdistrict will operate within the larger school district and will receive additional financial resources to pay higher salaries to teachers and provide other supports to address poor educational conditions found in these schools (Farrell, 2005, p. 25). More Funding for Public Education The federal government has increased funding for public education, but it is not enough. Public school administrators, professional associations, and state governments are criticizing the federal government for not providing
NCLB and the New ESEA Title I Program
107
sufficient funds to fully implement requirements of NCLB. Unfortunately, our country is waging war in Iraq and granting costly tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. These public policies are preventing the federal government from providing resources to fully implement NCLB. In addition, the federal government is shifting responsibility for its policy to state and local government (NCLB Grassroots.org., 2005, pp. 2–3). Broader Public Policy Recently, it was extremely painful to observe on television and read in the print media, during the early days of September of 2005, the unconscionable and conditions of poor and elderly residents of New Orleans. These persons were stuck at the Astrodome without a way to get out of the city before the Hurricane Katrina waged its destruction on New Orleans. Observing these conditions, it became evident that something more must be done to address conditions of poverty that many citizens face in America (Hoff, 2005, pp. 1, 22–23; Robelen, 2005b, pp. 1, 22). Clearly, a larger public policy agenda is needed to complement NCLB. Perhaps, President Johnson had it right, when he waged the ‘‘war on poverty’’ in the 1960s. Unfortunately, the nation was not ready for these bold policy initiatives and the war on poverty was lost. Perhaps, the nation is now, after watching the impacts of Hurricane Katrina on the poor, is more receptive to eradicating poverty. If a war on poverty is to be waged anywhere in the world, it should be waged in the United States. We have attempted to demonstrate to residents in Iraq that democracy is a better form of government, while at the same time demonstrating we have looked the other way about poverty in our own land. Unfortunately, the Iraqi citizens and other people throughout the world have been able to observe inconsistency between what we say others should do and what we do. We are the most wealthy and powerful nation in the world and have been vocal in condoning poverty in other nations; while at the same time we have permitted it thrive in our own country. Further, the conditions of poverty observed at the Astrodome during the Hurricane Katrina had racial overtones, for most of the people were Afro-American. President Bush has done little to eradicate poverty in this country, because he has pursued another policy agenda. Now, our nation is extremely venerable to public opinion not just from zealots, who represent terrorists in the Middle East, but also from our allies as well. Both have seen, through the medium of television, the degree of poverty that exists in the richest nation in the world. Future we need to eradicate poverty to ensure meeting the goal of 100% of students making AYP. This admirable and lofty goal is unobtainable without a larger more comprehensive public policy agenda. This
108
RICHARD C. HUNTER
larger agenda is supported by research that indicates there is a direct correlation between poverty and educational attainment. For, as social capital grows so does human capital (Coleman, 1987, p. 35; Kozol, 1991, p. 80; Hodgkinson, 1991, pp. 9–16; Coleman, 1998, p. 96). It now appears it is the time for President Bush to formulate a national policy agenda to augment NCLB and eliminate poverty not only in New Orleans or even in the region represented by the Gulf States, but also throughout the United States. Also, he should see the federal government fully funds NCLB. Together these efforts would offer the greatest opportunity to improve the quality of education for all public school students in the United States and give meaning to the admirable and lofty goal of 100% of students making AYP by 2014 embodied in the visions of President Bush and the Congress to ‘‘leave no child behind’’ (Wikipedia, 2005, p. 4).
REFERENCES American Youth Policy Forum (2005). The reauthorization of ESEA, Title I: A forum brief. http://www.aypf.org/forumbriefs/1999/fb0412999.htm, p. 1. Archer, J. (2005). Connecticut files court challenge to NCLB. Education Week, 25(1), pp. 23, 27. Berliner, D., & Biddle, B. (1997). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America’s public schools. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing USA. Brown, F., & Hunter, R. C. (1996). The privatization of public education: What do we mean? School Business Affairs, 62(5), 6–11. Clinchy, E. (2001). Needed: A new educational civil rights movement. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(7), 492–498. Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). Editorial on no child left behind: 3 years and counting. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(2), 99–103. Coleman, J. (1987). Families in schools. Educational Research, 16(6), 32–38. Coleman, J. (1998). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Supplement), 95–120. Farrell, J. M. (2005). In the zone: Miami-Dade County’s strategies to improve its worst schools are intense and focused. But do they work? Scholastic Administrator, 5(2), 25–31. Gewertz, C. (2005). Chicago resisting federal directive on NCLB tutoring. Education Week, 24(16), pp. 1, 15. Hawkins, A. (Undated). Speech on new legislation. Washington, DC: Rayburn Office Building of Congress. Hendrie, C. (2005). NCLB cases face hurdles in courts: suits focus on law’s language on funding, Education Week, 24(34), pp. 1, 22. Hess, G. A. (1991). School restructuring, Chicago style. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Hodgkinson, H. (1991). Reform versus reality. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(1), 9–16. Hoff, D. J. (2005). Schools open doors to students fleeing Gulf Coast disaster. Education Week, 25(2), pp. 1, 22–23.
NCLB and the New ESEA Title I Program
109
Hunter, R. C. (2002). New accountability management by states. School Business Affairs, 68(4), 4–8. Hunter, R. C., & Donahoo, S. (2001). Sanctioning school failure: School takeovers and big-city politics. School Business Affairs, 67(9), 20–23. Illinois Association of School Boards (2005). Changes confirmed to ease several NCLB requirements. Illinois Association of School Boards, Springfield, IL. July 2005, Issue No. 641, pp. 1–8. Jehlen, A., & Winans, D. (2005). No child left behind-Myth or truth? NEA, Washington, DC. http://www.nea.org/neatoday/0505/nclb.html, pp. 1–3. Keller, B., & Sack, J. L. (2005). Union, states wage frontal attack on NCLB. Education Week, 24(33), pp. 1, 18. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York, NY: Harper Perennial Publishers. McClure, P. (2002a). The public’s right to know. Education Trust, National Network of Partnership Schools at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. http://www. partnershipschools.org, pp. 1–30. McClure, P. (2002b). Supplemental educational services. Education Trust, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. http://www.partnershipschools.org, pp. 1–5. McColl, A. (2005). Tough call: Is no child left behind constitutional? Phi Delta Kappan, 86(8), 604–610. Murphy, J., & Beck, L. C. (1995). School-based management as school reform: Taking stock. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing. NCLB Grassroots.org. (2005). http://nclbgrassroots.org/, pp. 2–3. Olson, L. (2005). Requests win more leeway under NCLB. Education Week, 24(42), pp. 1, 22–23. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). 163 U.S. 537. Raffel, J. (2002). History of school desegregation. In: C. H. Rossell, D. J. Armour & H. J. Walberg (Eds), School desegregation in the 21st century. Westport, CT: Praeger. Reed, V. (1984). The role of the U.S. Office of Education. Speech given in Richmond, VA, to public school administrators and members of the Richmond School Board. Robelen, E. W. (2005a). New Orleans eyed as clean educational slate. Education Week, 24(4), pp. 1, 421. Robelen, E. W. (2005b). 40 years after ESEA, federal role in schools in broader than ever. Education Week, 24(31), pp. 1, 22–23. Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (2005). 37th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappa International, Bloomington, ID. http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0509pol.htm, pp. 1–26. Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Stephan, W. G. (1980). A brief historical overview of school desegregation. In: W. G. Stephen & J. R. Feagin (Eds), School desegregation, past, present, and future. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Technology Counts (2005). Electronic transfer: Economic and policy forces are moving technology dollars in new directions. Education Week, 24(35), May 5, pp. 8, 9. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (1965). Racial isolation in the public schools (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
110
RICHARD C. HUNTER
U.S. Department of Education (2005a). President’s FY 2006 budget focuses resources on students who need them the most. Washington, DC, http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/ 02/02072005.html, pp. 1–3. U.S. Department of Education (2005b). Improving basic programs operated by local educational agencies. http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html, pp. 1–79. U.S. Department of Education (2005c). School choices for parents. Washington, DC, http:// www.ed.gov/parents/schools/choice/definitions.html, pp. 1–3. Wikipedia (2005). Elementary and secondary education act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESEA, pp. 1–5. Wiley, E. C., Mathis, W. J., & Garcia, D. R. (2005). NCLB ayp:‘Fail now or fail later,’ National Education Association, Washington, DC. http://www.nea.org/esea/greatlakesayp.html, pp. 1–3. Wilhelm, S. (2002). Making the most of Title I schoolwide programs (pp. 5–8). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Wirt, F. M., & Kirst, M. W. (1982). The politics of education: Schools in conflict. Berkeley, CA: McCuthan Publishing Corporation.
RECONCEPTUALIZING ACCOUNTABILITY IN URBAN SCHOOLS Carolyn Talbert-Johnson and Charles J. Russo ABSTRACT This chapter addresses changes in the reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) by the 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. NCLB Act increases both federal involvement in K-12 education and funding for this purpose. The Act targets poor students and academically weak schools by shifting funding formulas, requiring annual testing of students in grades three through eight; and makes school systems accountable by tracking test results, reporting to parents, and disaggregate tests results by sub-group factors. The goal is to eliminate the achievement gap between minority and white students. We discuss the process and the achievement of this goal.
INTRODUCTION When the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act was signed into law, it inaugurated what many now see as ‘‘an unprecedented level of federal involvement’’ in public education (Pugmire, 2004, p.1). Technically a No Child Left Behind and other Federal Programs for Urban School Districts Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 9, 111–126 Copyright r 2006 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(06)09006-8
111
112
CAROLYN TALBERT-JOHNSON AND CHARLES J. RUSSO
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the passage of the NCLB marked a significant shift in the federal education policy, with heavy emphasis on increased accountability, eliminating the achievement gap, and expanded school choice. According to Cochran-Smith (2003), the revised ESEA significantly increases both the federal role in precollegiate education and the overall amount of federal dollars earmarked for this purpose. The NCLB Act, which directly targets poor students and struggling schools by shifting funding formulas, requires mandatory annual testing of students from third through eighth grade and makes school systems accountable by tracking test results, reporting to parents, and disaggregating results by race, gender, and other factors. Beaver (2004) aptly views the NCLB Act as the most far reaching attempt by the federal government to alter American public education in the last 30 years. The NCLB Act attempts to hold schools accountable by requiring that all teachers be highly qualified and that all students demonstrate proficiency in basic subject matter as measured by standardized tests. Ultimately the goal of the act is the reduction and elimination of the achievement gap between minority children who frequently attend urban schools, and their mainstream peers. Although the bill’s supporters claim that it represents an unprecedented consensus, it has also raised concerns (Cochran-Smith, 2003) about the extent to which the federal government is, or should be, involved in educational making at the local level. As such, this chapter reviews the potential impact that the NCLB Act might have on urban school systems and their students.
OVERVIEW OF THE NCLB ACT Enacted in 2002, the NCLB Act is the most controversial of federal education laws. The key elements in the NCLB Act are to improve academic achievement among students who are economically disadvantaged; assist in preparing, training, and recruiting highly qualified teachers (and principals); provide improved language instruction for children of limited English proficiency; make school systems accountable for student achievement, particularly by imposing standards for annual yearly progress for students and districts; require school systems to rely on teaching methods that are research-based and that have been proven effective; and afford parents better choices while creating innovative educational programs, especially if local school systems are unresponsive to their needs (Wenkart, 2003). As part of
Reconceptualizing Accountability in Urban Schools
113
the process of complying with the revised Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the NCLB Act, school officials must ‘‘take measurable steps to recruit, hire, train, and retain highly qualified school personnel to provide special education and related services (20 U.S.C.A.A. y 1412 (a)(14)(D))’’ for students with disabilities. The IDEA and NCLB Act are both similar and dissimilar. The laws are alike to the extent that they both address the needs of students with disabilities, albeit in varying degrees, through state agencies and local school systems; focus on student achievement and outcomes; emphasize parental participation; and both require the regular evaluation or assessment of students and staffs. On the other hand, the laws also have some significant differences. The most important difference between the two statutes is that IDEA focuses on the performances of individual students in an array of areas while the NCLB Act is more interested in system-wide outcomes. One of the IDEAs most controversial additions, its definition of ‘‘highly qualified’’ teachers for students in regular education as well as in special education (20 U.S.C.A. yy 1402(10), 1412 (a)(14)), which also applies to related services personnel and paraprofessionals (20 U.S.C.A. y 1412 (a)(14)(B)), parallels the language of the NCLB Act. In order to be classified as ‘‘highly qualified,’’ a standard which is based on state, rather than federal, law, subject area teachers in public schools will not only have to be certified fully in special education or pass state-designed special education licensure examinations, but will also have to possess bachelors’ degrees and demonstrate knowledge of each subject for which they are the primary instructors (20 U.S.C.A. y 1402(10)). According to these provisions, which apply the same deadlines as the NCLB Act, currently employed teachers must meet the standards by the end of the 2005–2006 school year even if they teach multiple subjects. New special education teachers have until two years after they are hired to become approved as ‘‘highly qualified’’ in different subjects as long as they are fully certificated in at least one. The IDEA adds that while teachers who satisfy its requirements as highly qualified also qualify for this title under the NCLB Act (20 U.S.C.A. y 1402 (10)(F)), the law does not create a private right of action that can be judicially enforced to ensure that children are taught by such teachers (20 U.S.C.A. y 1412(a)(14)(E)). In other words, parents cannot file a suit to ensue that their children are taught by teachers who meet the standards under the IDEA and NCLB Act. Few educators express disagreement with the goal of the current mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act. Close examination of many teacher education programs and PK-12 classrooms reveals, however, that this belief is typically superficial and not supported by dispositions, practices, instruction,
114
CAROLYN TALBERT-JOHNSON AND CHARLES J. RUSSO
curriculum, and policies (Darling-Hammond, 2000). Indeed, many educational settings primarily support, teach, and affirm students whose culture mirrors the majority of teachers and teacher educators – who typically are White and middle class (Banks, 2006). As one discerns the mandates of NCLB Act, a review of the administrator’s role, as well as the quality of teaching must be addressed. Given the mandates of NCLB Act, it is not surprising that teacher and leadership preparation programs are being criticized for their failure to ensure that candidates in these programs possess the requisite skills to meet the needs of a diverse student population. In addition, the current wave of reform places unprecedented pressure on urban schools to educate all children, meet a specific set of academic standards, and produce evidence of learning using high-stakes standardized tests. Given that student learning is the goal of education, superintendents and principals are being asked to become leaders in the learning process, with the focus on accountability as measured by high-stakes achievement tests. The authors contend that to address the mandates of NCLB Act, administrators and teachers must move beyond the fragmented and cursory treatment of poor and minority children in urban environments that currently prevails. The sustainability of ‘‘highly qualified’’ teachers and the complex and dispositional dimensions of administrators are key to forging a vision that is inclusive of all students is merited to eradicate structural inequities that currently exist in urban schools.
THE DAUNTING EXISTENCE OF URBAN SCHOOLS The under achievement of students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds in comparison to their mainstream peers continues to be problematic for urban education. Therefore, it is not surprising that many of these students come from low income families, are African American, Latino American, and speak a primary language other than standard American English (Campbell, Hombo, & Mazzeo, 2000). Additionally, this is compounded by the fact that urban schools are increasingly home to students whose lives and experiences are vastly different from those of their teachers, who tend to be overwhelmingly White, middle class, and monolingual English speakers (Futrell, 2000). Irvine (2003) in her research refers to this as the lack of cultural synchronization. Teachers bring to school their own set of cultural and personal characteristics that influence their work. This includes their beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, ethnicity, gender, and social class, whereas, minority children have a different set of cultural and
Reconceptualizing Accountability in Urban Schools
115
personal characteristics. When teachers and students bring varying, and often conflicting, cultural experiences to the classroom, there is the possibility of cultural discontinuity. When cultural conflict exists between the student and the school, the inevitable occurs: miscommunication and confrontation between the student, the teacher, and the home; hostility; alienation; diminished self-esteem; and eventually school failure. The bottom line is that when teachers and students are out of sync, they clash and confront each other, both consciously and unconsciously. This illuminates the need for a diverse pool of prospective candidates that possess culturally responsive pedagogies and dispositions that affirm to all students. The literature supports that the schools that our nation’s most vulnerable children attend, especially those in economically strapped urban areas, are dilapidated and segregated (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002). In addition to attending schools with crumbling structures and little financial and moral support, poor children also face a myriad of challenges brought on by structural and social inequality. Further, these children may be predisposed to fail because of the effects of poverty, racism, and hopelessness that are evident in urban classrooms. Talbert-Johnson (2004) notes that inequities that are evident across the academic and behavioral performance of these students supports the need for educational leaders to adopt of ethical practices. To the extent that minority students have limited access to knowledge and resources in urban settings, they face persistent and profound barriers to educational opportunities. Thus, consideration must be given to these ongoing inequities and their impact on student achievement. Darling-Hammond (2000) suggests that these practices have resulted in the misidentification and misassessment of African American students in special education programs, suspended, and expelled (Oakes, 1985). If instruction is not tailored to students’ individualized styles of learning, then it is unlikely that the academic achievement gap will be eliminated. Campbell, Hombo, and Mazzeo (2000) note that at all ages and in all subjects, the achievement gap is larger now that it was in 1988 – and in some cases, by as much as 50%. Even though the gap narrowed in the past 30 years, African American and Latino students still have lower rates of college entrance and completion and lower grades than white students do (Haycock, 2001). These statistics provide a bleak picture of minority youth in urban settings and illustrate that education in many urban communities is in a critical state. Clearly, as Nelson, Palonsky, and McCarthy (2004) assert, the solution to the achievement gap remains elusive. The achievement gap between minority
116
CAROLYN TALBERT-JOHNSON AND CHARLES J. RUSSO
children and their white counterparts has widened since 1988 because minority students’ scores in reading and mathematics are declining (Jacobson, Olsen, Rice, Sweetland, & Ralph, 2001). Jacobson et al. assert that minority children consistently scored lower than whites did on math and reading tests. This is particularly true for children with similar test scores in one or two grades. Not surprisingly, the gap widens as minority children continue through the K-12 educational system. The study suggests that proposed reasons for achievement gap differences may be because of racial, environmental, and other institutional differences that mitigate against the ability of minority children to acquire these skills at the same rate as whites. Education research must continue to address the deleterious effect of the achievement gap as it impacts student learning. Reconceptualizing the underlying dispositions and beliefs that guide programmatic and instructional practices continue to be a pervasive problem in education. The reality is that educators frequently expect the achievement gap in performance trends of minority children in urban classrooms, which ultimately enhances their chances of being left behind. For decades, even with new reforms, the achievement gap has persisted and continues to exist among minority children and their white counterparts. Boutte (2005) asserts that this long-standing phenomenon is so embedded in the psyche, discussions, and deliberations of funding sources such as research foundations, testing agencies, professional organizations, schools, colleges, and universities that it would be difficult to dislodge even if reforms aimed at reducing and eliminating the gap are successful. Additionally, related trends such as the disproportionate placement of minority children in special education versus gifted programs and differential dropout rates are expected as the norm. Inherent in these trends mindsets about the culture and abilities of students from marginalized and mainstream groups that are not faring well, which result in negative beliefs about the children, their families, and their communities. Indeed, a closer examination of the dispositions, beliefs and behaviors of educators is warranted, as it impacts curriculum, instruction, and student outcomes. In an attempt to discern the realities of the achievement gap, a study was conducted in 32 schools across six counties in the San Francisco Bay Area. Symonds (2004) surveyed teachers and principals regarding to examine and compare the attributes of schools that demonstrated progress in closing the achievement gaps and those that had not. Eighty-six respondents in a study strongly agreed that their leaders held closing the achievement gap as a priority. The data supported the notion that schools that were successful in closing the gap were more likely to have developed and agreed upon an
Reconceptualizing Accountability in Urban Schools
117
explicit definition of equity. The study further revealed that leaders in these schools were more likely to have set measurable goals for closing the achievement gaps and were more receptive to recruiting and employing people of color in positions of leadership (Symonds, 2004). In addition the leaders were more likely to provide structured opportunities for faculty to discuss race and ethnicity. Accordingly, the study found that gap-closing schools are better at zeroing in on what needs to be done. Teachers at these schools report that their school had a narrower focus on in-school factors, or areas they have control over, rather than home, community, or family factors beyond their control. Teachers received more frequent professional development to support their focus on reading programs and instructional strategies.
The Mandate for Highly Qualified Teachers In the era of NCLB Act legislation, it is increasingly clear that teacher education programs will be held more accountable than ever before (Post, Wise, Henk, McIntyre, & Hillkirkm, 2004). Policies of the federal government demonstrate a fundamental mistrust of the field of teacher education, and the accompanying rhetoric implies that public schools fail, in large measure, because teacher preparation programs fall short in producing quality teachers (The Teaching Commission, 2004). NCLB Act requires states to prove a highly qualified teacher in every classroom of every core subject by the end of the 2005–2006 school year. Most states define ‘‘highly qualified’’ as holding a credential (Cohn, 2005). Additionally, each state must submit an annual plan to the U.S. Department of Education that charts their progress toward meeting this objective. Cohn states that though most complaints about the loss of outstanding multiple subject teachers, the policy implications for leaders of urban school districts are substantial and problematic. For years, urban superintendents have been told that merely placing experienced, credentialed teachers in classrooms with poor minority children would reap positive student achievement gains. However, a consistent definition of teacher quality, according to Cochran-Smith (2003), is not substantiated by research. To respond to the ‘‘highly qualified’’ teacher challenge, urban school systems are beginning to frame a different question in the debate: What are the contributors to teacher success at schools that have realized significant student achievement gains for poor minority children? Cohn (2005) reports that this new question moves the debate beyond credentialing to what
118
CAROLYN TALBERT-JOHNSON AND CHARLES J. RUSSO
superintendents, principals, and teachers call ‘‘the art of teaching.’’ Some urban schools with significant numbers of teachers without credentials continue to out-perform schools with high percentages of credentialed teachers. In addition, some charter schools and inner-city parochial schools exhibit this phenomenon. The issue may be related to climate and culture issues, rather than teacher credentials. If well qualified teachers are essential to student achievement, then it is essential that every child has access to teachers that excel in content knowledge. At the same time, educators must employ the most current researchbased strategies, employ culturally responsive pedagogies, as well as possess an empathic disposition that is manifested in the equitable treatment of all students. Gay (2000) suggests that minority students who have caring relationships with their teachers are more motivated and typically perform better academically. The startling reality is that teacher shortages in urban schools are well documented (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Futrell, 2000). Therefore, these poor districts will be hit by the hardest. It is disturbing to note that poor minority students often receive services from teachers who lack the requisite skills to instruct them (Talbert-Johnson, 2004). These schools have always had difficulty in attracting highly qualified teachers due in part to lower pay. The problem may be more acute in math, science, and special education where shortages are likely to continue across the country at the secondary level (Hayasaki, 2003). It is likely that unless these schools receive some type of state or federal funding allowance, the future looks bleak. It is clear, that dramatic inequities exist in students’ access to an excellent, high quality education (Nieto, 2003) and these inequities are frequently based on race and social class differences. Reversing the negative performance trends of poor, minority students and other marginalized students requires structural reframing in knowledge bases, instructional practices, curriculum, dispositions, and policies.
The Politics of Accountable Leadership Since President Bush signed the NCLB Act into law, attention has been increasingly focused on the need for schools to provide the nation’s children with a ‘‘fair, equitable,’ and significant opportunity to obtain a high quality education’’ (Quinn, 2005, p. 13). An essential element in this effort is the law’s insistence on school accountability. Failure to meet annual progress goals can lead to serious penalties, including replacement of the principal or
Reconceptualizing Accountability in Urban Schools
119
even state takeover of the school. The stakes are high for the nation’s principals. Therefore, in response to the increasing demands for higher student achievement that are being placed on principals, state departments of education, school districts, and principals themselves are turning to universities for advice, collaboration, and leadership. According to Quinn, since preparation programs have not adequately prepared principals to undertake the new demands of school leadership, practitioners must recognize the need to form meaningful partnerships with universities if preparation programs and principals are to meet the challenges relevant to accountability and student performance outcomes identified in the NCLB Act. In light of this, thousands of superintendents and principals are working to implement provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act. Although there may be competing rationales for the design of and explanation for elements of NCLB Act, the legislation is in part based on the premise that institutional-level accountability will improve the organization of schools, instructional delivery, and ultimately student performance outcomes (Rorrer & Skrla, 2005). This legislation places demands on superintendents, principals, and teachers for the increased achievement of all students, as measured minimally by general state assessments and other state-specific accountability criteria. Given these demands, it is imperative that we develop a better understanding of positive and productive leadership responses to accountability policy. Ultimately, there is a dire need for higher-quality preparation programs that prepare administrators for the daily demands of schools. Unfortunately, these programs have been criticized for their lack of a common, cohesive framework that defines the knowledge, skills, and dispositions leaders are expected to possess and apply (Quinn, 2005). Frequently preparation programs have provided course work that is too theoretical and simply unrelated to the daily tasks administrators face. As a result, candidates for the principalships do not develop the practical knowledge necessary for job success. A focused vision for leadership should espouse that the critical indicator of school success is student achievement. A study by the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) examined the role of school leadership in improving school performance, which was lagging despite a decade of comprehensive school reform and the introduction of accountability systems (Hughes, 2005). The study found that many of the college and university education leadership programs were not tightly connected to the craft of teaching and learning. Too often, such programs offered a series of discrete courses that were not tied to improved instruction. In addition, most graduate programs did not focus on leadership
120
CAROLYN TALBERT-JOHNSON AND CHARLES J. RUSSO
knowledge and specific skills (e.g., data-driven analyses, continuous improvement strategies, and distributed leadership accountability). The study also supported the proposition that many principals did not feel prepared to lead their schools to higher student achievement. In fact, principals usually spent only 15–30% of their time on improving instruction in their schools. The principals reported that the majority of the time was spent on such things as schedules, buses, food services, facilities, sports programs, and matters related to discipline and safety in their schools. This is disconcerting, since accountability, student achievement, and quality learning opportunities are essential mandates of NCLB Act. Clearly, then, a dire need exists for a reconceptualization of accountability as it impacts leadership programs. If change is to occur, it is vital that leadership programs recruit qualified applicants. According to Hess (2003), ‘‘administrators are selected from a talent pool constructed without regard to aptitude for leadership and one that excludes many who may be well suited to serve.’’ It is common for universities to perpetuate a shallow talent pool by their reliance on traditional selection criteria, which includes grade point average, letters of recommendation, and interviews. These selection measures have rarely been found helpful in determining future success as educational leaders. A proactive approach to improve recruitment should be adopted, which would include the development of criteria that recognizes the high potential of candidates with knowledge of curriculum and instruction, those who possess positive dispositions and an appropriate work ethic, as well as strong communication skills. If a candidate possesses these requisite skills, it is highly likely that they will be committed to the improvement of learning outcomes for all students. Starratt (2005) asserts that a different kind of school leader will be required for the future. Put another way, he speaks of the need to cultivate multidimensional leaders who understand the various dimensions of the learning tasks in schools. Starratt further states that educational leaders who serve in administrative capacities have the duty to attend to the domain of ethnical enactment. Administrators who are accountable for a whole school or school systems must ensure that classroom teaching and learning do not violate the learning content and process. Structures and procedures that support and channel the learning process must reflect a concern for social justice and fairness for all students, while providing room for creativity and imagination. Administrator must have access to organization structures and processes that affect the core work of teaching and learning, therefore they should promote the integrity of the school’s core work. The subtle bias in the classification of minority children in special education placement (Hehir, 2002), the tracking
Reconceptualizing Accountability in Urban Schools
121
of students into dead-end, low expectation programs (Oakes, 1985), and the scheduling of the ‘best’ teachers in honors classes and the least experienced teachers in the lowest performing classes, are examples of organizational arrangements that disadvantage students in schools. Ultimately, administrators must embrace the domains of ethical enactment. Administrators’ limited ability to institute reforms that have an impact on teaching and learning in the classroom is disturbing. Many administrators continue to assume that changes in the organizational structure of schools – block scheduling, advisories, small learning communities – will result in changes in the classroom. However, research on school reform has shown that such change rarely occurs and that lasting improvements in teaching and learning can only come from a strategy focused on improving instruction (Elmore, 2005). The change in demands that are placed on today’s educational leaders is mainly a consequence of the introduction of performance-based accountability and policies that evaluate, reward, and sanction schools on the basis of measured student performances. The NCLB Act grant-funding system represents an ideal opportunity to improve school-university partnerships aimed at reshaping preparing programs. For example, NCLB Act can fund collaborations between universities and low-achieving schools that address areas such as achievement gaps, behavioral challenges, high student mobility, teacher shortages, and lack of parent involvement, which are germane to urban schools. Funding may be available for tuition reimbursement, professional development, planning activities, and release time for school leaders to examine these issues. Educators have to learn and become fluent in new instructional practices, often with different content constructions designed around different expectations based on student capabilities. Ultimately these expectations are manifested in different types of student work that require higher levels of teaching skills and knowledge. Simultaneously, Elmore (2005) posits that educators need to deal with the emotional ebb and flow of success, failure, and stasis. Additionally, teachers should employ practices that produce learning outcomes in which all students experience success. Successful teachers and administrators recognize that they now know how to do things they did not know previously and that their knowledge and skills are transferable from one domain of instructional practice to another. For example, what was learned about designing professional development when introducing the new literacy curriculum is useful in the initial stages of designing professional development for the new math curriculum. Personnel in these schools view themselves as skillful practitioners, not just of the work
122
CAROLYN TALBERT-JOHNSON AND CHARLES J. RUSSO
required to produce student performance but also to create the conditions for improved student performance. Improvement also requires the use of distributed cognition (Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002). Typically instructional problems are highly complex, and the knowledge required to solve them comes from expertise outside the organization – new curricular models, consultants, and professional developers – and from resident experts within the organization. Administrators note that schools that are improving utilize practices that are tailored specifically to individual needs and that capitalize on the varied expertise within the organization. According to Elmore (2005), schools that are accomplished utilize distributive leadership within the organization, therefore no person or role monopolizes the entire body of knowledge needed for improvement. It becomes a team effort in which people are encouraged to work together productively for the betterment of the organization.
Dimensions of Accountable Leadership Any serious debate about the No Child Left Behind Act’s prospects for success in rescuing students, who historically have not been served well by the nation’s public schools, must include the important voices of administrators (e.g., superintendents; principals), who are charged with implementing the many disparate elements of the law’s main provisions (Cohn, 2005). As one might expect, there is no unanimous agreement in their support for this federal education policy. Proponents view the law as essential to overall school reforms which build on local and state accountability initiatives. Whereas (Cohn, 2005), others view it is as punitive measure designed to build the case for vouchers and other private sector provider schemes by arguing that public schools have failed in many communities. The passage of NCLB Act presents urban superintendents and other local school leaders with a significant challenge. The law’s powerful focus on individual student performance as the measure of school and district success impacts on the role of superintendents. Now that we have marked the passage of the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), our nation is moving beyond the sometimes narrow confines of equal access to the full-blown demand for improved student achievement for every child, regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, disability, religion, socioeconomic status, and gifts. Urban superintendents are challenged by the mandate of the law’s equally powerful insistence on consequences for lack of progress
Reconceptualizing Accountability in Urban Schools
123
and the usual resource shortfalls associated with large scale federal education initiatives (Cohn, 2005). The Public Agenda Report released in 2003, notes that large district superintendents argues that the law’s provisions for ‘‘highly qualified’’ teachers, standards-based curriculum, annual testing, and disaggregating student achievement by race and economic standing are all positive features that will assist them in improving their districts and close the ever-present achievement gaps. Additionally, Casserly (2004), suggests that in the minds of many urban educators, the law remains the single most important piece of federal education legislation to emerge in a generation. Its goals of raising achievement, closing achievement gaps, and strengthening accountability are exactly what the best urban educators in the country have been working for (p. 37).
Cohn (2005) posits that many view NCLB Act as part of a chain of progressive civil rights in America that includes past federal initiatives like Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and the IDEA. The consensus is that we must tread ahead in eliminating the large achievement gaps that have long blighted American education. However, issues of implementation, profound policy differences across federal, state, and local authorities and politics have impacted the feasibility of the laws. Orfield (2004) observes, Our focus is on what the law actually means in action, whether it is workable and effective as now implemented. y we continually focus back on the basic goals of the law to rapidly improve and equalize the opportunities and performance of low-income and minority children traditionally left behind (p. 3).
In December 2003, the Reading, Pennsylvania school district, which had 13 of 19 schools identified as failing to make adequate yearly progress, filed a lawsuit against the state department of education arguing that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was obligated to provide adequate funding to comply with NCLB Act. The lawsuit argues that the state should not impose sanctions on the school district or its schools until appropriate financial and curricular assistance is provided. It should be noted that Reading is an urban school system of 16,000 in southeastern Pennsylvania where 64% of the students are Latino, and where mobility rates are high. The superintendent felt that there are things contained in the law that are not right and are clearly unfair andinconsistent. Key issues of the lawsuit were the state’s failure to provide tests in Spanish, inadequate funds for tutoring, and a questionable definition of what constitutes a subgroup. Elmore (2005) posits that accountable leadership focuses on the development of internal accountability and stresses the importance of agency – individually and collectively. In other words people assume individual and
124
CAROLYN TALBERT-JOHNSON AND CHARLES J. RUSSO
collective responsibility for the consequences of their practice. In addition, Elmore suggests that accountable leadership focuses on the technical and social/emotional dimensions of improvement. Improvement begins with changes in the instructional core that address the problems of student learning, and entails acquiring external knowledge to address the problems. Finally, accountable leadership is distributed leadership. As schools become successful in creating internal accountability and nurturing building practices in improvement, it is possible to employ distributed leadership according to expertise. For instance, decisions have to be made as to what knowledge is appropriate for a school’s particular problem and how that knowledge will be disseminated throughout the organization. Some teachers know more than others about the instructional problems their school faces and the practices that address those problems. Therefore, their expertise needs to be deployed to help, nurture, and develop successful practices throughout the organization. Ultimately, improvement requires distributing leadership coherently around focused problem solving in the organization, as stakeholders become change agents.
FINAL THOUGHTS A top priority for educational researchers is the examination of the impact of NCLB Act on the work of teachers and leaders in urban contexts. NCLB Act challenges school boards and educators to ensure accountability for the academic improvement of all students. This is a worthy endeavor, but one that may reveal disturbing deficiencies and disparities across schools, especially those in urban districts. Full implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act will require bold initiatives to strengthen the leadership skills of principals for today’s schools (Quinn, 2005). Teachers in these schools must be well qualified to ensure that all students perform at optimal levels in robust environments that are conducive to learning. Cohn (2005) suggests that examining the impact of NCLB Act on the work of urban educators, needs to be the top priority for educational researchers. The heart of NCLB Act requires unprecedented scrutiny of classrooms in local districts to discover whether poor, minority, low-achieving students are receiving a rich curriculum delivered by ‘‘high quality’’ teachers. As is evident from the current research, NCLB Act will continue to face resistance, as policies are implemented and states, teachers and administrators attempt to respond to its mandates.
Reconceptualizing Accountability in Urban Schools
125
Change can only occur in the quality of teachers and administrators that impact student learning when dispositional and instructional changes accompany a reframing of the curriculum. Therefore, curriculum must be extended to make it more inclusive and accurate (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). In addition, Quinn (2005) suggests the lack of partnerships between universities and administrators compromises the recruitment of the higher-qualified candidates desperately needed to transform low-achieving schools in urban communities. A vision in the reform movement should include the development of partnerships between state departments of education, school districts, administrators, teachers, and universities. This can only occur when a framework that is grounded in the beliefs that the salient role of schools, administrators, and teachers is to promote a more equitable and just society in which indeed – no child is left behind. A reconceptualization of accountability systems that gives serious attention to principles of access, equity, and diversity in education, is warranted.
REFERENCES Banks, J. A. (2006). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. Beaver, W. (2004). Can No Child Left Behind work? American Secondary Education, 32(2), 3–18. Boutte, G. S. (2005). Believing in possibilities: Making culture central to teaching and learning. Briefs, 26(10), 5–7. Campbell, J., Hombo, C., and Mazzeo, J. (2000). NAEP 1999 trends in academic progress: Three decades of student performance. National Assessment of Educational Progress. Retrieved November 12, 2003 from http://nces.ed.gov/Nationsreportcard/pubs/main1999/ 200469.asp Casserly, M. (2004). Driving change: A progress report on urban school districts’ efforts to execute the mandates of No Child Left Behind. Education Next, 3(14), 32–37. Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). What a difference a definition makes: Highly qualified teachers, scientific research, and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(3), 187–189. Cohn, C. A. (2005). NCLB implementation challenges: The local superintendent’s view. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 156–169. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). New standards and old inequalities: School reform and the education of African American students. Journal of Negro Education, 69(4), 263–287. Elmore, R. F. (2005). Accountable leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 134–142. Futrell, M. H. (2000). The challenge of the 21st century: Developing a highly qualified cadre of teachers to teach our nation’s diverse student population. Journal of Negro Education, 68(3), 318–334. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research and practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Hayasaki, E. (2003). Teacher shortage abates. The Los Angeles Times, 11(23), A1.
126
CAROLYN TALBERT-JOHNSON AND CHARLES J. RUSSO
Haycock, K. (2001). Closing the achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 58(60), 6–11. Hehir, T. (2002). Eliminating ableism in education. Harvard Review, 72(1), 1–32. Hess, F. M. (2003). A license to lead? A new leadership agenda for America’s schools. Progressive Policy Institute, 24–28. Hughes, R. C. (2005). Creating a new approach to principal leadership. Principal, 84(5), 34–39. Irvine, J. J. (2003). Educating teachers for diversity: Seeing with a cultural eye. New York: Teachers College Press. Jacobson, J., Olsen, C., Rice, J. K., Sweetland, S., & Ralph, J. (2001). Educational achievement and Black-White inequality. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (National Center for Education Statistics, Statistical Analysis Report No. NCES 2001-061). National Center for Education Statistics (2002). Trends in disparities in school district level expenditures per pupil. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Nelson, J. L., Palonsky, S. B., & McCarthy, M. R. (2004). Critical issues in education: Dialogues and dialectics (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Nieto, S. (2003). Challenging current notions of highly qualified teachers through work in teachers’ inquiry group. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(5), 386–398. No Child Left Behind Act (2001). 20 USC yy 6301 et seq. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press. Orfield, G. (2004). Introduction to Sunderman and Kim. Inspiring vision, disappointing results: Four studies on implementing the No Child Left Behind Act (pp. 1–9). Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard. Post, D. M., Wise, K. C., Henk, W. A., McIntyre, J. D., & Hillkirkm, K. (2004). A new pathway for the preparation of highly qualified teachers: The Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT). Action in Teacher Education, 26(2), 24–31. Pugmire, T. (2004). Paige doesn’t expect states to opt out of No Child Left Behind. Minnesota Public Radio. Retrieved February 19, 2004, from http://news.mpr.org/features/2004/02/ 18_pugmiret_rodpaige/ Quinn, T. (2005). Leadership development: The principal-university connection. Principal, 84(5), 12–16. Rorrer, A. K., & Skrla, L. (2005). Leaders as policy mediators: The reconceptualization of accountability. Theory into Practice, 44(1), 53–62. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University. Starratt, R. J. (2005). Responsible leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(3), 124–133. Symonds, K. W. (2004). Using data to close the achievement gap. Perspective on the gaps: Fostering the academic success of minority and low-income students. Naperville, IL: Learning Point. Talbert-Johnson, C. (2004). Structural inequities and the achievement gap in urban schools. Education and Urban Society, 37(1), 22–36. The Teaching Commission (2004). Teaching at risk: A call to action. New York: The National Commission on Teaching. Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent approach. New York: SUNY Press. Wenkart, R. D. (2003). The No Child Left Behind Act and Congress’ power to regulate under the Spending Clause. 174 Education Law Reporter, 589–597.
THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001 AND CHARTER SCHOOLS Preston Green and Joseph Oluwole ABSTRACT Supporters of charter schools tend to also be the supporters of 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) regarding choice in education. Many minority parents and their children are disappointed with school desegregation benefits and the pace of school finance reform is embracing choice schools such as charter schools. Charter schools are public schools with a specific mission free from the local school district, and are administered by a group of parents. Charter schools proponents argue that minorities will receive an education superior to traditional public schools. We argue that charter schools combined with accountability goals of NCLB by racial subgroups should enhance the academic achievement of minority students. We also assess the combination of the school choice paradigm with a focus on the interaction of charter schools and NCLB.
INTRODUCTION Many minority parents and students, who have become displeased with school desegregation litigation and school finance reform, have embraced school choice models, such as charter schools, as a means to obtain equal No Child Left Behind and other Federal Programs for Urban School Districts Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 9, 127–139 Copyright r 2006 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(06)09007-X
127
128
PRESTON GREEN AND JOSEPH OLUWOLE
educational opportunity (Ryan, 2002). Charter schools are public schools that receive waivers from many of the regulations that apply to regular public schools. In return, charter schools are accountable to their sponsors – usually state or local boards of education – to achieve academic results. The ‘‘charter’’ is a performance contract describing the school’s mission, program, goals, student population, and methods of evaluation. At the end of the term, the charter school sponsor may renew or revoke the school’s charter (Green & Mead, 2004). Proponents argue that charter schools improve the educational opportunities of minority students in a number of ways. Charter schools promote healthy competition to prompt the improvement of regular public schools. Charter schools are also more accountable than regular public schools. This is the case because charters may be revoked if they fail to live up to the academic standards set in the charter, and because charter schools are beholden to parents who may remove their children if they are dissatisfied. Finally, because charter schools are free from state regulations, they may develop innovative educational ideas that can be adopted by other public schools (Green & Mead, 2004). The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (2001) has clearly embraced the proponents’ arguments for charter schools. Indeed, charter schools play a major role in achieving NCLB’s goal of ‘‘ensur[ing] that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments’’ (20 U.S.C. y1001). Students who are attending failing schools have the option of transferring to charter schools. Charter schools may provide supplemental services to students attending failing schools. Moreover, states may convert low-performing schools to charter schools under their enabling statutes. The goals of this chapter are to determine why charter schools have become such an integral part of NCLB and to examine whether charter schools are providing minority students with equal educational opportunity. The first two sections provide respective overviews of school desegregation and school finance litigation. These are the first two strategies employed by minorities in their quest for equal educational opportunity. We argue that the effectiveness of school desegregation and school finance litigation was limited by the objections of suburban school districts and by court decisions that reflect their concerns. The third section analyzes the school choice paradigm with a focus on charter schools. We explain why charter schools have become so popular with minority students and discuss how the NCLB incorporates charter
The No Child Left behind Act of 2001 and Charter Schools
129
schools. This section then examines whether charter schools have brought about improved educational opportunities for minority students. We note that the research on academic performance indicates that minority students in charter schools do not perform better than those in traditional schools, and in some instances do worse. This section then discusses possible reasons for the failure of charter schools to outperform regular public schools.
SCHOOL DESEGREGATION In Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954; ‘‘Brown I’’), the United States Supreme Court held that de jure, or governmental-sanctioned, segregation of public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court found that de jure segregation would psychologically damage black students because it creates in them ‘‘feeling[s] of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone’’ (Brown I, 1954, p. 494). A year later, in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1955; ‘‘Brown II’’), the Supreme Court set out guidelines, with no deadlines or timelines, for eliminating de jure desegregation; instead the Court held that public schools should desegregate ‘‘with all deliberate speed’’ (p. 301). Desegregation advocates welcomed the Supreme Court’s decisions in Brown I and Brown II with optimism that educating black children in white schools would provide black students with improved educational opportunities (Green, 2000). Soon after the Brown decisions, however, Southern school districts employed a number of strategies to prevent the success of school desegregation policies (Barnes, 1997; Green, 2000). These strategies were very successful: ten years after the Supreme Court’s adoption of the ‘‘all deliberate speed’’ standard, 97.8% of black students in eleven southern states were still in segregated schools (Barnes, 1997). The Supreme Court eventually grew tired of Southern intransigence. In Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County (1964), the Court declared that ‘‘the time for mere deliberate speed had run out.’’ Griffin paved the way for a series of Supreme Court decisions aimed at speeding up the end of de jure desegregation. In Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, Virginia (1968), the Court commanded the school board to ‘‘come forward with a plan that promises realistically to work, and promises realistically to work now.’’ In Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg (1971), the Court held that federal district courts could implement busing to achieve desegregation.
130
PRESTON GREEN AND JOSEPH OLUWOLE
Civil rights advocates then turned their focus on school segregation in the North and West. ‘‘Unlike in the South, where racial segregation had been imposed systematically by law and where the courts’ primary focus since Brown had been on devising effective remedies for the vestiges of segregation, courts in the [N]orth and [W]est were required to determine whether racial imbalances stemmed from deliberate school board discrimination, from factors beyond school officials’ control, or from a mixture of the two’’ (Tatel, 2004, p. 1104). In Milliken v. Bradley (1974), the Court effectively put an end to efforts to desegregate Northern and Western schools by prohibiting the inclusion of suburban school districts in metropolitan desegregation remedies, where there was no proof that the suburban school districts had committed de jure desegregation. The Court asserted that such interdistrict remedies infringed upon the doctrine of local control. As the Court explained, ‘‘the notion that school district lines may be casually ignored or treated as a mere administrative convenience is contrary to the history of public education in our country. No single tradition in public education is more deeply rooted than local control over the operation of schools’’ (p. 741). Milliken effectively put an end to efforts to desegregate public schools in the North and West because minority students were located in the inner city, while white students were located in the suburbs. Without interdistrict remedies, it was virtually impossible to create desegregated schools (Green, 2000; Ryan, 2004). It is important to acknowledge the political backdrop to the Supreme Court’s Milliken decision (Ryan & Heise, 2002; Tatel, 2004). The general public was opposed to cross-district busing. President Nixon had delivered a television address in opposition to cross-district busing, and various members of Congress had introduced legislation prior to Miliken to forbid it (Ryan & Heise, 2002). President Nixon also nominated Lewis Powell, who voted in the majority in Milliken, because he was opposed to busing (Tatel, 2004). Although it is impossible to say that political pressures influenced the Court to limit the scope of desegregation, it is clear that the Milliken decision provided independence from urban school districts (Ryan & Heise, 2002).
SCHOOL FINANCE As civil rights advocates became frustrated with school desegregation as a means to improve the educational opportunities of minority students, they began to focus on school finance litigation (Ryan & Heise, 2002). Early school finance litigation was similar to school desegregation litigation in
The No Child Left behind Act of 2001 and Charter Schools
131
that plaintiffs sought to ‘‘tie’’ black and white students together: ‘‘Whereas school desegregation sought to tie the fate of white and black students together by placing them in the same schools, school finance equalization would tie the fate of poor and wealthy schools together by ensuring equal access to resources’’ (Ryan & Heise, 2002, p. 1325). School finance litigation has gone through three waves in which one legal theory has dominated (Green & Baker, 2002). In the first wave, plaintiffs argued that disparities between rich and poor school districts violated the Equal Protection Clause. However, in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973), the United States Supreme Court ended the first wave by holding that local property taxation was rationally related to the legitimate goal of promoting local control. In the second wave, civil rights advocates relied more on state equal protection clauses in arguing that school funding disparities were unconstitutional. These efforts were mostly unsuccessful, as state courts relied on the Supreme Court’s analysis in Rodriguez in finding funding disparities constitutional (Green, 2000). During the third wave, there has been a shift in emphasis from equity to adequacy. Civil rights advocates have generally argued that the state has failed to provide property-poor school districts with an adequate education guaranteed in the state’s education clause (Green & Baker, 2002; Green, 2000). Despite the efforts of civil rights advocates, funding differences between predominantly white and predominantly black school districts are quite common. In 2001, there were 28 states where school districts with the highest minority shares received less in cost adjusted state and local revenue per pupil than districts with the lowest minority shares. These racial disparities are caused by the political power wielded by suburban school districts over their states’ school finance formulas (Baker & Green, 2005; Ryan & Heise, 2002). Most school finance formulas consist of two tiers. The first tier provides foundational aid to poor school districts to enable them to provide a constitutionally adequate education. The second tier provides cost adjustments designed to address the different educational needs of school districts (Green & Baker, 2002; Baker & Green, 2005). In addition, school districts are permitted to raise additional resources through taxation that they do not have to share with other districts (Ryan & Heise, 2002). Suburban districts unduly benefit from the structure of school finance formulas. They have an advantage over poor districts because they can raise revenue in addition to the resources provided by the state. Most states do not dare implement provisions, such as recapture plans, that would redistribute local revenues to poorer school districts (Ryan & Heise, 2002).
132
PRESTON GREEN AND JOSEPH OLUWOLE
Suburban districts have also used their political clout to take advantage of the cost adjustments provided by states to address the different educational needs of school districts (Green & Baker, 2002; Baker & Green, 2005). School finance formulas employ two types of cost adjustments. Cost adjustments that compensate schools and districts for the additional costs of educating students with special needs, such as students with disabilities and at-risk students, benefit poorer school districts because more students requiring compensatory education reside in such districts (Green & Baker, 2002). Cost adjustments are designed to compensate schools for district characteristics, such as economies of scale and geography, and to benefit affluent districts. Economies of scale adjustments, which are designed to make up for the greater unit educational costs incurred by smaller school districts, tend to benefit small rural districts, which in some states have relatively high taxable property value compared to urban districts with respect to the numbers of students served in local public schools (Green & Baker, 2002). Geographic adjustments, which are intended to compensate districts for different costs of teachers and other personnel, benefit wealthier districts because they tend to employ more qualified and more experienced teachers and are able to pay higher wages and provide more desirable working conditions for those teachers (Green & Baker, 2002). Because of the political power wielded by suburban districts, they ‘‘can more than offset the compensating effects of poverty adjustments that advantage poor districts by implementing geographic cost adjustments that advantage wealthier districts’’ (Green & Baker, 2002, pp. 153–154). In some instances, racial funding disparities may be the result of apparently racially neutral school financial policies that were in fact designed to perpetuate racially discriminatory policies in existence before the Brown decisions (Baker & Green, 2005). The history behind certification-based teacher scales provides an illustration. During the Jim Crow era, several Southern states adopted pay scales that explicitly paid black teachers less than white teachers. Thurgood Marshall, legal counsel for the NAACP, convinced a federal court that Norfolk, Virginia’s practice of unequal teacher pay scales violated the U.S. Constitution (Alston v. School Board of City of Norfolk, 1940). However, the NAACP moved on to challenge the concept of ‘‘separate but equal’’ education without completely eliminating these practices. In the meantime, many Southern school districts replaced their explicitly unequal pay scales with certification-based scales based on educational attainment and scores on standardized tests. Because white teachers generally had higher educational attainment than black teachers and performed better on these tests, they received higher pay than their
The No Child Left behind Act of 2001 and Charter Schools
133
black counterparts. However, certification-based teacher pay scales were upheld because plaintiffs could not establish a racial animus for their adoption (Baker & Green, 2005). Alabama’s school finance formula provides an illustration. The state’s foundation program bases its aid allocations to local districts on teacher units, which are allocated according to the education and experience levels of teachers in specific schools. Consequently, schools that employ more teachers with advanced degrees or with more years of experience receive a larger foundation allotment. Predominantly minority school districts receive less aid than white school districts because they employ teachers with less experience or less educational attainment (Baker & Green, 2005). The salary schedule might be traceable to racially discriminatory policies that were in existence prior to Brown. In 1927, the state board of education adopted a teacher pay scale that provided black unit costs at 50% of white unit costs (Baker & Green, 2005). It appears as though the state maintained an explicitly race-based teacher certification scale until the 1960s when the state rescinded the state board of education’s power to set teacher pay scales. Finally, in 1972, the state adopted a certification-based pay scale that was based on educational attainment (Baker & Green, 2005).
SCHOOL CHOICE, CHARTER SCHOOLS, AND NCLB Beginning in the 1990s, school choice has become the third paradigm for achieving equal educational opportunity (Ryan, 1996). Proponents of school choice assert that school choice policies will equalize educational opportunities for minorities by increasing the educational options that are available to them and by placing market pressures on public schools (Chubb & Moe, 1990). The concept of school choice is not a novel idea: Milton Friedman is attributed with developing the concept in the 1950s (Heise, 1996). School choice plans include vouchers, intradistrict choice, interdistrict choice, and charter schools. Charter schools have become the most popular form of school choice. As of April 2005, there were 3,400 charter schools serving 1 million students (Center for Education Reform, 2005). The remainder of this section focuses on charter schools. Racial Composition of Charter Schools Many observers were concerned that white parents and students would use charter schools to develop segregated, public-school enclaves (Green, 2001).
134
PRESTON GREEN AND JOSEPH OLUWOLE
There is a historical basis for this concern: segregationists used school choice plans as a means to circumvent desegregation decrees (Green, 2001). In fact, in Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, Virginia (1968), the Supreme Court struck down a ‘‘freedom of choice’’ plan on the ground that it failed to achieve desegregation in the school district. Because of this historical backdrop, a number of state legislatures implemented racial balancing provisions, which require charter schools to reflect the racial population of the surrounding school district (Green, 2001). However, the failure of the school desegregation and school finance paradigms to achieve equal educational opportunities has led black parents to gravitate toward charter schools (Barnes, 1997; Ryan & Heise, 2002; Green, 2001). Frankenberg and Lee (2003) found that in 2001 that the national charter school population had a much higher percentage of black students and a lower percentage of white students than those in regular public schools. Frankenberg and Lee also found that almost 90 percent of black charter students attend ‘‘predominantly minority schools where minority students are more than 50% of the student body.’’ The researchers found this number striking ‘‘when compared to the 34 percent of black public school students who attend 90-100% minority schools.’’ Frankenberg and Lee conclude that ‘‘black students are not only disproportionately over-enrolled in charter schools, but that they are enrolled at a much higher rate than other black public school students in intensely segregated minority schools.’’ The support of the black community for charter schools has had the unintended consequence of putting predominantly black schools out of compliance with racial balancing decrees (Green, 2001). The experience of North Carolina’s charter schools is illustrative. In 1998, 22 charter schools in the state were out of compliance with the state’s racial balancing provisions, which requires charter schools to be reflective of the community as a whole within one year. All but one of these schools was black. Civic leaders and the teachers’ union called for the schools to comply with the racial balancing decree or be closed. Healthy Choice, a predominantly black charter school located in Durham filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the racial balancing decree. This challenge was averted when the Commissioner of Education promised not to enforce the racial balancing decree (Green, 2001).
Charter Schools and NCLB NCLB requires all states to develop assessment systems for measuring the achievement of public schools, including charter schools. As such,
The No Child Left behind Act of 2001 and Charter Schools
135
charter schools must complete the same testing requirements and must report scores in the same manner as other public schools. Those scores will then be used to determine whether students are making adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward state articulated goals. Charter schools that fail to make AYP are subject to the same penalties as other public schools under NCLB. Thus, they could be required to offer options for students to transfer to higher performing schools, provide supplemental educational services (SES), take corrective action, or undergo restructuring (Green & Mead, 2004). NCLB has embraced the concept of charter schools as a means for helping black parents obtain equal educational opportunity. Charter schools may be a destination of choice for parents transferring from other public schools that fail to make AYP. In fact, in 2002, NCLB allocated $200 million for the development of charter schools. Furthermore, charter schools may become providers of supplemental services. Moreover, states may convert low-performing schools to charter schools under their charter school legislation. The U.S. Department of Education asserts that ‘‘consistent with y [President George W. Bush’s] entire education plan, charter schools show that higher standards, parent and community involvement and greater freedom can result in higher achievement.’’ (U.S. Department of Education, nd). The Department of Education also declares that charter schools ‘‘often provide more effective programs and choice to underserved groups of students’’ (U.S. Department of Education, nd). Educational Research The research on the academic performance of charter schools raises doubt as to whether charter schools will enable minority students achieves equal educational opportunity. In Spring 2003, the administration of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for math and reading in Grade 4 and Grade 8 included for the first time a sample of 150 charter schools. The U.S. Department of Education delayed the release of the NAEP school results until December, 2004 (Nelson, Rosenberg, & Van Meter, 2004). In April 2004, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), which had advocated greater control over charter schools, performed an in-house analysis of the NAEP. The AFT found that the achievement scores of charter school students tended to be below those of regular charter schools, even for lowincome students. The AFT report also observed that the achievement scores of black students in charter schools were no better than those students in regular schools (Nelson et al., 2004).
136
PRESTON GREEN AND JOSEPH OLUWOLE
Supporters of charter schools immediately attacked the findings of the AFT. They did not dispute the AFT’s assertion that the NAEP scores of charter schools were lower than regular schools (Carnoy, Jacobsen, Mishel, & Rothstein, 2005). Instead, they countered that the AFT’s report was methodologically flawed because it failed to compare the scores of students who were similar in background and prior achievement. Supporters also countered that charter schools serve a more disadvantaged clientele than regular charter schools, and that charter schools serving black students attending charter schools tend to be more disadvantaged than their counterparts attending regular public schools (Carnoy et al., 2005). Thus, charter school students should have performed worse than those in regular public schools, even if the charter schools were more effective. Therefore, charter schools were more effective than traditional public schools (Carnoy et al., 2005). In December 2004, the U.S. Department of Education finally released its analysis of the charter school sample. Its findings were similar to those of the AFT. The charter school sample performed worse in math than regular public schools. In reading, there were no differences between the charter schools and their public school counterparts. The U.S. Department of Education also found no measurable racial and ethnic differences between charter schools and regular schools (National Center for Education Statistics, 2004). This was the case ‘‘even though, on average, charter schools have higher proportions of students from groups that typically perform lower on NAEP than other public schools, such as minority students and students in central cities’’ (p. 10). In 2005, Carnoy et al. (2005) reviewed 19 studies conducted in 11 states and the District of Columbia. They found that charter schools perform as well – and times scored consistently lower – than non-charter schools. They also challenged the contention of charter school supporters and the U.S. Department of Education that charter schools served more disadvantaged students than regular public schools. It is true that the fraction of black students in charter schools is higher than that of public schools. On the other hand, black students attending charter schools tend to be more affluent than their regular public school counterparts.
Implications for Minority Students Researchers have advanced two reasons for the fact that charter school students perform as poorly as those in traditional public schools. One possible
The No Child Left behind Act of 2001 and Charter Schools
137
reason is that the special characteristics of charter schools do not guarantee improved educational outcomes (Carnoy et al., 2005). Recall that charter schools are supposed to help minority students attain equal educational opportunity because their freedom from regulations would promote the development of innovative ideas. However, Carnoy et al. (2005) hypothesize that, while some schools have used this freedom from regulations to develop exceptional schools, others have used deregulation to create poor schools. For instance, while some charter schools have hired exceptional teachers, other schools have used freedom from certification requirements to hire teachers who are not as qualified as those found in regular public schools (Carnoy et al., 2005). Also recall that charter schools are supposed to provide equal educational opportunity for minority students because they are more accountable than regular public schools. This is the case because poorly performing charter schools may have their charters revoked and because parents may choose to leave charter schools that fail to live up to the standards set in their charters. But Carnoy et al. find little evidence that the threat of revocation has served as a sufficient threat to poorly performing charter schools. The authors also assert that parental choice may be an inadequate accountability to safeguard because parents may choose charter schools for reasons other than academic performance. Furthermore, assessing academic performance is so complicated that parents may be unable to determine whether a particular charter school is the best academic fit for their children. Suburban school districts may also be responsible for the disappointing academic performance of minority charter school students (Ryan & Heise, 2002). Recall that suburban school districts effectively stifled school desegregation and school finance reform. In the case of school desegregation, suburban school districts took steps to prevent urban black students from attending their schools. In the case of school finance reform, suburban school districts made sure that they did not have to redistribute the additional resources that they raised through local property taxation. Furthermore, suburban districts made sure that they received more funding from the cost adjustments provided by school finance formulas than their urban counterparts. Suburban school districts have reasons for restricting the scope of school choice programs, such as charter schools. As Ryan and Heise (2002) explain: Suburbanites, by and large, are not wild about school choice, either public or private. Suburban parents are generally satisfied with the public schools their children attend, and they want to protect both the physical and the financial sanctity of these
138
PRESTON GREEN AND JOSEPH OLUWOLE
schools. School choice threatens both. It creates the generally unwelcome possibility that outsiders – particularly urban students – will be able to attend suburban schools at the expense of local taxpayers. Choice programs also raise the possibility that some locally raised revenues will exit local schools as students leave to attend either private schools or public schools outside of their residential districts. To the extent that choice may threaten the exclusivity and superiority of suburban schools, it may also threaten suburban housing values, which are linked to the quality of neighborhood. Like suburban parents, suburban homeowners without children thus have a strong, self-interested reason to be wary of school choice (pp. 2045–2046).
There is evidence that suburban school districts have taken steps to limit the scope of charter school legislation, thus limiting the efficacy as a means for providing equal educational opportunity for minority students (Ryan & Heise, 2002). The charter school statutes of a number of states give preference to students who live within the school’s attendance zone. Thus, minority students who live outside the school’s attendance zone of a suburban charter schools may be unable to attend those schools (Green & Mead, 2004; Ryan & Heise, 2002). Furthermore, to lessen the economic impact of charter schools on regular public schools, a number of states do not provide charter schools with the same level of funding as regular public schools (Green & Mead, 2004). This is problematic when one considers that charter schools serve high percentages of minority students. Such schools may need extra resources to provide for the educational needs of their student populations.
CONCLUSION Many minority parents have enrolled their children in charter schools in order to obtain equal educational opportunity. They have gravitated to this educational reform because of their disappointment with school desegregation and school financial litigation. Proponents believe that charter schools will improve academic outcomes for minority students by providing educators with greater autonomy and increasing accountability. In agreement with this viewpoint, NCLB has made charter schools a prominent part of its accountability scheme. However, studies indicate that minority students who attend charter schools do not perform better than those who attend regular schools. These studies suggest that the special qualities of charter schools do not necessarily lead to improved educational outcomes. The academic disappointment of charter schools may also be due to the attendance and funding restrictions placed on them by suburban school districts.
The No Child Left behind Act of 2001 and Charter Schools
139
REFERENCES Baker, B. D., & Green, P. C. (2005). Tricks of the trade: Legislative actions in school finance that disadvantage minorities in the post-Brown era. American Journal of Education, 111, 372–413. Barnes, R. D. (1997). Black America and school choice: Charting a new course. Yale Law Journal, 106, 2375–2408. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (‘‘Brown I’’) (1954). 347 U.S. 483. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (‘‘Brown II’’) (1955). 349 U.S. 294. Carnoy, M., Jacobsen, R., Mishel, L., & Rothstein, R. (2005). The charter school dust-up: Examining the evidence on enrollment and achievement. New York: Teachers College Press. Center for Education Reform (2005). Charter schools. Retrieved August 15, 2005 from http:// www. edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=stateStats&pSectionID=15&cSectionID=44 Frankenberg, E., & Lee, C. (2003, September 5). Charter schools and race: A lost opportunity for integrated education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(32). Retrieved August 15, 2005 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n32/ Green, P. C. (2001). Racial balancing provisions and charter schools: Are charter schools out on a constitutional limb? Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 65–84. Green, P. C. (2000). Can state constitutions eliminate de facto segregation from the public schools? Journal of Negro Education, 68(2), 138–154. Green, P. C., & Baker, B. D. (2002). Circumventing Rodriguez: Can plaintiffs use the equal protection clause to challenge school finance disparities caused by inequitable state distribution policies? Texas Forum on Civil Liberties and Civil Rights, 7, 141–165. Green, P. C., & Mead, J. F. (2004). Charter schools and the law. Norwood, MA: Christopher– Gordon. National Center for Education Statistics (2004). The nation’s report card: Results from the NAEP 2003 pilot study. Retrieved August 15, 2005 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2005456.pdf Nelson, F. H., Rosenberg, B., & Van Meter, N. (2004). Charter school achievement on the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Retrieved August 15, 2005 from http:// www.aft.org/pubs-reports/downloads/teachers/NAEPCharterSchoolReport.pdf No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) (2001). 20 U.S.C.A. yy 6301–7916 (2004). Ryan, J. E. (1996). Schools, race, and money. Yale Law Journal, 109, 249–316. Ryan, J. E., & Heise, M. (2002). The political economy of school choice. Yale Law Journal, 111, 2043–2116. Tatel, D. S. (2004). Judicial methodology, Southern school desegregation, and the rule of law. New York University Law Review, 79, 1071–1133. U.S. Department of Education. (nd). The facts aboutysupporting charter schools. Retrieved August 15, 2005 from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/choice/charter/charter.html
This page intentionally left blank
140
STRUGGLING TO MEND IT OR END IT: LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE ISSUES IN THE BRIEF HISTORY OF THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001 Saran Donahoo and Norman Greer ABSTRACT The federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) is a reorganization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This redesign of the 1965 Act has legal issues to deal with which we will examine. We also discuss NCLB as it relates to education autonomy of the states, local school districts, and individual students and parents. We review several lawsuits challenging the authority of the federal government to regulate local school districts through funding under NCLB. These legal challenges have led to modifications in NCLB in order to gain greater acceptance by the states and local schools. However, legal challenges continue in the courts and in state legislatures.
No Child Left Behind and other Federal Programs for Urban School Districts Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 9, 141–154 Copyright r 2006 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(06)09008-1
141
142
SARAN DONAHOO AND NORMAN GREER
Enacted during the first George W. Bush Administration, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) gives the federal government previously unprecedented influence over public education. Building upon Title I programs, which focus on improving academic achievement among low-income students, NCLB seeks to increase performance rates for all elementary and secondary students by holding states and schools accountable for student outcomes on standardized assessment instruments. In exchange for their compliance and cooperation, states have received the promise of increased federal funding to help make the ultimate goal of having every child attain the established proficiency benchmarks a reality. However, the promise and dream of NCLB has experienced many bumps in its application and implementation. Rather than simply accept these directives offered by President Bush, Congress and the Secretary of Education, states, school districts, and others involved in education have grown increasingly distressed, disillusioned, and disturbed by the expansive provisions and insufficient funding provided under NCLB. As such, many state officials, school leaders, educational and community organizations, and parents have turned to the law in an effort to remove or reduce the influence NCLB has on public education. This text explores legal and legislative issues related to the application and enforcement of NCLB in three ways. First, the text examines lawsuits challenging various provisions of this legislation. Next, the chapter discusses some of the constitutional conflict surrounding NCLB. The last section highlights proactive responses by states and stakeholders to the act.
NCLB IN THE COURTS As of summer 2005, at least six lawsuits sought judicial clarification of various provisions of NCLB. Parents, teachers, private businesses, and school districts accused the U.S. Department of Education (USDE), state school boards, and local school districts of violating different elements of the law resulting from their enforcement or noncompliance with federal education policy. To date, none of these plaintiffs have prevailed in their efforts to overturn or obtain more strenuous enforcement of various provisions of NCLB. In these cases, the courts have ruled in favor of the defense by upholding the supremacy of federal authority, denying the existence of individual rights under NCLB, and dismissing the perceived legal conflicts between NCLB and other legislation.
Legal and Legislative Issues in NCLB
143
Federal Authority Adjudicated by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Court, the case of Reading School District v. Department of Education [Reading v. DOE] (2004) challenged federal authority over public education as established under NCLB. This case featured a Pennsylvania school district suing the federal government after 13 of its schools failed to make adequate yearly progress (AYP). The Reading School District argued that the failure of its schools to make AYP resulted as much from the actions of the school district as it did from the absence of technical support and other assistance from the Department of Education as promised within the NCLB legislation. The school district argued that USDE erred in labeling its schools as failing since doing so held the district accountable for elements of NCLB that the department itself did not provide them with the support to accomplish (Reading v. DOE, 2004). Resolving Reading v. DOE (2004), the court upheld the stance posited by USDE. The state court ruled against school district rejecting its allegations against the federal government. Issuing its decision, the court stated that, the District is challenging aspects of NCLB that are within the purview of the Department’s expertise and discretion, and this Court will not disturb the exercise of such discretion unless it has been abused y We are not educators not is it our place to substitute our judgment for those of learned educators who have experience and knowledge in such matters. (Reading v. DOE, 2004, p. 173)
Giving little credence to the legal issues raised in this case, the state court instead chose to defer to the authority of the federal government and perceived expertise of USDE officials. Yet, in doing so, the court completely overlooked the educational knowledge and expertise found in the school district, which chose to file this lawsuit. Individual Rights and Provision Enforcement Thus far, four cases have sought clarification regarding the enforcement of particular provisions within NCLB. In the oldest of these cases, parents and community groups sued school districts and school officials for violating NCLB. In Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now v. New York City Department of Education [Assoc. Comm. Orgs. v. NYCDE] (2003), parents and community members in New York City accused the local school district of defying NCLB by denying students the right to transfer out of poor-performing schools, and neglecting to provide access to
144
SARAN DONAHOO AND NORMAN GREER
tutoring and other supplemental educational services (SES). Despite these contentions, the district court chose to dismiss this case finding that the plaintiffs were not in a position to pursue the lawsuit. ‘‘The NCLBA is drafted to focus on the regulation of [state and local school authorities] and not on conferring any direct benefit, entitlement or right upon individual, such as parents and students’’ (Assoc. Comm. Orgs. v. NYCDE, 2003, p. 344). Interpreted by the court, NCLB provides directives from the federal government to the states and local school boards, not new rights to private citizens regardless of their relationships to the schools. Moreover, the district court also found that the provisions contested in the case are options presented within NCLB, not strictly specified mandates. As such, the plaintiffs had no basis for demanding these actions on the part of the school district even if NCLB extended the rights of individuals. As a result, the district court successfully avoided having to issue any further comment on the general merits of the educational quality allegations presented in the case (Assoc. Comm. Orgs. v. NYCDE, 2003). Similar to the parents in New York City, a private business in Ohio also sued hoping to force a local school board to abide by its interpretation of NCLB. In the case of Fresh Start Academy v. Toledo Board of Education [Fresh Start v. Toledo BOE] (2005), a small company accused the school district and its board of infringing on NCLB by misappropriating funds provided under the act, conferring preferential treatment in selecting SES providers, and doing financial harm to that company by refusing to let it serve as an SES provider. Much like the New York case, the district court in Ohio also ruled that NCLB does not extend new rights or privileges to individuals. Dismissing the case, the court also found no evidence that the school district misused the funding made available under NCLB, which Fresh Start had no guaranteed right to receive (Fresh Start v. Toledo BOE, 2005). The third case involving individual rights and NCLB enforcement questioned the influence the act has on teachers and other school personnel. Filed by a teacher, Kegerreis v. United States (2003) reasoned that NCLB is unconstitutional because the act unlawfully holds school personnel solely accountable for student performance and academic success. Accepting the United States’ motion to dismiss the case because the federal government did not waive its sovereign immunity in the lawsuit, the U.S. District Court in Kansas also maintained that Brian Kegerreis failed to indicate how NCLB violated his individual constitutional rights. Furthermore, the Kansas District Court decided that Kegerreis suffered no injury under the act since many of the provisions of NCLB contested in his lawsuit have yet to take effect under the law (Kegerreis v. United States, 2003).
Legal and Legislative Issues in NCLB
145
A fourth lawsuit, Coachella Valley Unified School District v. State of California, presents an accusation similar to the other three cases. In this case, Coachella Valley and 10 other school districts contend that the State of California is not complying with NCLB because it does not provide limited English-proficient students with assessments written in their native language. As such, these assessments fail to accurately report the true academic performance and skills possessed by these students. At the behest of the State of California, the case moved to federal court in late July 2005 (Mahr, 2005). Scheduled to begin August 18th, the Coachella Valley case may suffer the same fate as Assoc. Comm. Orgs., Fresh Start, and Kegerreis if the district court chooses to consider this as individual rights case. Taken in combination, the decisions in Assoc. Comm. Orgs., Fresh Start, and Kegerreis deny any individual rights under NCLB. However, focusing on the source of the accusations against NCLB also enabled these courts to avoid having to make any legal evaluation or assessment of the provisions and structure of the act. Essentially, these cases failed to successfully challenge NCLB less because of the allegations presented by the plaintiffs, than because of the identity of the plaintiffs themselves. Deduced by these courts, any legal opposition that hopes to successfully contest NCLB must come from the states and school districts targeted by the legislation, not the parents, students, or educators who live with the act on a daily basis. Conflicts within the Law Beyond improving and explicating enforcement, other lawsuits focused on NCLB suggest that all or part of this legislation should be nullified due to conflicts with preexisting laws. Centered on state law and rule-making procedures, Californians for Justice Education Fund v. California Board of Education [Ca. Ed. Fund v. Ca. BOE] (2003) addresses the issue of determining who is a ‘‘highly qualified teacher’’ under NCLB. Filed by a group of educational and civil rights organizations in California, the plaintiffs in Ca. Ed. Fund v. Ca. BOE (2003) accused the Ca. BOE of circumventing state law in the procedures used to establish qualified teaching characteristics. To remain eligible to receive federal funds controlled by NCLB, the Ca. BOE opted to develop a working definition of a ‘‘highly qualified teacher’’ without abiding by the state rule-making procedures. In dismissing this case, the California First Appellate Court ruled the organizations’ argument moot because the Ca. BOE had already initiated a process to define ‘‘highly qualified teacher’’ for the state following the rule-making guidelines established under state law (Ca. Ed. Fund v. Ca. BOE, 2003).
146
SARAN DONAHOO AND NORMAN GREER
In a more recent case, the state board of education, two school boards, and parents of four students in Illinois accused NCLB of establishing educational guidelines that directly contradict the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004). The plaintiffs in Board of Education of Ottawa Township High School District 140 v. U. S. Department of Education [BOE Ottawa Township v. USDE] (2005) suggested that the assessment mandates of NCLB violate IDEA by requiring school districts to deviate from the individualized education plan (IEPs) established for each student with disabilities. The Ottawa Township High School District chose to file the lawsuit because students with disabilities became the only ones who failed to make AYP for the second consecutive year in that district (‘‘Suit addresses NCLB/IDEA conflict,’’ 2005). Despite the arguments presented in the case, the Northern District of Illinois accepted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the case finding that the school districts had no standing to file suit since the action they complained of is a voluntary choice to uphold NCLB even in the face of violating the IEPs of their students. Contrary to the case presented by the plaintiffs, the district court reasoned that IDEA and NCLB do not contradict one another since the latter legislation makes no effort to alter IEPs (BOE Ottawa Township v. USDE, 2005). Similar to Ca. Ed. Fund v. Ca. BOE (2003) and BOE Ottawa Township v. USDE (2005), Pontiac v. Spellings (2005) also suggests that NCLB is invalid because of legal contradictions created by the act. Joined and supported by various state chapters of the National Education Association (NEA), parents and school districts in Pontiac, Michigan, Laredo, Texas, and Leicester, and Vermont contend that the application of NCLB contradicts itself by asking states to enforce federal policies without receiving promised financial support. Specifically, this lawsuit filed on April 20, 2005 maintains that USDE’s approach to NCLB violates both the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Unfunded Mandates Provision contained in NCLB itself by neglecting to provide states and local school districts with the financial support needed to implement federal education initiatives. As such, the plaintiffs asked for a court order declaring that states and local school districts do not have to spend any money not provided by the federal government to comply with NCLB and an injunction preventing Secretary Spellings and USDE from withholding federal funding from states and school districts for noncompliance resulting from inadequate funding (Pontiac v. Spellings, 2005). On June 29th, attorneys for the federal government responded by filing motions to dismiss the case citing that NEA and all of its affiliate chapters lack standing to sue, the school districts have not adequately demonstrated their standing to sue in the case, and the Unfunded
Legal and Legislative Issues in NCLB
147
Mandates Provision of NCLB does not prohibit the imposition of unfunded mandates, but only prevents federal officers and employees from adding to the statutory requirements outlined under NCLB (‘‘Federal government moves to dismiss lawsuit,’’ 2005). Although the Eastern District Court of Michigan has yet to issue a decision in Pontiac v. Spellings (2005), the brief history of NCLB cases suggests that this court’s ruling will do little to alleviate the problems described by NEA and the school districts in this case. Much like the other cases, the federal government has expressed no interests in addressing the merits of the claim. Indeed, if USDE succeeds in its efforts to have this case thrown out, the legal allegations made by the plaintiffs may very well receive no judicial attention whatsoever. Even so, the potential constitutional conflict cited by the plaintiffs in Pontiac v. Spellings (2005) does deserve some consideration.
NCLB AND THE CONSTITUTION As proposed in the Pontiac v. Spellings (2005) filing, NCLB may be in conflict with the U.S. Constitution. First of all, the constitutional power to enact an educational policy such as NCLB is not specifically provided to Congress. Unlike issues such as taxation, free expression, and diplomacy, education receives no direct mention in the Constitution. As a result, the federal government has no specific legal support or justification for setting educational policy or exerting its influence over public schools. Secondly, the 10th Amendment designates that states retain control over education since the constitutional authority to dictate such matters was not expressly delegated to Congress. Despite the guidance provided in the 10th Amendment, the federal government has been exercising ever-increasing influence over public education. Since the mid-20th century, presidents and Congress have repeatedly used the Spending Clause to justify their efforts to set and promote a federal education policy. Outlined in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, the Spending Clause states that, The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
In its application, the Spending Clause allows the federal government to set and influence policies by providing financial incentives for states to uphold
148
SARAN DONAHOO AND NORMAN GREER
federal guidelines. In other words, the Spending Clause helps to create contracts between the states and the federal government in which states receive funding to perform certain functions. States that do not wish to satisfy the obligations of the contract may simply refuse to accept the financial support (McColl, 2005). Described in Pontiac v. Spellings (2005), NCLB’s Unfunded Mandates Provision both reiterates and reinforces the basic idea of the Spending Clause. Located in Title IX, y9527 (a) of NCLB, the provision maintains that, Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State or local resources, or mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act.
While the Spending Clause makes federal policies enacted under that umbrella optional for the states, the Unfunded Mandate Provision contained within NCLB itself extends that same concept further by prohibiting federal employees from requiring states and local school districts to cover NCLBrelated expenses with monies obtained from nonfederal sources. Combined, the Constitution’s Spending Clause and NCLB’s Unfunded Mandates Provision place a greater obligation on the federal government to cover the full costs associated with the NCLB Act. However, NCLB implementation by both Rod Paige and Margaret Spellings has centered more on targeting and punishing states for noncompliance than identifying and correcting federal shortfalls and inconsistencies. For example, USDE withheld $113,000 from Minnesota and $700,000 from Georgia due to NCLB compliance issues (McColl, 2005). Although McColl (2005) speculates that these amounts are not large enough to develop into constitutional lawsuits for these states, the school districts, students, and parents affected by these penalties might disagree. Indeed, the limited resources available to most schools means that every dollar is both difficult to gain and even harder to keep. Moreover, neither the Spending Clause nor the Unfunded Mandates Provision establishes a dollar amount or appropriations percentage at which the actions of USDE result in a violation. Undeniably, the costs of taking the federal government to court may far exceed the funds withheld from either Georgia or Minnesota. Nevertheless, the amount of money involved by itself should not provide constitutional protection for legislative infractions perpetrated on the part of federal officials.
149
Legal and Legislative Issues in NCLB
Compared to the money taken away from Georgia and Minnesota, the general issue of NCLB funding does involve extremely large sums. Included as evidence in Pontiac v. Spellings (2005), the federal government has yet to fully support NCLB at the levels promised to the states (see Table 1). As the table indicates, NCLB has always been and continues to operate in violation of itself since states have never received all of the money promised to them by Congress. Moreover, providing these funds would still leave a heavy financial burden on the states since the average annual statutory support committed to Title I during this five-year period is more than $26 billion alone (Pontiac v. Spellings, 2005). Although receiving enough money to reach the authorization levels would not satisfy Congress’ stated commitment to NCLB, neglecting to do so both compromises the effectiveness of the act and jeopardizes the federal government’s ability to sustain cooperation from politicians and school leaders at the state and local levels.
REVISITING, REVISING, AND REBELLION Filing a lawsuit is just one of the methods that states, school districts, and other stakeholders use to express their discontent with NCLB. Absent the full funding promised to accompany NCLB, many stakeholders have adopted alternative approaches to the act in order to adapt it to their individual needs and definitions of accountability. These strategies include states obtaining special exceptions and procedural revisions from USDE, organizations recommending overall modifications to the act, and stakeholders simply attempting to discard or abandon the application of NCLB altogether. Table 1. Federal Fiscal Year
2001–2002 2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006 a
NCLB Funding Shortfalls Per Year.
Congress Authorization Level for NCLB Programs Including Title I
Actual Funding Provided
$26.40 $29.20 $32.00 $34.30 $36.85
$22.18 $23.82 $24.45 $24.50 $24.82
Difference between Appropriations and Actual Funding
$4.22 $5.38 $7.55 $9.80 $12.03a
Projection based on President Bush’s proposed budget. See Pontiac v. Spellings (2005).
150
SARAN DONAHOO AND NORMAN GREER
Revisiting Expectations Placed on States Although funding remains a hotly contested issue, USDE appears to be working to make NCLB easier for states to implement. In January 2005, USDE opened the door to modifying the act by giving each of the states an opportunity to propose changes to their accountability plans. Reviewed by USDE officials, the amended plans now translate into more variation in the way NCLB applies to each state. Approved in late June and early July 2005, state-by-state changes to the act include the following: Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, and Virginia received permission to increase the minimum number of students in a subgroup for which school districts are accountable for performance. In Illinois, the increase affects all subgroups with the minimum increasing from 40 to 45 students. In Minnesota, the change affects only the limited English proficient (LEP) subgroup, which moved from a 20 to a 40 student minimum. Alabama, Maryland, and Minnesota may now average results across years rather than base accountability on performance during each individual year. Alabama and Maryland can average performance over three years, while Minnesota will average based on scores from two consecutive years. Georgia, Idaho, Maryland, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Tennessee can adjust the percent of proficient students with disabilities when that subgroup is the sole reason a school fails to make AYP. In an effort to compensate for the influence disabilities have on test performance, Illinois will now add 14% to the scores of its students with disabilities. Alabama, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Oregon, and Wisconsin will only identify school districts for improvement if they fail to make AYP in the same subject for two consecutive years (Olson, 2005; Watts, 2005). These updates to NCLB give some states greater latitude in applying that act to their schools. However, not every state received USDE approval to make the same changes to NCLB. In fact, USDE rejected all or a significant portion of the plans proposed by various states. In doing so, USDE has helped to complicate NCLB by essentially giving each state its own piece of legislation to follow. Although each state has been operating under an individual accountability plan since the early days of NCLB, this new latitude provided by USDE goes much further than the differentiation originally approved under that element of the legislation since it actually makes it much easier for some states to mask or shape their performance data than ever before.
Legal and Legislative Issues in NCLB
151
Moreover, these state-by-state exceptions may also infringe upon the Spending Clause. Besides allocating certain fiscal powers and responsibilities to Congress, the Spending Clause also requires that the federal government apply these duties, excises, etc. uniformly across the nation. Although it may be a stretch, a state may be able to successfully argue that the new exceptions approved by USDE now mean that NCLB is not uniformly applied to every state.
Revising NCLB Rather than update NCLB on a case-by-case basis, other critics suggest that the legislation as a whole needs to be changed to more accurately assess and appropriately monitor school performance. To that end, some have proposed revising NCLB to give to all states much of the latitude that some states obtained from USDE. Published in February 2005, the National School Boards Association (NSBA) has created a proposed bill to update NCLB called the No Child Left Behind Improvements Act of 2005 (NCLBI). Suggested changes included in NCLBI are: More options for states in establishing individual definitions of AYP – must be federally approved. Testing participation rate moves from 95% to the range of 90–95%. Greater latitude in excluding students from compliance calculations including allowing parents to excuse their children (in accordance with state law), exemptions for students undergoing USDE approved special circumstances such as emergency medical conditions or natural disasters, and immunity for students with unusual attendance patterns. Establishing subgroups based on percentages within a school district rather than a constant minimum throughout each state. Requiring that standard or alternative assessments given to students with disabilities be included in their IEPs. Limited parameters for including the assessment of LEP students in calculations to determine AYP such as only counting those who have completed at least one full year of schooling in the United States. Establishing compliance and accountability measures for monitoring SES providers. Giving states the right to cut Title I funding to private schools whose Title I students do not make AYP and perform lower than area public schools for three or more years.
152
SARAN DONAHOO AND NORMAN GREER
Making school restructuring mandatory only when 35% or more students in a school or school district fail to make AYP (National School Boards Association, NSBA, 2005). Mimicking some grassroots affirmative action initiatives, NSBA adopts a ‘‘mend it, don’t end it’’ approach to NCLB. These proposed changes are likely to appeal to states and local school boards because it allows them to regain more control over their schools. At the same time, the recommendations made by NSBA also help to highlight some areas affected by NCLB that the current version of the legislation does not sufficiently address. Yet, similar to the states and USDE, the mere fact that NSBA has proposed that the federal government consider making so many extensive changes clearly indicates that the existing version of the act is not effectively accomplishing its intended goals. Rebelling Against USDE Several states and NSBA have expressed their dissatisfaction with NCLB by working to change the structure and application of that legislation. Conversely, Utah has decided to pursue a completely different approach. Rather than continue to accept NCLB, Utah is rebelling against the federal government by refusing to implement the act. Instead, the Utah legislature voted to allow the state’s accountability system, the Utah Performance Assessment System for Students [UPASS], to supersede NCLB in its schools. Utah’s bill, H. B. 135, also includes a provision that permits educators in that state to disregard any portion of NCLB unfunded by the federal government (The Center for Public Policy & Administration, 2005; Keller & Sack, 2005; Sargent, 2005). Prior to the final adoption of H. B. 135, USDE clearly indicated to Utah that the state could not simply opt-out of NCLB. In a letter dated April 18, 2005, Secretary Spellings indicates that implementing UPASS standards ahead of or instead of NCLB may cost Utah $55 million in Title I funding alone. Combined with other NCLB-related revenues, the loss of support may reach $77 million for the state. At the same time, Spellings also expressed concern that H. B. 135 deliberately contains certain provisions designed to encourage Utah’s schools to act contrary to the guidelines provided in NCLB and may simply allow the state to avoid improving student performance as specified by the federal government (Spellings, 2005). As of summer 2005, the conflict between Utah and USDE remains unresolved. Nonetheless, the fact that Utah ever initiated such a response to
Legal and Legislative Issues in NCLB
153
NCLB further illustrates the unanswered legal questions and implications that continue to hover over this legislation. It is unlikely that Utah will succeed in its quest to supplant NCLB completely. Even so, the federal government can no longer avoid or ignore the ever-increasing discontent and rebellion exhibited by Utah or other states.
CONCLUSION Having achieved very little success thus far, the legal drama involving NCLB continues to grow. Frustrated states, educators, parents, and others persist in their efforts to draw attention to the problems associated with and caused by the act. Moreover, the courts have yet to accept responsibility for and publish an interpretation of the Spending Clause that addresses the financial and legislative authority matters highlighted in the NCLB-related lawsuits and other reactions from the states. As such, school leaders must persevere in their efforts to both improve academic performance and apply federal mandates absent promised funding and other assistance.
REFERENCES Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now v. New York City Department of Education, 269 F. Supp. 2d 338 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). Board of Education of Ottawa Township High School District 140 v. U.S. Department of Education, No. 05-655 (N. D. Ill. 2005). Californians for Justice Education Fund v. California Board of Education, A102851, 2003 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 11713 (Cal. App. 2003). Federal government moves to dismiss lawsuit (2005). National Education Association. Retrieved August 5, 2005 from http://www.nea.org/lawsuit/govtresponse1.html Fresh Start Academy v. Toledo Board of Education, Case No. 3:05 CV 7006, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5336 (N.D. Ohio 2005). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (2004). Pub. L. No. 108-446. Kegerreis v. United States, Civil Action No. 03-2232-KHV, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18012 (D. Kan. 2003). Keller, B., & Sack, J. L. (2005). Union, states wage frontal attack on NCLB. Education Week, 24(33), 1, 18. Mahr, C. (2005). Federal judge to hear No Child Left Behind lawsuit. The Desert Sun [on-line]. Retrieved August 7, 2005 from http://www.desertsunonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? Date=20050729&Category=NEWS04&ArtNo=507290328&SectionCat=&Template= printart McColl, A. (2005). Tough call: Is No Child Left Behind constitutional? Phi Delta Kappn, 86(8), 604–610.
154
SARAN DONAHOO AND NORMAN GREER
National School Boards Association (NSBA) (2005). No Child Left Behind Improvement Act of 2005. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association. Retrieved August 4, 2005 from http://www.nsba.org/site/pdf.asp?TP=/site/docs/35300/35206.pdfhttp://www. nsba.org/site/pdf.asp?TP=/site/docs/35300/35206.pdf No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2001). Pub. L. No. 107-110. Olson, L. (2005). Requests win more leeway under NCLB: Ed. Dept. gives 16 states approval on changes. Education Week, 24(42), 1, 20–21. Pontiac v. Spellings, filed April 20, 2005 (E. D. Mich.). Retrieved July 29, 2005 from http:// www.nea.org/lawsuit/index.html Reading School District v. Department of Education, 855 A.2d 166 (Pa. Commw. 2004). Sargent, R. S., Jr. (2005). Utah: The rogue state. Enter stage right [on-line]. Retrieved August 5, 2005 from http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0505/0505nclb3.htm Suit addresses NCLB/IDEA conflict (2005). School board news [on-line]. Retrieved July 23, 2005 from http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_sbn.asp?TrackID=&SID=1&DID=35280&CID= 1629&VID=58 The Center for Public Policy & Administration (2005). NCLB v. UPASS: Utah public education after HB 1001. Policy Perspectives, 1(2). Retrieved August 5, 2005 from http:// www.imakenews.com/cppa/e_article000391653.cfm?x=b11,0,w U.S. Constitution, amendment X. U.S. Constitution, Article I, y8, clause 1. Watts, B. (2005). State board of education gains approval for changes in NCLB implementation in Illinois: Changes come as rigor of federal requirements increases. Illinois State Board of Education. Retrieved July 27, 2005 from http://www.isbe.net/news/2005/june29_05.htm
TITLE VII, BILINGUAL EDUCATION OF NCLB AND IMMIGRANT STUDENTS IN URBAN SCHOOLS A. Reynaldo Contreras ABSTRACT The American schools are more racially and ethnically diverse and increasing at a faster pace than in the past. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 [NCLB] defines diversity in terms of group differences, not individual variability. Common groupings are white, African American, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American. However, each state is free to select their own groupings for diversity and several states include limited English proficient students as a subgroup. This chapter examines the fastest growing addition to+ American public schools, immigrant students with limited English proficiency and in need of bilingual education. I examine how the states hope to close the achievement gap for students with Limited English Proficiency under NCLB
1. INTRODUCTION America’s experience of immigration should give it a lead in the developed world for several decades to come y . But it is not numbers alone that will give America an advantage. Even more important, the country is culturally attuned to immigration, and long ago learned to integrate immigrants into its society and economy y . The one big No Child Left Behind and other Federal Programs for Urban School Districts Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 9, 155–186 Copyright r 2006 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(06)09009-3
155
156
A. REYNALDO CONTRERAS
obstacle to the full integration of recent immigrants in America is the poor performance of American public schools. Peter Drucker
Improving the academic achievement of students in urban school districts is imperative. Demographics alone clearly show this to be true. In fact, when one considers that the approximately 100 largest urban school districts serve nearly one-fourth of all public school students in the country, it quickly becomes apparent that educating students in these districts to become productive members of our American society and the workforce must be a top priority. Because urban schools educate approximately 40 percent of all non-white students, and 30 percent of students from low-income families, they are also a key to any attempt by educators to reduce the persistent academic achievement gap between students of different racial and economic backgrounds. Unfortunately, many students in urban schools continue to underachieve year after year. Such students consistently perform below national averages in reading and mathematics, and drop out of high school at alarmingly high rates. From an economic and societal standpoint, state and local policymakers as well as educators simply must make it as a high priority to improve the effectiveness of urban schools that educate nearly one-quarter of America’s children. There is a need to identify key areas that state policymakers and local educators should focus on to improve education for urban students. From the review of the literature related to improving the academic achievement of urban students, two important points emerged: Urban school districts are unique from suburban and rural school districts, and each urban school district is different from every other urban school district. Improving the academic achievement of urban students requires comprehensive state policy support that is appropriate to the context of the targeted urban school district. In general, it is recommended that state policymakers focus their efforts on a series of key areas, including English language learners. Contemporary efforts to narrow the educational attainment gap between children from wealthy and poor communities have, on the whole, met with limited success. Although the recent interest in standards, accountability, and expanded school choice has been motivated by the view that increased
Bilingual Education in Urban Schools
157
school funding has only limited effects, policy makers have advocated a range of policies that arguably would require higher levels of funding for schools in communities with high concentrations of poor and immigrant families. Such schools increasingly are found in large cities. At a minimum, the solution to educational disparities is said to involve shifting a greater share of overall education funding to elementary and secondary schools in poor areas. However, most of the debate implicitly seems to support increased funding for such schools without offsetting reductions in funding for schools in wealthier areas. Thus, greater emphasis has been given to the perspective that urban schoolchildren face a multitude of problems outside the schools. Advocated policies are those that will supplement the services provided during the regular school day or school year or that would expose urban children to environments outside their inner-city neighborhoods.
2. FRAMING THE PROBLEM If one accepts the notion that a quality education provides the best opportunity for every child to reach their full potential as a parent, citizen, and member of a productive workforce, then it should be clear that this nation’s future is inextricably tied to the effectiveness of urban school districts in educating their students (Cuban, 2001). Demographics alone show this to be true. In fact, although the largest 100 urban school districts represent less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the 16,850 public school districts in the United States, these districts serve nearly one-quarter (23%) of all public school students in the country (Doolittle, Herlihy, & Snipes, 2002). These same 100 districts also educate approximately 40 percent of all nonwhite students and 30 percent of students from low-income families. From an economic standpoint, if the school districts that educate nearly one-fourth of the nation’s students (MDRC, 2003) cannot produce sufficient graduates to enter the modern workforce, then the nation’s global competitiveness is surely endangered (Cuban, 2001). From a societal standpoint, if the districts responsible for educating such large percentages of the nation’s poor and minority students and cannot provide a high-quality education, then no attempt to address the persistent academic achievement gap between students of different backgrounds can be successful. The cost of failing to close such gaps is staggering and is associated with far lower high school graduation rates and a host of other serious social problems. Dropouts, for instance, are more likely to live in poverty, become
158
A. REYNALDO CONTRERAS
dependent on public assistance, have health problems, and engage in criminal activity (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). In fact, adults aged 25–64 who complete less than an upper secondary education earn, on average, only about 67 percent of the wages of those who have such an education (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003a, b, c). And the lifetime societal cost of allowing a single child to drop out of high school and into a life of crime can range from $1.3 to $15 million (Cuban, 2001). Unfortunately, the track record of urban schools in graduating students is not encouraging. According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), in 2000–2001 no state’s large city school districts (out of the 39 that reported results) had four-year high school completion rates that were higher than 80% (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003a, b, c). Even worse, nearly one-quarter of 46 large public school districts reporting data to the NCES had a dropout rate of 40 percent or higher. The median dropout rate across all 46 districts was 28 percent (Business Roundtable, 2003). Making matters worse is the fact that students in urban school districts are, and have historically been, at the lowest end of the academic achievement spectrum. The Council of the Great City Schools recently gathered data on 59 major city school systems in 36 states and found that urban school achievement in both reading and math remains below national averages (Council of the Great City Schools, 2003). Only seven of the 59 districts had average reading scores in at least half the grades tested that were the same or higher than their respective states (Council of the Great City Schools, 2003). Such results indicate that, even when students graduate from urban high schools, they often have not acquired the requisite skills needed to become productive workers and citizens. This is not to say that improving urban schools is a lost cause. To the contrary, recent positive signs point to important academic gains in urban areas. According to the Council of the Great City Schools’ data, approximately 87 percent of all grades assessed in urban schools showed gains on math scores and 44 percent of all grade levels improved in math achievement at a rate faster than statewide average gains. In reading, it was found that approximately 72 percent of all grades assessed demonstrated increased achievement, and about 47 percent of all grades made faster gains in scores than statewide average gains (Council of the Great City Schools, 2003). A key question state policymakers and educators must now face is how to take the improvement of urban students’ academic achievement out of the realm of dramatic, but isolated accomplishments and into the realm of widespread, ongoing practice. Accomplishing this feat requires understanding
Bilingual Education in Urban Schools
159
that a one-size-fits all state and federal education policy does not necessarily work well for urban school districts. This is because, while they may face some of the same challenges as their suburban and rural counterparts, urban districts differ significantly from other districts and require state support that is targeted to their unique challenges (Cuban & Usdan, 2003). The unique challenges urban school districts face is extensive. Generally, urban schools are more likely to have: A far higher proportion of minorities: 69 percent in urban areas vs. 41 percent in all school districts (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003a, b, c). Unlike students in suburban and rural areas, students in urban districts tend to go to school with others like themselves – low income and/or racially isolated students – which can compound student achievement difficulties (Cuban & Usdan, 2003). Larger percentages of poor students. Studies have found that over 90 percent of urban districts have poverty rates above their statewide averages (Council of the Great City Schools, 2003). More political conflict, inexperienced teaching staffs, low expectations for students and lack of a demanding curriculum, lack of institutional coherence, high-student mobility, and unsatisfactory business operations (Doolittle, Herlihy, & Snipes, 2002). Larger enrollments than their non-urban counterparts: 705 students vs. 504 students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003a, b, c). More students per classroom (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003a, b, c). Less money per student than affluent school districts, which results in fewer resources such as qualified teachers, basic supplies, and well-maintained buildings (Children’s Defense Fund, 2003). Larger percentages of students for whom English is a second language. In fact, studies indicate 78 percent of urban districts have higher percentages of English language learners than their states, and about 18 percent of students in urban districts are English language learners, compared with approximately 8.8 percent nationwide (Council of the Great City Schools, 2003). A perusal of these challenges, which can pose daunting obstacles for urban schools, should serve as clear notice to state policymakers and local educators that specialized innovative policy solutions will be needed to effectively improve the performance of all urban students.
160
A. REYNALDO CONTRERAS
3. TITLE III OF THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001 3.1. No Child Left Behind The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) added new requirements for schools in math and reading assessments, annual improvement in student performance on assessments, highly qualified teachers and paraprofessionals, and parental involvement, posing additional challenges for schools with large numbers of immigrants and limited English proficient (LEP) students. Standardized testing in reading, math and science is at the core of NCLB. Schools must demonstrate progress each year so that all children and subgroups of racial and ethnic groups, economically disadvantaged, disabled and LEP are proficient in math and reading, as measured on standardized tests, by 2014. Schools must test LEP students and report their scores separately. After three years, LEP students must be tested in English for reading and language arts. Schools may test students for reading and language arts in their native languages for their first three years, and there is no limit on the number of years LEP children may be tested in their native language for math and science. Schools may use alternative tests in English and allow accommodations such as dictionaries or extra time. However, even with native language tests or accommodations, schools with large numbers of LEP students may still find it difficult to demonstrate the adequate yearly progress required by the law, since advanced proficiency in a second language typically takes 5–7 years. One major challenge under NCLB is that as students gain English proficiency, they exit the LEP subgroup. Thus, the most proficient students exit each year, and new LEP students enter each year. Historically, when LEP students have improved their language skills, they have been removed from the LEP category and are no longer tracked, making it impossible to demonstrate progress. Many districts now, however, have begun to monitor students who have exited from English as a second language (ESL) or bilingual programs for one or two years, and districts can now count the test scores of these students in the LEP subgroup. Even with this flexibility, the LEP subgroup is still a fluid group of students, which by definition includes groups of students who will have more difficulty passing standardized English tests. In contrast, the other subgroups mandated by the law – racial and ethnic groups, low-income students, and the disabled – are either permanent or far more stable than the LEP group. The LEP classification may vary among states, since they are permitted by NCLB to define LEP narrowly – students receiving direct, daily LEP
Bilingual Education in Urban Schools
161
services – or broadly – students receiving direct services and students being monitored for their English proficiency. The share of students passing tests in reading, math and science must increase over time, until 100 percent proficiency is reached in 2014. Schools that do not meet targets for performance on these tests for any subgroup of significant size (including LEPs) are subject to an escalating series of interventions. Schools not meeting these targets for two years in a row must allow parents to transfer their children to another school, at the district’s expense. Schools not meeting adequate yearly progress (AYP) for three years in a row must provide supplemental programs (after school tutoring, for instance) to all low-income students, again at the district’s expense. More intensive interventions, such as restructuring or possibly closing down and reopening as a charter school, are required after further failure to meet AYP. In addition to requirement that schools meet AYP for LEP students on standardized reading, math, and science tests, NCLB also requires states to show improvement in the performance of LEP students on English language proficiency tests. NCLB includes tough new teacher qualification requirements. ESL and bilingual teachers must get additional certification to meet the ‘‘highly qualified’’ staff requirements by 2006, which costs time and money, while wages are often low. Taken in combination with the chronic shortage of teachers, particularly in hard-to-serve schools in urban areas and schools with a high percentage of LEP students, this requirement may exacerbate the challenges that schools face in their ability to attract and retain certified bilingual teachers. The degree of support that teachers and districts receive (for example, from universities and teaching colleges) will be important to their success in meeting these new qualification requirements. NCLB also has very strong parental involvement requirements. Parents must be notified about school progress, language of instruction and goals, requiring new forms of outreach through translated materials and interpreters or bilingual teachers and administrators. Since information necessarily varies from district to district and school to school, providing these materials will be a challenge in terms of funding and obtaining qualified interpreters. Technical assistance from the federal government, states, and community-based organizations may help schools and districts implement these requirements. The demographic characteristics of the nation’s public school students are changing rapidly. And nowhere is this change more evident than among English language learners (ELLs) in America’s Urban Schools. The number of urban students whose native language was not English increased by over
162
A. REYNALDO CONTRERAS
10 percent between 1998–1999 and 2000–2001 alone. These students now comprise nearly 19 percent of all students in the urban schools, compared with about eight percent of the students in the nation. Some 31 percent of all the ELLs in the country now attend school in one of the nation’s major urban public school systems (Council of the Great City Schools, 2003). The vast majority of the ELLs in these urban public schools systems speak Spanish as a native language (83.3%), but other languages are also prominent. Some 3.1 percent of the urban students learning English speak Cantonese or other Chinese languages as a native language; 2.9 percent are native Hmong speakers; and 2.2 percent speak Haitian Creole as a native language. And some cities have higher concentrations of one language or another than other cities. St. Louis, for instance, has an unusually large number of Serbo–Croatian-speaking students; St. Paul has a high concentration of Hmong-speaking students; Detroit teaches a considerable number of Arabic language speakers, Albuquerque serves large numbers of Navajospeaking students; and New Orleans enrolls a considerable number of Vietnamese-speaking students. How English is taught to these students is the subject of enormous controversy and considerable debate, since the research is often not clear as to which method is the most effective with which group. Most urban schools use a ‘‘sheltered ESL’’ approach where content and English language instruction are adapted to each student’s level of English language proficiency. Most cities also use a variety of programs, including transitional, dual language, pullout ESL, and immersion efforts, depending on the language group, resources, and instructional philosophy of the schools. The federal government has played a role over the years in providing resources to school districts, colleges, and universities, and research and technical assistance centers for the purpose of transitioning students to English. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has begun to reshape how the federal government conceives of and supports programs for elementary and secondary school students whose native language is not English. Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act authorized a series of competitive grant programs that went mostly to higher education and other training institutions to assist schools and school districts with improving bilingual education instruction. Title III of the new law reoriented the old Title VII programs to help all ELLs attain universal English proficiency and achieve academically in the core subjects on par with their English-speaking peers. The new law also replaced the Title VII competitive grant programs with large-scale formula grants that targeted resources on communities based on their numbers of ELLs.
Bilingual Education in Urban Schools
163
3.2. Are English Language Learners Being Left Behind? In May 2005, the U.S. Education Secretary announced a change in the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). To meet federal standards the Education Secretary was allowing states more flexibility in exempting special education students from testing and more flexibility in how they measure schools’ success. Even more important, the secretary indicated a willingness to consider reforming other parts of NCLB, provided the changes don’t weaken fundamental principles or goals of the law. For example, in California one element that urgently needs reform is how NCLB classifies and tests students who are not proficient in English. Onethird of the state’s public elementary school students – that’s more than 1.5 million children – are classified as English learners. Currently, the schools face conflicting incentives over how to deal with these students. On the one hand, NCLB requires California schools to increase the number of students they reclassify from English learner to English proficient. On the other, the act requires all groups – including English learners – to show improvement in academic achievement. By themselves both requirements are reasonable. Schools should strive for improvement in English proficiency as well as academic achievement among their English learners. But if students haven’t reached a certain threshold of English proficiency, they simply cannot demonstrate their full academic ability on tests that are given in English. Under the current law, increases in reclassification are likely to cause decreases in academic test scores for English learners because the most proficient students are no longer part of that group. So, with improvement required in both areas where does the incentive lie? And then there’s the financial lure: Schools now receive additional funding from NCLB for each English learner student they have, but once they reclassify a student from English learner to English proficient, they lose that money. So again, where does the incentive lie? There are other conflicts as well. Both Proposition 227 (which restricted bilingual education) and California testing requirements assume that students can become English proficient in a single year. However, a 2004 report by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office predicted that only half of Spanish-speaking students will be reclassified after six years.
It was noted that in 2003 the average gains in proficiency among the state’s Mandarin speakers, the highest-gaining group, were nearly double that of Spanish speakers, but still well below NCLB goals. One problem is that students spend only a fraction of their day in the classroom; and if they are not speaking English the rest of the time, their proficiency development is seriously hampered. It has been noted that playground language has
164
A. REYNALDO CONTRERAS
changed from English to Spanish over the past 20 years. Additionally, many English learners have limited reading and writing skills in their native language, especially if their parents have little education and income. Such students are considered between languages, and accurately assessing their academic abilities is difficult. Given these challenges, the goals of NCLB may be unrealistic. Policymakers, as well as educators, need to recognize the complex relationship between proficiency in English and success in academic achievement. Of course, addressing the NCLB contradictions is easier said than done. In terms of test scores, one approach is to focus solely on English proficiency before worrying about academic achievement at all. Some districts have instituted supplemental programs on weekends or during school-breaks that focus exclusively on building English fluency. Whatever the final policy solution, one thing is certain: Fluency in English is a basic building block for a good quality of life in the United States, generally determining whether students go on to college and have high earning potential. Considering the size of the English-learner population, educating these students is essential to a community’s future economic and social well-being. One thing is certain: Fluency in English is a basic building block for a good quality of life in the United States, generally determining whether students go on to college and have high earning potential. Educating these students is essential to a community’s future economic and social well-being. In 1968, Congress passed legislation that opened up what had been a highly restrictive immigration policy. Shortly thereafter, the largest wave of immigration in American history began. It is now in its fourth decade and has changed the nature of this country’s education system. Virtually every school district in the country faces the challenge of designing sound instructional programs for English learners. Challenges are particularly great, however, in large urban school districts. In fact, in some urban districts and in schools with 750 or more students, English learners make up a large proportion of the population, sometimes as high as 25–65 percent of all students. The early elementary grades tend to have higher proportions of English learners than secondary schools (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003a, b, c). There are several key challenges that urban school districts face in educating students who are English learners. These challenges include: 1. Lack of scientific research; 2. Improving the quality of instruction of English learners; 3. Providing valid and reliable assessments to measure the achievement of English learners; and
Bilingual Education in Urban Schools
165
4. Providing screening to identify students in need of early reading intervention. English learners or ELLs come from families where a language other than English is spoken with some frequency and whose English language proficiency is limited. In previous eras, these students were referred to as limited English proficient (LEP) or English as a second language (ESL) students, but EL learner (often ELL) seems to be a more accurate description of the populations. Following are some key statistics that help paint a picture of the scope of the challenge facing our education system regarding EL learners: EL learners are educated in every state and the District of Columbia. During the 2000–2001 academic year, EL learners accounted for 10.5 percent of students in elementary schools and 5.6 percent of secondary students. Forty-two states reported an increase in the number of EL learners in schools over the previous 12 months; 25 reported increases between 5 percent and 20 percent; one reported a 113 percent increase. English learners in the United States speak more than 460 different languages. Spanish speakers continue to represent the largest group of English learners (79.2%). After Spanish, the next largest language groups are students who speak Vietnamese, Hmong, Cantonese and Korean. Combined, they now account for approximately 6 percent of English learners in schools. Other languages are spoken by less than 1 percent of the national population, though there are urban areas with sizable populations of Somali students, Russian students and students speaking Tagalog. The federal position on the education of EL learners has been largely determined by federal case law (Lau v. Nichols; Castaneda v. Pickard). These decisions provide challenging guidelines for school districts in the provision of services for English learners. In Lau v. Nichols, the court indicated that it is not acceptable to provide EL learners with instruction in English that is not modified or adjusted to make instruction comprehensible. In Castaneda, the court specified that districts must provide students with access to the general curriculum at their grade level. The court intentionally did not advocate any one approach (e.g., native language instruction, immersion, immersion with native language support, dual immersion). Rather, it asked only that the approach be based on sound theory and that districts evaluate the effectiveness of their instructional approaches.
166
A. REYNALDO CONTRERAS
Evaluating effectiveness has been a major challenge for urban districts, especially given the complexities of assessing academic progress for English learners. Both Lau and Castaneda indicate that districts must provide instruction to support student acquisition of the English language (both oral and written). Provision of such programs has proven to be a major challenge to urban districts for numerous reasons. The first is that many of the training programs for teachers of EL learners, until recently, stressed native language instruction and paid scant attention to the English language development component of the task. In addition, coursework tended to be more theoretical than applied and practical. Furthermore, for years teachers in many regions were encouraged to use a loosely structured ‘‘natural language’’ approach, which relied heavily on improvisation and allowed language to develop based on a child’s interests and needs to communicate. As a result, there was a paucity of quality curriculum materials developed. This situation is now gradually improving. Recent federal policy (during both the Bush and Clinton administrations) has stressed the importance of reaching competence in English within three years, regardless of the approach used. Given some of the above problems, this remains a very ambitious goal for many urban districts. 3.3. Implementation of Title III No Child Left Behind made substantial changes in the federal government’s bilingual education programming. The Act changed the program from a discretionary grant program to a formula-driven initiative. It significantly increased funding for bilingual education efforts and it changed many of the technical rules governing how the programs operated. Before No Child Left Behind was passed into law, the Title VII Bilingual Education legislation authorized competitive grant funding to schools, school districts, colleges and universities, and other entities for a range of activities. These activities included program enhancement, teacher training, program development and implementation, system-wide improvement, career ladders, comprehensive schools, and other purposes. Grants in the areas of program development and implementation, program enhancement, comprehensive schools, and system-wide improvement were given exclusively to local education agencies to develop, support and expand programs and services to ELLs. Training for all teachers’ grants, teachers and personnel grants, and career ladder grants were awarded for professional development, and were usually awarded to institutions of higher education in partnership with local education agencies.
Bilingual Education in Urban Schools
167
The amount of funding that the Great City Schools received increased substantially under Title III of NCLB. The gains among city schools were the result of both increases in the overall federal appropriation for Bilingual Education programs and changes in the means for distributing funds to the local level. Between federal FY01 and FY02, the federal appropriation for programs for ELLs grew from $610 million under the old Title VII discretionary grants to $665 million in formula grants under NCLB, an increase of nine percent. The Congressional appropriation for FY04 increased to $685 million in FY03 and decreased slightly in FY04 to $681 million. Under Title VII, Bilingual Education funds were distributed to local school districts largely on the basis of competitive grants. NCLB, however, changed the program to a formula grant, meaning that new funds were distributed to local school districts on the basis of their numbers of LEP students. The increase in the appropriations and the alteration in the funding mechanism resulted in substantial funding increases for most of the responding Great City School districts. Federal Bilingual Education funding to these districts increased from $53.8 million in FY01 to $113 million in FY02, a gain of 109.9 percent, far more than the 9 percent total increase in appropriations. Funding to these districts continued to increase in FY03 to $129 million, as appropriations increased and districts transitioned from their old discretionary grants to the formula funds under Title III of NCLB. Thus, Title III of NCLB allows school districts to use funds provided under the Act for a variety of purposes. It is important to note that The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) requires that all children, including ELLs, reach high standards by demonstrating proficiency in English language arts and mathematics by 2014. Schools and districts must help ELL students, among other subgroups; make continuous progress toward this goal, as measured by performance on state tests, or risk serious consequences. Through these mandates, NCLB establishes high expectations for all students and seeks to reduce the achievement gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. These are worthy goals, which require extraordinary improvement in student learning. The challenges for ELLs are especially difficult, involving both educational and technical issues, including:
1. Historically low ELL performance and slow improvement. State tests show that ELL students’ school performance is far below that of other students, oftentimes 20–30 percentage points, and usually shows little improvement across many years.
168
A. REYNALDO CONTRERAS
2. Measurement accuracy. Research shows that the language demands of tests negatively influence accurate measurement of ELL performance. For the ELL student, tests measure both achievement and language ability. 3. Instability of the ELL student subgroup. The goal of re-designating high-performing ELL students as languageproficient students causes ELL high achievers to exit the ELL subgroup. The consequence is downward pressure on ELL test scores worsened by the addition of new ELL students, who are typically low achieving. 4. Factors outside of a school’s control. Research shows substantial non-school effects on student learning even within ELL subgroups. Schools are therefore unable to control all factors related to student achievement. Non-school factors, usually parent education level or socioeconomic status, outweigh school factors in their effect on student achievement. These influences have been found even within the ELL population itself and observed to be strong and persistent. There are a number of other ELL issues that pose challenges to states, districts, and schools in meeting NCLB goals. These include: ELL identification. NCLB is helping to create a more common definition of ELL students, but accurate ELL identification remains a challenge. Research has found that many school ELL identification methods produced inconsistent results. Studies have found a weak relationship between ELL classification codes and language proficiency test scores or achievement test scores. Accurate identification is important in order to provide comparability of ELL performance between states or from district to district or school to school within a state. Subgroup size. NCLB does not set a minimum number of students necessary to require subgroup reporting, but does require large enough numbers to provide statistically reliable data. A low number of students, say 25, will increase the number of schools reporting ELL subgroups, but will have the negative effect of more variable performance (Linn, Baker, & Herman, 2002). Setting a higher minimum number of students, say 100 (Hill & De Pascale, 2003), will produce less performance variation and thus a more dependable growth rate, but will substantially reduce the number of schools that must report ELLs as a subgroup. Allowing states to have different minimum group sizes will create comparability and fairness issues between state accountability systems. ELL subgroup diversity. Another challenge to states is the diversity of student achievement within ELL subgroups. ELL performance varies
Bilingual Education in Urban Schools
169
along cultural-linguistic lines, for example, similar to performance differences in the general student population. Substantial differences have been found in performance between ELL students with a Chinese-speaking background and ELL students with a Spanish-speaking background. For both the ELL students and the general student group, students with a Chinese-speaking background had significantly higher performance on science and reading tests than students with a Spanish-speaking background. Increased number of subgroups. Research by Thomas Kane (Lewis, 2002) demonstrated a decreasing probability of schools making specific goals as the number of subgroups increases. It has been observed that schools with sizeable ELL subgroups tend to have higher numbers of subgroups overall, thereby increasing the probability that those schools will not make adequate yearly progress. Possible effect of multiple subgroups. Many ELL students fall into multiple subgroups – for example, special education and cultural-linguistic minority. Consequently, these students’ scores frequently are counted multiple times compared with scores of students in the general population and thus may cause a diversion of resources away from those children not in a specific subgroup. NCLB goals and ELL subgroups. A key NCLB goal is for all subgroups, including ELL students, to reach 100 percent proficiency in English language arts. However, if ELL students were proficient in English language arts, they would not be ELL students in the first place. Indeed, if NCLB goals were attained, the ELL subgroup would cease to exist. Notwithstanding these issues and concerns, there are some examples of significant ELL progress. State reading results showed positive trends in ELL performance and should give some encouragement to schools, districts, and states. However, comparisons between the reading scores and previous results are questionable due to the lower numbers of ELL students participating in earlier National Assessment Educational Progress (NAEP) reading assessments and an increasing use of accommodations in recent years (Plisko, 2003). There are state results that show positive signs too. Randy Capps (2004), an immigrant population researcher, has noted the pressing need for schools to meet NCLB requirements and the difficulties for school districts with large numbers of immigrant students to do so. In his study of NCLB implications for children of immigrants and limited English speakers in public schools, Capps noted that one-fifth of students in all U.S. schools now fit that definition, and one-third of these children have parents
170
A. REYNALDO CONTRERAS
with less than a high school education. He reported that these students tend to be highly segregated and one-half of all ELLs go to schools where 30 percent of the student body is also made up of ELLs. All American students are required to be tested for reading comprehension under NCLB requirements. When a school does not meet ‘‘Adequate Yearly Progress’’ (AYP) standards for two years, parents of all students at the schools can choose to transfer their children to better-performing schools. Many schools with large number of ELLs are having difficulties meeting the standards.
3.4. Are Immigrant Students in U.S. Schools Being Overlooked and Underserved? The population of students in U.S. schools who speak very little or no English is growing, and as more families continue to enter the U.S. from other countries, this trend is likely to continue. According to the NCES, the number of public school students who were receiving services for ELLs grew from about 2.1 million in 1993–1994 to 3.8 million in 2001–2002, or almost 7.9 percent of all public school students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2004). The distribution of students among the states ranges from just over 1,000 or 1 percent of the student population in Vermont to 1.5 million or 25 percent of the student population in California (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003d). The West has the greatest number and percentage of ELL students, but the ELL population is growing noticeably in the Midwest and South, although the numbers of ELLs in these regions remain small (National Center for Education Statistics, 2004). The ELL population is as diverse as it is widespread. Spanish-speaking students make up 78 percent of school-age children and young adults who have difficulty speaking English, but hundreds of thousands of students come from homes where other languages are spoken (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003f). ELLs are not a homogeneous group; they are diverse in terms of socioeconomic status, linguistic, and cultural background, level of English proficiency, amount of prior education, and instructional program experience. Some ELL students enter school with little literacy background in their own language, while others come from highly privileged and well-educated backgrounds. Some come from poverty or as refugees from war-torn countries; others are children of diplomats or professionals studying or working in the U.S. The majority of ELL students enter U.S. schools at kindergarten, yet others enter the system at middle or high school. The families of many ELLs live in difficult financial
Bilingual Education in Urban Schools
171
circumstances, and many ELLs attend high-poverty schools within the United States. The NCLB Act defines ELLs as students who (a) are 3–21 years of age, (b) enrolled or preparing to enroll in elementary or secondary school, (c) either not born in the United States or speak a language other than English, and (d) owing to difficulty in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding English, do not meet the state’s proficient level of performance to successfully achieve in English-only classrooms. States and districts may narrow or broaden this definition, however, and so no uniform definition is used across the country.
3.5. Federal Support for ELL Students Federal policies have helped to increase the level of attention given to ELLs. From 1968 to 2002, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provided funds on a competitive basis to individual schools to assist ELL students through Title VII. Many Title VII projects and grants included primary language instruction, whereby students received instruction for a period of time in their native language. Title VII also emphasized second language acquisition, which explored methods of teaching English to ELL students. The 1988 reauthorization of Title VII expanded funding for ‘‘special alternative’’ programs that used only English in instruction, signaling a shift in federal emphasis to helping students make the transition to English as soon as possible. One title of the No Child Left Behind Act had particular relevance for ELLs. Title III of NCLB replaced and substantially revised the Title VII, Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) program for ELLs.
3.6. Title III The No Child Left Behind Act reiterated the earlier shift in focus of the 1988 reauthorization of Title VII to helping ELL students acquire English language skills as quickly as possible. The name of the office within the U.S. Department of Education that administers Title III also changed from the Office of Bilingual Education and Minority language affairs to the Office of English language acquisition. Instead of authorizing competitive grants, Title III now allocates funds to states using a formula that takes into account the number of ELLs enrolled in schools in the state. According to the Council of the Great City Schools (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000), the federal appropriation for
172
A. REYNALDO CONTRERAS
programs for ELLs grew from $610 million under the Title VII competitive grants to $665 million in the first year of the Title III formula grants. The overall purposes of Title III are to provide funds to districts to improve educational outcomes for ELL students and to hold states and districts accountable for ensuring that ELL students are learning the state academic content as they learn English. Title III provides supplemental funding to school districts to implement programs designed to help ELLs and immigrant students attain English proficiency and meet the state’s standards for learning academic content. Section 3122 of ESEA as amended by NCLB, Title III, requires each state to take the following steps: Establish English language proficiency standards that address the five domains of listening, speaking, reading, writing, and comprehension; Conduct an annual assessment of English language proficiency of all ELL students; Define annual measurable achievement objectives for increasing the percentage of ELL students who develop and attain English proficiency and Hold school districts accountable for meeting these objectives. A state’s Title III annual measurable achievement objectives must specify the percentage of students each year who are expected to make progress in learning English and the percentage expected to attain English language proficiency. The percentages must increase each year, but do not need to reach 100 percent by 2014. In addition, there must be an annual measurable objective related to ELL students meeting the state’s targets for academic achievement. Districts not making adequate progress according to their state’s annual measurable objectives for two consecutive years will develop improvement plans. The state must provide technical assistance about professional development strategies to districts needing improvement. If a district falls short of meeting the annual measurable objectives for four years, the state can require the district to modify its curriculum and method of instruction. The state can also choose to withhold Title III funds. NCLB has helped broaden the exposure of ELLs in state-, district-, and school account-ability systems. Titles I and III of ESEA, as amended by NCLB, share the same basic requirements for ELLs and share the desire to improve the academic achievement of ELLs. Title I require states to assess the academic-content knowledge of all students, including ELLs, and holds states accountable for students’ academic achievement. Title III requires states to assess the English language proficiency of ELL students and holds states accountable for these students’ proficiency in English language acquisition.
Bilingual Education in Urban Schools
173
The Title III annual measurable objective concerning academic achievement mirrors Title I expectations.
4. URBAN SCHOOLING IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY 4.1. The Present Crisis: The Latinization of America The 2000 Census reported that the Hispanic population has grown by nearly 60 percent since 1990, and that more than 80 percent of Hispanics reside in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Arizona, New Jersey, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada. In nearly every county for which the new census figures indicate an expanding population, the increase in Hispanic residents outpaces overall population growth. Aided by strong economic growth in the 1990s, Hispanic workers established themselves in communities ranging from Zebulon, N.C., to Dalton, Ga., to Lexington, Neb. This demographic shift indicates that it should no longer be assumed that Hispanics will remain concentrated in a handful of geographic locations within the United States. Together, these factors contribute to the staggering dropout problem plaguing Hispanic students. Today, one of every three Hispanic Americans has dropped out of high school. The high school completion rate for Hispanic citizens born in the United States is 81 percent, compared to 40 percent for foreign-born non-citizen Hispanics in the same age group. Mexican immigrants experience nearly twice the dropout rate (61%) of other Hispanic subgroups. This phenomenon is of special concern given that Mexican immigrants constitute 54 percent of Hispanic immigrants and the largest segment of all immigrants in the United States (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003e). Addressing the educational needs of this large immigrant group will have enormous implications for their children and subsequent generations of immigrant children. Among the Hispanic Americans who do complete high school, 52.9 percent pursue a postsecondary education immediately after graduation as compared to 65.7 percent of nonHispanic whites (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). 4.2. Implications for the Future The present crisis not only threatens to leave behind yet another generation of Hispanic children and youth, it will also limit their mobility in the labor
174
A. REYNALDO CONTRERAS
force. Moreover, it will threaten our country’s ability to compete economically. As the fastest growing and youngest population group in the United States, Hispanic Americans will soon be the second largest segment of the labor force. However, the group’s lagging rates of educational attainment limit their upward mobility. Recent statistics tell us that most Hispanics remain in low-skilled positions. Approximately 2 percent earn more than $75,000 a year compared to approximately 11 percent of non-Hispanic whites (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2001). In 2002, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Hispanics accounted for 61 percent of employees in U.S. agricultural production (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2001). Upward mobility of Hispanics into whitecollar positions continues to lag behind the rest of the nation despite lower unemployment rates. For instance, in 1998, 58.5 percent of all employees in the private sector held white-collar jobs, but only 37.5 percent of Hispanics held white-collar jobs (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2001). While 41.5 percent of private sector employees are considered blue collar, 63.5 percent of Hispanics hold blue-collar jobs (President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security, 2001). If the employment picture does not change, the economic consequences of an uneducated work force will strain the economy of the United States. Hispanics are not maximizing their income potential or developing financial security. This leads to lost tax revenues, lower rates of consumer spending, reduced per capita savings and increased social costs. An uneducated work force will also have a substantial impact on important domestic programs such as Social Security. By 2050, Hispanic workers will make up nearly one-quarter of the working-age population, bearing enormous financial responsibility for supporting the Baby Boom generation’s retirement. These factors will put an additional strain on the Social Security system (U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau, 2002). The hope is that money spent on education is seen as an investment in our future. School improvement may be an expensive short-term investment, but the ultimate profit resulting from an educated Hispanic workforce is much greater. It is believed that low expectations can become self-fulfilling prophecies. Teachers and parents’ expectations have a long-term, pervasive influence on children. If we are to close the achievement gap for Hispanic American children and youth and facilitate their path to higher education, parent and teacher expectations must create an environment that fosters and promotes academic achievement. And, we must begin early in the preschool years, and follow through to the adolescent years and beyond.
Bilingual Education in Urban Schools
175
To lift our nation’s expectations for the educational success of Hispanic children and their families’ three strategies have been offered. Learning begins in the family. Family involvement in a child’s education has been shown to be a better predictor of educational success than family income or parents’ education level (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003f). Parents who encourage their children to pursue academic interests or who aspire to further their own education have a powerful, positive influence on their children. Problems arise, however, when parents believe that they are incapable of meeting their child’s educational needs or when parents feel their involvement is not welcome at their child’s school. For Hispanic parents, these problems can be complicated by language and cultural differences and by unfamiliarity with the educational process. But parents can overcome these barriers if they are willing to try and if schools make a concerted effort to establish a climate where parents feel welcome. It is not sufficient for information to be available to parents; schools, and community organizations have a responsibility to do more. They must encourage parents to participate in activities and programs that will further their understanding of the different elements of their children’s education. To ensure increased interaction between schools and parents, there is encouragement of corporate and community organizations to create academies to increase parental knowledge of effective methods for the educational engagement of their children. These academies can be facilitated by neighborhood leaders who have been trained by school or non-profit personnel. The need for parental involvement increases as students and their families are provided options such as those offered by the No Child Left Behind Act. Under NCLB, disadvantaged children in schools needing improvement will be allowed to transfer to a different public school.
4.3. Meeting the Challenges of a Changing World During the twentieth century, the United States was a world leader in raising the educational attainment of its population. This important achievement contributed to national productivity growth and extended economic opportunity to formerly disadvantaged groups in society. Now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, institutions of higher learning retain an excellent reputation for quality. Less confidence exists, however, in the educational system’s ability to meet broad economic and social objectives adequately. This uncertainty stems in part from the shifting global economy and the evolving nature of employment.
176
A. REYNALDO CONTRERAS
These doubts also reject the legacy of widening income inequality over the past quarter-century. These concerns have sparked both federal and state legislation to reform elementary and secondary schooling. The experience of other nations has provided evidence on the degree to which educational challenges are being driven by changes in the worldwide economy, and offered insights on the strengths and weaknesses of alternative educational systems. The United States educational system is in the process of being restructured. The debate is no longer about funding for education. It is about how to change institutions and incentives so as to bring about better educational outcomes. Dissatisfaction with the current education system in the United States is evident amongst both policy makers and educators. To varying degrees, they claimed that the performance of the average student should be improved, that the educational attainment of low-income and minority students must be raised from current unacceptable levels, or that greater attention should be placed on developing high-end talent. As a result of their concerns, both policy makers and educators are placing greater emphasis on improving schools because education is increasingly important in determining individuals’ earnings potential. They also find that the total benefits to society from education are greater than the sum of what individuals earn as a result of their educational attainment. Relative to foreign populations, the U.S. population, on average, is highly educated in terms of years of schooling. However, the average U.S. high school or middle school student does not score highly on international standardized tests. Thus, there is a need to concentrate on increasing academic achievement for a given number of years of schooling. Recent education-related reforms in the United States have had two key thrusts. ‘‘Standards-based reforms’’ involve establishing performance benchmarks for students and schools and holding them accountable for their performance. Choice involves providing expanded alternatives to traditional public schooling, such as through vouchers and charter schools. In addition, over the last several decades, states have implemented a variety of changes in school financing in response to voter and legislative actions and judicial decrees. These reforms to school funding formulas are ongoing.
4.4. Impact of Contemporary Waves of Immigration on Diversity in U.S. Education For the past few decades, particularly the past 15 years or so, U.S. immigration has brought to the nation’s shores countless newcomers representing countries, languages, traditions, and religions underrepresented here in the
Bilingual Education in Urban Schools
177
past. At the same time, the schools have continued to acknowledge the need for inclusionary programming – not only for immigrants but also for those with special needs, including children with disabilities of one kind or another, and youngsters of varying educational achievement levels. As a result, the U.S. classroom in primary and secondary schools is more diverse than at any time in the nation’s history, with more issues needing to be explored, more challenges needing to be met, and more attention needing to be paid. Providing a solid education for all has not been a goal easily accomplished. Controversy over issues of one kind or another, parental advocacy, U.S. Government and state policymaking and use of the judicial system to enforce rights have all played a role in the march toward a universal system of education. The important message, however, is that the goal remains strong and is central to changes taking place in American education from kindergarten through the 12th grade, traditionally the end of secondary school (K-12).
4.5. Student Ethnic Demographics The new language diversity in American schools contrasts significantly with that of previous influxes of immigrants. It is extensive. For example, Montgomery County, Maryland, and Arlington, Virginia, both within the metropolitan area of Washington, D.C., enroll students whose families speak more than three-dozen languages. In Long Beach, California, once known as a haven for people moving from the U.S. Midwest, more than one-third of the total enrollment of students in the public schools, K-12, today is from Southeast Asia. Furthermore, ties with the ‘‘old country’’ are easier to maintain. Modern transportation and communication allow immigrant families to keep up contacts and, thus, their languages and culture. In one middle school in Long Beach, Cambodian families helped establish daily lessons in Khmer for their children. Recent immigration is responsible for most of the diversity in American schools. Yet, the schools would be diverse even without it. About 17 percent of K-12 students are African American, and about one percent is Native American. The families of many of those listed as Hispanic, or Latino, can trace their heritage to ancestors living in the areas that became the U.S. Southwest. Among the many subgroups within the Hispanic school population, the highest percentages of native-born students are of Mexican ancestry. Other large subgroups include Puerto Ricans and Cuban Americans, whose migration started before that of Central American families.
178
A. REYNALDO CONTRERAS
Altogether, Hispanics have become the largest minority group in American public schools as of the year 2005. At one time, the goal of the schools was to foster the ‘‘melting pot,’’ a policy that minimized one’s cultural background in favor of assimilation. Today, schools still stress literacy in English, but they also focus on understanding different cultures. Textbooks and other classroom resources attempt to provide a wide exposure to diverse cultures, and many teacher recruitment efforts are aimed at building much greater diversity among the teaching force. Federal and some state programs provide funding for bilingual education. This strategy of learning some academic subjects in the native language, while studying English was used in the early part of the last century to keep German-speaking students in mid-western U.S. cities in the public schools. Fear of foreigners after World War I led to a backlash against bilingual programs. A U.S. Supreme Court decision in the 1970s guaranteed language-minority students an appropriate education, thus supporting a return of bilingual or similar programs. Concern about the surge in immigration in California, however, contributed to voter approval of a referendum that severely limits bilingual classes in that state – preferring a quick transition to English-only as the approach to comply with the Supreme Court ruling. On the other hand, the U.S. Secretary of Education endorsed dual language immersion programs to help language-minority students maintain fluency in their home language while learning English and to give English-speaking students a full opportunity to learn another language. The impact of racial and ethnic diversity in the schools has varied among the states. Five states, California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinois, experienced the largest growth in language minority enrollments. Diverse enrollments also tend to concentrate in central-city schools (almost all large urban districts now have more minority students than white students). Yet, even rural schools in such states as Alabama or Kansas may find a growing number of language-minority families in their schools, attracted to the communities by low-skill industries. What also is different, and most significant, about the racial/ethnic diversity in U.S. schools is how these institutions are responding. In the past, school officials usually expected minority student achievement to be lower than that of white students, which resulted in large percentages of ethnic and racial-minority students being placed in remedial and/or vocational programs. They dropped out of school before obtaining a high school diploma at much higher rates than white students. Education reforms that began more than a decade ago focus on higher standards for all students. The reforms present a special challenge to
Bilingual Education in Urban Schools
179
low-performing schools, which enroll mostly low-income and/or minority children. Closing the gap in achievement has become a priority for these schools, and there is some evidence of progress. The graduation rate of white and African-American students is now almost the same, although Hispanic students still lag far behind. Some states, such as Texas, require schools to show improved achievement among sub-groups of students, meaning that overall scores cannot hide problems with minority students. Where schools are focusing special help for low-performing minority students such as smaller classes, research-based early reading strategies, and motivation to prepare for college minority student achievement often exceeds national averages.
4.6. Improving Academic Achievement in Urban Schools The United States is facing an unprecedented challenge in serving immigrant youth. Today’s immigrants arrive from widely diverse source countries, and are increasingly likely to resettle in nontraditional states and in rural communities, areas that often have the least experience and/or infrastructure to help students learn English and adapt to their new schools and neighborhoods. With immigration levels sustained at well over one million arrivals per year, immigrant students are entering public schools in record numbers. This has tremendous implications for program development, curricula, and funding. Immigrants and language minority students (i.e., English learners) are among the fastest growing populations in U.S. public schools. The share of children enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade that is composed of children of immigrants (including both foreign-born children and U.S.born children with foreign-born parents) more than tripled from 6 to 20 percent between 1970 and 2000. By 2015, if current immigration levels continue, children of immigrants will constitute 30 percent of the nation’s school population. The number of students lacking English proficiency has also increased dramatically. Enrollment in 2000–2001 was 4.6 million or about 10 percent of total school enrollment (pre-K through 12th grade), an increase of 105 percent over 1990–1991. The top five languages spoken by LEP students in 2000–2001 were Spanish (79%), Vietnamese (2%), Hmong (1.6%), Cantonese (1%) and Korean (1%) (Kindler, 2002). As of 2002–2003, approximately 5 million LEP students were enrolled in grades pre-K through 12th, nearly double the 2.7 million in 1992–1993 (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2003). Most children of immigrants fare well, but immigrant teens
180
A. REYNALDO CONTRERAS
can face unique challenges related to language proficiency, cultural and social adaptation, and poverty. Newly arriving immigrant teenagers have a very limited time to learn English, study the required material for high stakes tests, and catch up to their native English speaking peers before graduation (Short, 2002; Antunez, 2003). Consequently, dropout rates are significantly higher for immigrants and for LEP youth. On the other hand, immigrant youth who have mastered English often experience family role-reversal, when they are called on as translators or interpreters for family interactions with the outside world. Finally, one in four poor children lives in an immigrant family. Their parents often work multiple jobs or shift work to support their family, which drains the time available to supervise their children or assist with their homework or school activities. This section outlines the demographics of LEP and immigrant youth and some of the challenges facing them and institutions that serve them, including new requirements in the No Child Left Behind Act for assessments, staffing and parental involvement. There is also a focus on some creative programmatic responses to serve LEP and immigrant children and their parents through newcomer schools, parent outreach and training, and after school programs.
4.7. About Immigrant and LEP Youth One in five children in the United States is an immigrant or has immigrant parents. The number of children of immigrants in the United States tripled from 6 to 20 percent between 1970 and 2000. (Three-fourths of these children are U.S.-born with immigrant parents, while one-fourth are foreign born). By 2015 children of immigrants will constitute 30 percent of the nation’s school population, if the current high levels of immigration – over 1 million per year – are sustained. Forty percent of foreign-born immigrant children and 20 percent of U.S. born children of immigrants are ‘‘LEP.’’ Ninety percent of LEP students are children of immigrants, and the remaining 10 percent are the children of natives. English proficiency varies by country of origin, with Mexican and other Hispanic children twice as likely to be LEP as Asians and other non-Hispanic groups. Hispanics comprise 56 percent of immigrant children, but 75 percent of LEP. Asians comprise 22 percent of the immigrant population, but only 13 percent of the LEP population (Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000). Immigrant children attend schools that are not just racially and ethnically segregated, but also linguistically isolated. In many parts of the United
Bilingual Education in Urban Schools
181
States, persistent neighborhood-level racial and ethnic segregation is reflected in segregated schools, since school attendance is largely neighborhood-based. Most LEP students are Latinos, and many Latino students are LEP. As a result, the linguistic segregation of LEP students closely resembles the residential and school segregation of Latinos. On the other hand, African American and non-Hispanic white children are unlikely to go to schools with large numbers of LEP students, because racial and ethnic segregation separates them from Latinos. In fact, over one-half of all LEP students attend schools where more than 30 percent of students are LEP. By contrast, over half of non-LEP students attend schools where less than 1 percent of students are LEP (Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000).
4.8. Dropout Rates Most immigrant youth seem to fare as well as their peers in U.S.-born families in terms of physical and mental health and avoidance of high-risk behaviors, and the vast majority attends school. However, they are more likely to be behind grade and not to graduate (David & Lucile Packard Foundation, 2004). Immigrant teens in some ethnic groups suffer a dropout rate much higher than the national average. One way to count the dropout rate is to include all individuals who are not enrolled in high school and who lack a high school credential, known as the ‘‘status dropout rate.’’ This measure includes all dropouts regardless of when they last attended school and individuals who may never have attended school in the United States. For example, Hispanic youth aged 16–24 had a status dropout rate of 27 percent, compared to 11 percent for black non-Hispanic, 7 percent for white non-Hispanic and 4 percent for Asian/Pacific Islander youth (National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Dept. of Education, 2001). The high dropout rate among Hispanics is due in part to the high dropout rates of Hispanic immigrants. More than one-half of Hispanic immigrants have never enrolled in a U.S. school, but are counted as dropouts if they did not complete high school in their country of origin (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003g). The aggregate dropout rate is a poor indicator of U.S. secondary school performance. Of 530,000 Hispanic high school dropouts, 175,000 were likely never enrolled in U.S. schools. Counting only Hispanic teens that have been enrolled in U.S. schools, the dropout rate for Hispanic 16–19 year olds is about 15 percent, approximately twice the non-Hispanic white dropout rate. Thus, it is critical to distinguish between recent immigrants and those who have
182
A. REYNALDO CONTRERAS
been educated in U.S. schools for the design of appropriate interventions. For example, most dropouts that have never been in U.S. schools have very limited spoken English abilities; while most Hispanic dropouts educated in U.S. schools have English fluency by age 16 (ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, 2003). Dropout rates for Hispanic immigrant youth also differ by country of origin, and rates are distorted by including U.S.-educated immigrant youth. For example, about 40 percent of 16–19 year olds who emigrated from Mexico are dropouts. For Mexican immigrants educated in U.S. schools, the rate is 20 percent. For Central American immigrant youth overall, the dropout rate is 25 percent, compared to 7 percent for U.S.-educated Central American immigrant youth. For South American immigrant youth, the rate is only 13 percent, and 12 percent for U.S.-educated South American youth (Fry, 2003). LEP children are twice as likely as their English-speaking counterparts to drop out of school. About 23 percent of LEP children age 16–24 were not enrolled in school and did not have a high school diploma or equivalent, compared to 13 percent of those who speak English. LEP students who stay in school have similar attendance and grades to their English-speaking peers, but as a whole score lower on standardized tests and are less likely to finish high school (Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000).
4.9. Immigrant Parents and the Family Dynamic One of the reasons their children have difficulty in school is that immigrant parents often lack English proficiency themselves and have less education than U.S.-born parents. For example, four out of five LEP children who are foreign-born live in families where the parents are also considered limitedEnglish proficient. For foreign-born children who are not LEP, about half live in families where the parents are limited-English proficient. Immigrant families often experience family role-reversal: as the children learn English faster than their parents, they are called on to become translators and interpreters for family interactions with the outside world. Immigrant teens find their growing independence creates family tensions, with parents feeling their child is becoming ‘‘too Americanized,’’ and children feeling frustrated by living in two cultural worlds, old and new. Immigrant families are found to have many strengths. For example, immigrant families are healthy, and they are more likely to have two parents in the home with at least one working parent, an extended family, and a cohesive community of immigrants from the same country of origin. However, children in these
Bilingual Education in Urban Schools
183
families also often have parents who have not graduated from high school, are not proficient in English, and work in low-wage jobs with fewer benefits (Shields, & Behrman, 2002). Recommendations to strengthen immigrant families include parent support groups and family literacy programs so parents will be able to help with homework, encourage their children to be involved in after-school activities, get involved in the PTA, understand how to apply for health insurance, and help fill out college applications.
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 5.1. Summary There have been significant increases in federal bilingual education funding. These increases are the result of both higher Congressional appropriations and a shift under No Child Left Behind from the old Title VII discretionary grant program to a new-targeted formula grant. These new monies have allowed the Great City Schools, which enroll approximately one-third of the nation’s ELLs, to expand services. These urban school districts have moved not only to increase the numbers of LEP students they serve but also to align their programs with the goal setting and testing requirements under NCLB. The 47 City School systems responding to a survey sent to bilingual education directors in the districts are setting concrete and measurable goals for English language acquisition and academic achievement among their targeted students. Many districts now use a regular process, involving a variety of stakeholders, to set academic priorities under Title III. New funding is also being devoted to expanding the number of ESL instructional staff and the professional development offered to them. Funds are also being spent on instructional materials, extra time for supplemental services, technology, parent outreach and support, translators, and assessment tools. Data are still too preliminary to make any judgments about the effectiveness of the instructional strategies being used with the new Title III resources. Districts are beginning to offer their initial impressions, however. Some districts are beginning to cite their use of dual language models, sheltered instruction, and professional development efforts as strategies that seem to be working. Other districts cite the assessment data they are obtaining about how students are doing in the English acquisition process. Finally, many districts stress the importance of parent outreach and support efforts.
184
A. REYNALDO CONTRERAS
But the jury is still out on what will prove effective. Much of the new data emerging from No Child Left Behind indicates that academic achievement among ELLs and those who have just become proficient remains low. The new law lays out specific requirements for attaining English and content area proficiency, but the research is poor on the instructional approaches that are likely to lead to universal proficiency for these students.
5.2. Conclusion Responding to the needs of diverse students in the public schools is an issue that never sits still in the United States. Policymakers, educators, the courts, and parents constantly search for the best ways to educate all students. Courtordered desegregation and affirmative action, for example, are giving way to initiatives that improve the quality of education in all schools and especially the preparation and support of teachers to teach in highly diverse classrooms. Assessment programs are being expanded to include appropriate testing of language-minority students and those with disabilities. Instead of excluding them from testing, policymakers who design the accountability systems are saying that true progress in the schools can be measured only if all students are included in the accountability. Bilingual education remains controversial, but it also has a strong hold in most communities, and there are growing demand among parents in general to improve the foreign language instruction for all students. This persistent commitment to meeting learners’ needs, no matter their differences, will be needed to prepare American schools for a future in which, as projected for the end of this new century, minorities will account for 60 percent of the population in the United States.
REFERENCES Antunez, B. (2003). English language learners in the great city schools: Survey results on students, languages and programs. Washington, DC: Council of the Great City Schools. Business Roundtable (2003). The hidden crisis in the high school dropout problems of young adults in the U.S.: Recent trends in overall school dropout rates and gender differences in dropout behavior. Available online at http://www.businessroundtable.org/pdf/914.pdf Capps, R. (2004). Beyond bilingual education: Immigrant students and the No Child Left Behind Act. First Tuesday Forum, The Urban Institute (December 7). Children’s Defense Fund (2003). The state of children in America’s union: A 2002 action guide to Leave No Child Behinds. Washington, DC: Children’s Defense Fund. Available online at http://www.childrensdefense.org/pdf/minigreenbook.pdf
Bilingual Education in Urban Schools
185
Council of the Great City Schools (2003). Beating the odds: A city-by-city analysis of the student performance and achievement gaps on state assessments (Vol. 4). Washington, DC: CGCS. Available online at http://www.cgcs.org/reports/beat_the_oddsIII.html Cuban, L. (2001). Urban school leadership: Different kind and degree. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership. Cuban, L., & Usdan, M. (2003). Powerful reforms with shallow roots. New York: Teachers College Press; Cuban, L. (2001). Urban school leadership: Different kind and degree. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership. David & Lucile Packard Foundation (2004). Children of immigrant families: Analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children, 14(2), 11. Doolittle, F., Herlihy, C., & Snipes, J. (2002). Foundations for success: Case studies of how urban school systems improve student achievement. New York: MDRC. ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education (2003). High School Dropout Rates for Latino Youth, ERIC Digest, 193, New York, NY: ERIC. Fry, R. (2003). Hispanic youth dropping out of U.S. schools: Measuring the challenge. Pew Hispanic Center (June 8). Hill, R. K., & DePascale, C. A. (2003). Reliability of No Child Left Behind accountability designs. Dover, NH: National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment. Kindler, A. (2002). Survey of the states’ limited English proficient students 2000–2001 summary report. Prepared for the office of English Language Acquisition (October). http:// www.ncela.gwu.edu/policy/states/reports/seareports/0001/sea0001.pdf Lewis, A. (2002). CRESST 2002 annual conference: Civil discourse on assessment. Part 1. The CRESSTLine, 2, 6–8. Retrieved 20 November 2003 from http://www.cresst.org/ products/newsletters_set.htm Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Herman, J. L. (2002). From the directors: Minimum group size for measuring adequate yearly progress. The CRESST Line, 1, 4–5. Retrieved 20 November 2003 from http://www.cresst.org/products/newsletters_set.htm MDRC (2003). Big city school districts face a big job. Fast Fact Archive, http://www.mdrc.org National Center for Education Statistics (2003a). Characteristics of the 100 largest public elementary and secondary school districts in the United States: 2001–2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Available online at www.nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/ 2003353.pdf National Center for Education Statistics (2003b). Comparative indicators of education in the United States and other G-8 countries: 2002. Available online at http://nces.ed.gov/ pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003026 National Center for Education Statistics (2003c). Public high school dropouts and completers from the common core of data: School year 2000–2001. Available online at http:// nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004310.pdf National Center for Education Statistics (2003d). Overview of public elementary and secondary schools and districts, school year 2001–2002. NCES Statistical Analysis Report. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/overview03/table_10.asp National Center for Education Statistics (2003e). Hispanic population of the United States, current population survey. March 2000, Detailed Tables People Earnings. http:// www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hispanic/p20-535/tab11-1.txt National Center for Education Statistics (2003f). Participation in education, language minority students, table 4–2. The condition of education 2003. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ programs/coe/2003/section1/tables/t04_2.asp
186
A. REYNALDO CONTRERAS
National Center for Education Statistics (2003g). Dropout rates. Status and trends in the education of Hispanics, NCES, http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/hispanics/Section3.asp National Center for Education Statistics (2004). English language learner students in U.S. public schools: 1994 and 2000. Issue Brief, NCES 2004-035. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ pubs2004/2004035.pdf National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Dept. of Education (2001). Status, dropout rates and number and distribution of dropouts of 16 through 24-year-olds, by background characteristics: October 2001. http://www.nces. ed.gov/pubs2005/dropout2001/tables/table_3.asp, source, CPS October 2001. National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (2003). The growing numbers of limited English proficient students: 1992/93–2002/03. http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/policy/ states/reports/statedata/2002LEP/Growing_LEP0203 Plisko, V. W. (2003). The release of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2002 (Commissioner’s Remarks, June 19). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved 19 November 2003 from http://nces.ed.gov/commissioner/remarks2003/6_19_2003.asp President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security (2001). Interim Report, August 2001, p. 8. Ruiz-de-Velasco, J., & Fix, M. (2000). Overlooked and underserved: Immigrant students in U.S. secondary schools. Urban Institute (December), pp. 12–33. http://www.urban.org/ UploadedPDF/overlooked.pdf Shields, M., & Behrman, R. Children of immigrant families: Analysis and recommendations. The future of children, http://www.futureofchildren.org Short, D. (2002). Newcomer programs: An educational alternative for secondary immigrant students. Published in Education and Urban Society, 34(2), 173–198. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Profile of the foreign-born population in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Census Bureau (2001). Current population reports: March 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Commerce (2002). Economics and statistics administration, U.S. Census Bureau. The big payoff: Educational attainment and synthetic estimates of work-life earnings. July 2002, p. 4. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2001). Job patterns for minorities and women in private industry. http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/jobpat/2001/index.html
PART II: NCLB AND PROCESS
187
This page intentionally left blank
188
ACCOUNTABILITY, HIGH STAKES TESTING AND NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND Linda C. Tillman ABSTRACT With the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, the federal government increased its role in the reform of public education. The central feature of this movement is the use of standardized testing to raise student achievement, and particularly among minority and low-income disadvantaged students. Drawing on the slogan of the Children’s Defense Fund, the NCLB Act is intended to reverse the ‘‘soft bigotry of low expectations’’ and include all children in efforts to achieve academic excellence. Additionally, the Act requires states to put in place procedures and policies to attract and retain ‘‘highly qualified’’ teachers in core subject matter areas. This chapter will focus on accountability and high stakes testing under NCLB, present arguments for and against the act, and report findings of recent research on standardized testing. The chapter concludes with a discussion of several aspects of NCLB that could produce a disparate impact on African American students in urban schools.
No Child Left Behind and other Federal Programs for Urban School Districts Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 9, 189–200 Copyright r 2006 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(06)09010-X
189
190
LINDA C. TILLMAN
Increasingly, US public school educators operate within the confines and restrictions of the standards and accountability movement. The central feature of this movement is the use of standardized testing to raise student achievement, and particularly among minority and low-income disadvantaged students. With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, the federal government increased its role in the reform of public education. NCLB is an extension of previous federal reform initiatives, particularly the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA) of 1994. IASA mandated that states implement rigorous performance standards, use tests that would measure student performance against the standards, and held schools accountable for the academic achievement of all students. NCLB is designed, in part, to address the differences in state polices permitted under IASA with respect to standards, accountability, and testing. Importantly NCLB requires states and schools to address the achievement gap between students of color and their white peers. Additionally, the Act requires states to put in place procedures and policies to attract and retain ‘‘highly qualified’’ teachers in core subject matter areas. Drawing on the slogan of the Children’s Defense Fund, the NCLB Act is intended to reverse the ‘‘soft bigotry of low expectations’’ (Ryan, 2004), and include all children in efforts to achieve academic excellence. Five years after the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 as the NCLB Act, states and schools continue to grapple with the accountability requirements of NCLB and the mandates of high stakes testing. This chapter will focus on specific aspects of accountability and high stakes testing under NCLB. The first section presents an overview of the NCLB Act. In the next sections, specific aspects of the accountability provisions, testing requirements, and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) will be discussed. The chapter concludes with a discussion of several aspects of NCLB that could produce a disparate impact on African American students in urban schools.
BACKGROUND The NCLB Act has several key features. The Act requires states to establish rigorous and challenging standards, implement a series of regularly scheduled achievement tests that match the standards, and hire ‘‘highly qualified’’ teachers in the core content subject matter areas. States and schools are held accountable for the academic achievement of all students, and particularly those students who fall into the following categories, called
Accountability, High Stakes Testing and no Child Left Behind
191
subgroups: English language learners, special education students, economically disadvantaged students, and students from the major racial and ethnic groups. Failure to meet specified goals can result in sanctions. A major purpose of the NCLB Act is the elimination of disparities in academic performance, largely based on race and socio economic status (SES). Essentially, the features of the Act were designed to close ‘‘the achievement gap between high-and low-performing children, especially achievement gaps between minority and non-minority students, and between disadvantaged children and their more advantaged peers’’ (NCLB, 2001, sec. 100 [31]). As Lyons (this volume) has noted, NCLB accountability standards apply only to state nominated Title I schools, and non-Title I schools are not required to participate in the accountability process. For example, the state of Texas identified less than 200 schools as Title I schools while Virginia labeled almost 500 schools as Title I schools. Texas applies NCLB to only 197 schools, but Virginia includes all of its public schools under NCLB. According to Kim and Sunderman (2005), ‘‘The achievement gap on standardized tests increasingly is viewed as the most significant educational challenge facing American society in the 21st century’’ (p. 3). Much has been written about this achievement gap, and research in this area focuses primarily on factors that affect the school performance of students of color and particularly those in urban schools (Anderson, 2003; Epps & Morrison, 2003; Hale, 2004; Perry, Steele, & Hilliard, 2003; Resnick, 2004). The testing requirements of the Act are viewed as critical to the goal of eliminating the achievement gap. Unlike the IASA, which required testing in mathematics and reading three times during a student’s education, NCLB requires testing at some point for every student beginning in grade 3. According to Goertz (2005), The NCLB Act expands testing in reading and mathematics significantly, from at least once during each of three grade spans – 3rd to 5th, 6th to 9th, and 10th to 12th – to every student, annually in grades 3–8, and once in high school. In addition, the law requires states to assess students in science once during each of the three grade spans starting in 2007–2008, and requires local school districts to assess the English proficiency of ELLs starting in 2002–2003. (p. 75)
Test scores must show that schools have made AYP; that is, ‘‘that the student population as a whole, as well as each identified subgroup of students, must meet the same proficiency goal’’ (Ryan, 2004, p. 940). The schedule of tests clearly holds states and schools accountable for assessing student progress on a more consistent basis, rather than at periodic intervals that allow little time for remediation and re-testing before graduation. One
192
LINDA C. TILLMAN
of the goals of the testing is to have all students scoring at proficient levels on state tests within 12 years of passage of the Act. Since the implementation of the NCLB Act, policymakers, politicians, journalists, and educators have debated the purposes, promises, and challenges of implementing and fulfilling the mandates of the Act. Specifically, questions have been raised about whether the under-funded mandate can erase decades of educational inequality and socially unjust educational arrangements. Proponents of the NCLB Act note that the goals and accountability provisions are needed to hold all schools responsible for the elimination of the achievement gap. Cohn (2005) notes that one indication of public support came from more than 100 superintendents, who signed a letter to Congress ‘‘objecting to any ‘efforts to turn back the clock’ on the accountability provisions of NCLB’’ (p. 158). The superintendents, many of whom were African American and Latino, urged Congress to not only fully fund NCLB, but also argued that the poor and minority children in their districts could ‘‘meet high standards when properly supported and challenged’’ (p. 158). Comments from some of the signers of the letter are illustrative of their support for the Act. According to one superintendent, ‘‘We can’t ever go back to hiding certain groups of kids when we look at school performance. That’s the real benefit of No Child Left Behind’’ (Cohn, 2005, p. 158). Further an African American female superintendent in a low-performing district stated, My beliefs about putting students first, increasing achievement, raising the bar, creating a high performance culture, examining the data, implementing best practices, and not accepting any excuses are completely consistent with the goals of NCLB. In addition, my plan’s relentless focus on urgency, action and results sets the stage for progress on AYP. (p. 159)
A report of Public Agenda (Farkas, Johnson, & Duffett, 2003) is consistent with Cohn’s findings about superintendents’ favorable views of NCLB. In a survey of public school superintendents, results indicate that while superintendents who were surveyed have some doubts about NCLB, the majority of them supported the goals of NCLB and its accountability and testing requirements. Opponents of NCLB point to an over-emphasis on testing that adversely affects teachers, administrators, and students in public schools. Nichols and Berliner (2005) identified 10 trends that point to the ‘‘corrupting effects of high stakes testing’’ (p. ii) such as that required by NCLB: (1) administrator and teacher cheating; (2) student cheating; (3) exclusion of low-performance students from testing; (4) misrepresentation of student dropouts; (5) teaching
Accountability, High Stakes Testing and no Child Left Behind
193
to the test; (6) narrowing the curriculum; (7) conflicting accountability ratings; (8) questions about the meaning of proficiency; (9) declining teacher morale; and (10) score report errors. Some critics of NCLB point to the interference of the federal government in state and local control of education, while other critics view the law as an attempt to paint a negative picture of public schools in an effort to gain support for vouchers as a way to reform schools. While many superintendents have a favorable view of NCLB, others view the law as cumbersome, and disagree with using AYP as a growth model for measuring student achievement. Cohn (2005) reports that some superintendents believe NCLB ‘‘unfairly labels hard-working schools – both students and staff members – as failures’’ (p. 161). Cohn notes that in a conversation with an urban principal he found that she, like other superintendents in her region, believed NCLB ‘‘employs a leadership style that is punitive and threatening, and ignores much of what is known about how to motivate people in organizations’’ (p. 162). Another frequently expressed criticism of NCLB concerns the lack of funding which is allocated to states to meet the requirements of the Act. Several school districts have filed lawsuits against their state departments of education in attempts to receive needed funds to carry out the mandates of the Act. In one case, the Reading, Pennsylvania school district, with a majority of its schools failing to make AYP, filed a lawsuit claiming the state was obligated to provide ‘‘adequate funds to comply with NCLB’’ (Cohn, 2005, p. 161) Additionally, the lawsuit claimed the ‘‘state should not impose sanctions on the school district or its schools until appropriate financial and curricular assistance is provided’’ (p. 161). Cohn notes that many of the Pennsylvania superintendents ‘‘rallied to support the arguments put forth by Reading challenging NCLB as an unfunded mandate’’ (p. 161). Collectively, the arguments for and against NCLB point to the dividedness over the most appropriate and effective ways to eliminate the achievement gap among students in public schools. In the next section, a central feature of the NCLB Act, accountability, will be discussed.
ACCOUNTABILITY AND NCLB The accountability provisions of the NCLB Act are specifically intended to close the achievement gap between high-and low-performing students. AYP is the ‘‘central mechanism for improving school performance and the academic achievement of different subgroups of students’’ (Kim & Sunderman, 2005, p. 3). Essentially, the accountability aspect of NCLB means that policies and procedures must be in place that will hold states and schools
194
LINDA C. TILLMAN
more accountable for student achievement and the elimination of the achievement gap than under previous reform initiatives. Beginning with the 2002–2003 school year, states were required to develop and implement a single, statewide accountability system that would ensure that school districts would make adequate yearly progress. The NCLB Act accountability provisions include: a. The accountability system must be based on the state’s academic standards and assessment. b. It must be the same for all students and must include sanctions and rewards that hold local districts accountable for student achievement and insuring AYP. c. It must ensure that alternate assessments are used only when appropriate for students with disabilities who have the most significant cognitive disabilities. d. It must require local districts to report the percentage of students taking alternate assessments. Accountability under NCLB stipulates that all schools and students must meet a single proficiency level in reading and mathematics. Proponents of the accountability provisions argue that this requirement is necessary because high expectations must be set for all students in order to address the needs of those students who have been ‘‘segregated by low expectations’’ (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Opponents of the accountability provisions argue that using AYP as the single determining factor of school and student performance produces a disparate impact on high-poverty schools. Thus, the use of AYP as a single measure of school effectiveness is one of the questionable aspects of the accountability provisions. Among policymakers and educators there has been debate about the extent to which states have flexibility in responding to the requirements of NCLB. According to Goertz (2005), the accountability provisions allow states very little flexibility in making decisions about how they will meet the requirements. She notes that as an example, states must use a conjunctive model of accountability that holds schools and districts accountable separately for reading and math. The use of a conjunctive model is a departure from the use of a compensatory model that combined performance on reading and mathematics tests. Additionally, states must calculate AYP separately for all students and subgroups of students in a school district, and must follow the NCLB guidelines for establishing ‘‘starting points’’ for AYP targets as well as timelines for the implementation of sanctions on Title I schools. States continue to have some flexibility with respect to the
Accountability, High Stakes Testing and no Child Left Behind
195
establishment of their own assessments; however, assessments must be aligned with state standards. States also have some flexibility in determining under what circumstances sanctions will be applied to non-Title I schools, and can also decide how NCLB accountability requirements will be incorporated into their particular state accountability systems. Since the passage of the Act, each state has developed some form of accountability that meets the requirements of NCLB (Goertz, 2005). A 2003 Education Week state policy survey revealed that approximately half of the states use the NCLB model of AYP as the state accountability model. Other states have implemented various accountability models that may include adding additional criteria to the NCLB provisions, rating their schools using letter grades, and applying the AYP rating and a separate state rating. State accountability systems share several common features including the use of performance indexes, the use of growth and status measures, and the absence of subgroup performance in rating systems (Goertz, 2005). According to Goertz, the decision to use growth models as well as the absence of subgroup accountability can affect whether the state and schools will be identified for improvement and be eligible for assistance, and whether the state and schools will be sanctioned under existing federal and state laws. Both Lyons and Lawton (this volume) note that the ability of each state to determine the number of Title I schools covered under NCLB, determine the number of sub-groups for comparisons, and establish their own assessment instruments make it almost impossible to make national comparisons between states. Therefore, national standards may be extremely difficult to implement under the rules established by NCLB.
ASSESSMENT AND NCLB The assessment of student performance is a key feature of accountability under NCLB. Prior to the implementation of NCLB, few states administered tests consecutively in the grade-level groups mentioned earlier in this chapter. Rather, states had various testing requirements with respect to how often students were tested in reading and mathematics, and only 32 states tested students in accordance with the guidelines of IASA. With the passage of NCLB, states were required to broaden the scope of their assessment programs, adding new tests and incurring sizable costs for the administration and scoring of the tests. Each state is also allowed to construct its own assessment tests and determine the kind and number of sub-groups.
196
LINDA C. TILLMAN
AYP is directly tied to how many students are performing at a level of proficiency on state tests, and all students (including those in designated subgroups) must meet the same goal. Ryan (2004) argues ‘‘The central problem is the Act’s central feature – namely, the requirement that schools be sanctioned if their students fail to demonstrate an absolute level of achievement on tests within a relatively short period of time’’ (p. 934). According to Ryan, the focus on absolute achievement levels rather than achievement gains generates ‘‘incentives for parents, teachers, and administrators to shun disadvantaged children and the schools that educate them’’ (p. 934). He further argues that the requirements of AYP not only unfairly penalize those subgroup students who have traditionally performed below their peers on standardized tests, but the Act ‘‘unintentionally encourages states to lower their academic standards, promotes school segregation and the pushing out of poor and minority students, and discourages good teachers from taking jobs in challenging classrooms’’ (p. 932). The purpose of AYP is to ensure that all schools and students meet the same levels of proficiency by the 2013–2014 academic year. To meet this goal, each state establishes its own annual measurable objectives (AMO), an indicator of the minimum percentage of students who must meet the proficiency level on reading and math tests, as well the percentage of students in each subgroup who are required to meet or exceed the AMO targets. Under this requirement, it is possible that a school could fail to make AYP ‘‘if a single subgroup of students does not meet the performance target in reading and mathematics or fails to meet the 95% participation requirement’’ (Kim & Sunderman, 2005, p. 3). Kim and Sunderman note that while the AYP requirement applies to Title I and non-Title I schools, only schools that receive federal funds are subject to the mandatory sanctions of NCLB. While a ‘‘safe harbor’’ component of NCLB allows a school to make AYP if the ‘‘percentage of students below proficiency is reduced by 10% and if the school demonstrates improvement on an additional indicator or performance’’ (p. 3), critics have questioned whether the ‘‘safe harbor’’ component actually reduces the number of schools that need to improve their test scores. Additionally, Kim and Sunderman note that the use of a conjunctive accountability model requires all students to meet the same requirements in reading and mathematics regardless of prior performance on standardized tests. Kim and Sunderman (2005) used school-level data from six geographically diverse states with different accountability policies to examine how AYP requirements affected high-poverty schools with high enrollments of African American and Latino students. The sample included the states of
Accountability, High Stakes Testing and no Child Left Behind
197
Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, New York, and Virginia, and the researchers focused their analysis on race/ethnicity and low-income status. The results of their analysis provide an assessment of how AYP policies affect ‘‘the very schools and students that are the intended beneficiaries of Title I’’ (p. 4). They found that (a) schools needing improvement in each of the six states had majority African American and Latino student populations, while schools meeting AYP had predominantly White and Asian student populations; (b) a disproportionate number of minority students attended Title I schools that were subject to federal sanctions; (c) many schools with large African American and Latino student populations also had high-poverty rates and a subgroup for economically disadvantaged students, in contrast to predominantly White schools with low-poverty rates that were less likely to have separate accountability targets for lowincome students; and (d) a strong correlation between school poverty and race suggesting that segregated African American and Latino schools are more likely to have highly concentrated poverty than segregated White schools. Kim and Sunderman conclude that ‘‘Given the large racial and socioeconomic gaps in test scores, the mean proficiency standard used to determine AYP poses the greatest challenge to schools with a Black or Latino subgroup or a subgroup of low-income students’’ (p. 7). The researchers’ analysis of accountability systems in these six states clearly showed that there is a disparate impact on schools that serve majority, minority, and lowincome students. They cite other research supporting their findings (Linn, 2000; Raudenbush, 2004), that suggests ‘‘AYP requirements are unlikely to improve student achievement if mean proficiency is the primary indicator for measuring the performance of schools and subgroups of students’’ (p. 10). Thus, while the goal of testing and AYP is to eliminate the achievement gap between subgroup students such as African Americans, research suggests that these students are most likely to be negatively affected by standardized tests and AYP requirements as they are currently stipulated under NCLB.
THE IMPACT OF NCLB ON AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS IN URBAN SCHOOLS Much has been written about the achievement gap between African American students and their White counterparts in public schools (Ogbu, 2003; Perry et al., 2003; Tillman, 2004). While the NCLB Act appears to be a promising reform that will eliminate the achievement gap, the proposed
198
LINDA C. TILLMAN
methods for achieving this goal may be contrary to the realities for African American students, and particularly those in urban school systems. The fact that educators continue to raise questions about the reasons for the achievement gap (see, for example, Hale, 2004) and continue to seek solutions suggests that the intention of NCLB as a reform initiative may not address the academic needs of all students and may indeed leave African American students behind. Six of the 12 largest public school districts in the country have majority African American student enrollments, and many of these students score below their White peers on standardized tests. Thus, it is reasonable to question the strict testing mandates, particularly with respect to test scores of subgroups. Additionally, research has shown that the AYP requirements of NCLB alone are unlikely to raise achievement levels of subgroup students (Kim & Sunderman, 2005). Several factors associated with the NCLB Act may contribute to a disparate impact on African American students. First, while the Act appears neutral in its requirement that all students must achieve the same level of proficiency, this requirement is punitive in that it fails to take into account students’ prior educational experiences, and previous scores on other assessments, both which make their subgroup status a disadvantage. Factors such as the high-poverty status of the school and a lack of social and cultural capital can affect students’ opportunities to access high-quality education, both in and out of school, as well as their ability to master key subject matter content, and to ultimately consistently score at a level of proficiency on the mandated tests. Second, the labeling of schools as ‘‘good’’ based on test scores may make high-performing schools inaccessible to many African American students in urban districts. As Ryan (2004) has argued, associating labels with schools based on test performance encourages a re-segregation of schools. Labeling schools as high or low performing may be more beneficial for middle-class parents; that is, labels allow them to choose schools that will provide highquality education for their children with assurances that their children will be proficient in reading and mathematics. However, this is unlikely to be the case for minority and low-income parents who usually have limited access to high-performing schools because of their racial/ethnic and SES status. Negative labels also affect a school’s ability to recruit and retain ‘‘highly qualified’’ teachers as defined by NCLB. ‘‘Highly qualified’’ teachers must be fully certified and have demonstrated competency in the subjects they teach. Competence is assumed if the teacher majored in the subject in college or is demonstrated by passing a state test. While policymakers call for a highly qualified teacher in core content subject areas in all schools,
Accountability, High Stakes Testing and no Child Left Behind
199
Darling-Hammond (2005) argues that minority and low-income students are less likely than their White peers to have access to a ‘‘highly qualified’’ teacher. She writes, Unfortunately, policy makers have nearly always been willing to fill vacancies by lowering standards so that people who have had little or no preparation for teaching can be hired, especially if their clients are ‘‘minority’’ and low-income students. Although this practice is often excused by the presumption that virtually anyone can figure out how to teach, a number of reviews of research have concluded that fully prepared and certified teachers are more highly rated and more successful with students than teachers without full preparation. (p. 207)
The requirement for ‘‘highly qualified’’ teachers is admirable and one which should be the norm rather than the exception for all schools. However, the reality of the public school context is that teachers who are ‘‘highly qualified’’ usually work in high-performing, low-poverty schools. The pressure to raise test scores, to work with students in the identified subgroups, lack of experience working in the urban school contexts, and lack of mentoring for novice teachers are all the factors that may contribute to a shortage of ‘‘highly qualified’’ teachers in areas where they are most needed – the urban school context. Finally, the mandates of NCLB can contribute to the African American student drop-out rate in urban schools. Ryan (2004) notes that, An even more serious threat to disadvantaged students is the problem of student exclusion, which the NCLBA threatens to exacerbate. y This is why schools, to the extent they can, will work to avoid enrolling those students who are at risk of failing the examsy This temptation presumably will be strongest at the high school level, both because students most typically drop out at this stage and because low-performing high school students are most likely to be farthest behind. Given the connection between performance on tests, socioeconomic status, and race, the students most likely to be targeted for exclusion will be poor and/or racial minorities. Just as these students will suffer from any incentive to segregate created by the NCLBA, they will also suffer, even more dramatically, from any incentive to exclude them from school altogether. (p. 969)
Thus, many of the African American students, particularly at the high school level, are at a greater risk of dropping out of school and entering society under served and under educated. While it may still be too early to assess the long-term impact of the NCLB Act on African American students in urban schools, questions raised by this author as well as others are worth considering. If we are to fulfill the promises of the NCLB Act, we must also work to eliminate challenges to the Act that threaten a more socially just educational system for all students.
200
LINDA C. TILLMAN
REFERENCES Anderson, J. D. (2003). The historical context for understanding the test score gap. Unpublished manuscript. Cohn, C. A. (2005). NCLB implementation challenges: The local superintendent’s view. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 156–169. Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). New standards and old reform inequalities: School reform and the education of African American students. In: J. King (Ed.), Black education: A transformative research and action agenda for a new century (pp. 197–223). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates for the American Educational Research Association. Epps, B. D., & Morrison, H. R. (2003). ‘‘Leaving no child behind’’: Examining issues of school reform and social justice. In: C. Camp-Yeakey & R. D. Henderson (Eds), Surmounting all odds: Education, opportunity and society in the new millennium (pp. 251–270). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Farkas, S., Johnson, J., & Duffet, A. (2003). Rolling up their sleeves: Superintendents and principals talk about what’s needed to fix public schools. A report from Public Agenda for the Wallace Foundation. Goertz, M. E. (2005). Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act: Challenges for the states. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 73–89. Hale, J. (2004). How schools shortchange African American children. Educational Leadership, 3(62), 34–39. Kim, J. S., & Sunderman, G. L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for educational policy. Educational Researcher, 34(8), 3–13. Linn, R. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4–16. NCLB (No Child Left Behind Act) (2001), Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115, Stat. 1425. Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2005). The inevitable corruption of indicators and educators through high-stakes testing. Education Policy Studies Laboratory. Arizona State University. Retrieved from http://www.asu.edu/edu/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL-0503101.EPRU.pdf, 31 May 2005. Ogbu, J. (2003). Black American students in an affluent suburb: A study of academic disengagement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. Perry, T., Steele, C., & Hilliard, A. (2003). Young, gifted, and Black: Promoting high achievement among African-American Students. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Raudenbush, W. W. (2004). Schooling, statistics, and poverty: Can we measure school improvement? Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Resnick, L. (2004). Closing the gap: High achievement for students of color. Research Points, 3(2), 1–4. Ryan, J. E. (2004). The perverse incentives of the No Child Left Behind Act. The New York University Law Review, 79, 932–989. Tillman, L. C. (2004). African American principals and the legacy of Brown. Review of Research in Education, 28, 101–146. U.S. Department of Education (2001). No Child Left Behind. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Secretary.
RESILIENCY AMONG AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE STUDENTS Tawannah Allen ABSTRACT African American male students have traditionally received the most negative treatment by public educators. This study seeks to assess whether a school known to help disadvantaged students to become successful students will include African American males. The study used Henderson and Milstein’s Six Trait Resiliency Model (2003): increase pro-social bonding, set clear and consistent boundaries, teach life skills, provide caring and support, set and communicate high expectations and provide opportunity for meaningful participation. This study examined the relationships between 12 African American male students in grades 3–8 and their 10 classroom teachers (nine Caucasians and one African American).
Findings suggested that teachers in this school are caring and supportive of African American male students; students know their teachers care, establish a ridicule free classroom environment for mistakes, and use multiple ways of praise. Teachers communicate high academic expectations for all students. Teachers provide opportunities for meaningful student participation, positive criticism, and use various instructional strategies to help students experience success results.
No Child Left Behind and other Federal Programs for Urban School Districts Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 9, 201–229 Copyright r 2006 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(06)09011-1
201
202
TAWANNAH ALLEN
Each resiliency (supportive) component played a significant role in the development of African American male students. However, the most effective component was the caring and supportive teachers. Teachers can promote resiliency, positive behavior, among African American male students if they have the commitment. Many African American males, attending public schools, are faced with adversities and negative situations that would normally render them unsuccessful in school. What are the traits or skills possessed by students who are continuously faced with disadvantageous situations but who nonetheless become successful in school? How are these students able to bounce back after being knocked down time after time? What words or terms can be utilized to explain this ability, resiliency? In children who are exposed to identifiable risk factors, resiliency is their capacity to overcome those risks and avoid negative outcomes such as delinquency and behavioral problems, academic difficulties, and physical complications (Hauser, Vieyra, Jacobson, & Wertreib, 1985). These children continue to progress positively, despite being stretched by factors within their environment (Rak & Patterson, 1996). Linquanti (1992) defines resiliency as the construct used to describe the quality in children who, though exposed to significant stress and adversity in their lives, do not succumb to the school failure, or the substance abuse that have been predicted for them. Simply stated, resiliency is the ability to bounce back (Henderson & Milstein, 1996). What characteristics do these students possess and how can teachers capitalize on these traits to promote academic success and resiliency despite negative environmental situations or influences? Can resiliency be taught and learned by other students? Bernard (1991) characterizes resilient children as socially competent and displaying life skills such as problem solving, critical thinking, and the ability to take initiative, in addition to having a sense of purpose and the ability to see a positive future for them. Many of these students have goal directedness, and the motivation to achieve in school and life. This study examines Black male students at the Leenob Elementary, a K–8 school, and identified as a resiliency-building school for teachers, the extent to which teachers promote resiliency in African American males. The population consisted of 10 teachers who were interviewed about their relationships with males in their classes. Twelve African American male students whose end-of-grade assessments (North Carolina mandated accountability assessments) in 3–8 grades demonstrated growth and progress were interviewed to discuss their perceptions of their relationships with their teachers.
Resiliency among African American Male Students
203
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE Resiliency The process of resiliency refers to a dynamic process encompassing positive adaptation within the contest of significant adversity (Luthar, Cichetti, & Becker, 2000, p. 543). The process itself is common in that, typically, it arises from the normative functions of human adaptation systems, with the greatest threats to human development being those that compromise these protective systems (Masten, 2001). Within the process are two critical conditions to always be considered: exposure to significant threat or severe adversity and the achievement of positive adaptation despite major assaults on the developmental process (Luthar & Zigler, 1991). The term ‘‘resilience’’ emerged from early writing about the risks of the ‘‘invulnerable.’’ The invulnerable was the study of those who succeeded despite multiple negative risks (Anthony, 1974). The term invulnerable was deemed misleading due to the implications of the invasion of risks both absolute and unchanging. With the evolution of research, it became evident that positive adaptation instead of the exposure to adversity should be included in the developmental processes in a way that includes new vulnerabilities and strengths that may emerge with life changing circumstances (Masten & Gramezy, 1985). The term resilient was deemed a more accurate description of the concept or process of success, despite multiple negative risks, replacing the term ‘‘invulnerable’’ (Luthar et al., 2000). Within recent studies, the focus of research has begun to shift away from identifying and studying the risk variable to that of risk and protective mechanisms and the process of ‘‘negotiating risk situations’’ (Rutter, 1990). Rather than examining how these factors are developed in the resiliency process, researchers are increasingly striving to understand how a child’s family and environmental factors are involved as positive contributors and outcomes (Luthar et al., 2000). Risk and Resilience Risk For many years, risk and resiliency have been conceptualized as opposite poles ‘‘of individual differences in people’s response to stress and adversity’’ (Rutter, 1987, p. 316), with risk representing the negative pole and resiliency the positive pole. Both concepts are strongly related by their implication for a prevention and intervention program (Doll & Lyons, 1998). Children
204
TAWANNAH ALLEN
became identified as a risk due to environmental and biological factors (Honig, 1984). Rutter (1985a) argued that the study of the risk phenomena has progressed through three iterations. The first iteration encompasses studies that are concerned with demonstrating the negative life experiences that were potentially involved in the development of mental health problems (Doll & Lyons). The second iteration of risk studies examines how various types of risk relate to different types of outcomes. Many of these studies examine single risk factors or when multiple factors were examined – treated as independent variables. The third iteration of risk studies commonly overlaps with the second iteration studies. The premise of these studies focus on the fact that even with the most severe stressors and the most glaring adversities, it is unusual for more than half of children to succumb (Rutter, 1985b, p. 598). The observation of these studies causes researchers to ask ‘‘Why do some individuals persevere in the face of adversity, with few if any detrimental effects in their psychosocial functioning? While investigating the impact of multiple risk and protective factors, individually and in combination, these iteration studies have continued to expand upon significant indices of child and adult adjustment, for more than two decades’’ (Doll & Lyons, 1998). Resilience Resilience refers to a dynamic process encompassing positive adaptation within the context of significant adversity (Luthar et al., 2000). It is common due to its arising from the normative functions of human adaptation systems, with the greatest threats to human development being those that compromise these protective systems (Masten, 2001, p. 227). Within the resiliency process are two critical conditions: (a) exposure to significant threat or severe adversity; and (b) the achievement of positive adaptation despite major assaults on the developmental process (Luthar & Zigler, 1991). The process in itself is an inferential and contextual construct that requires two types of judgment (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998). The first judgment addresses the inference of threat. Individuals are not considered resilient if there has not been a threat to their development. Past hazards are judged on their potential to cause disruption or the derailment of the developmental process (Masten, 2001). With the second judgment, the quality of adaptation or the developmental outcome is assessed as ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘OK.’’ This evaluation scale has not been without controversy. Debates exist about what standards and by whom resilience should be measured (Luthar et al., 2000).
Resiliency among African American Male Students
205
Resiliency is conceived not as a childhood-given, but as a capacity that develops over time in the context of person–environmental interactions (Egeland, Carlson, & Sroufe, 1993). Once resilience is viewed from a transactional process, the developmental outcomes are determined by the interaction of genetic, biological, psychological, and sociological factors in the context of environmental support (Cicchetti & Schneider-Rusen, 1986). Viewed in this manner, environmental factors serve as vulnerability, protective, or risk variables, which may directly or indirectly influence behaviors. The developmental process is then characterized by a hierarchical integration or behavioral systems. Active participants begin to bring new attitudes, experiences, and expectations that have been derived from previous interactions, which have been influenced in such as way that environmental stimuli and cues are interpreted then organized (Egeland et al., 1993). Wolin and Wolin (1993) has identified seven internal characteristics or resiliencies that both resilient children and adults possess. These resiliencies are: initiative, independence, insight, relationship, humor, creativity, and morality. The development of these resiliencies typically varies by age. Initiative is observed when the child takes an active interest in exploring the surroundings or environment. Independence is observed when children are able to remove themselves or separate themselves from unpleasant situations; insight is observed as the ability to sense that something is wrong with a situation. Attempting to connect to others around is considered relationship resiliency. Playing is modeled as humor and creativity in resilient children. The ability to judge right from wrong is an identifier of a child’s morality. When a child possesses any one of these resiliencies, his or her ability to deal with and handle dismal situations and ‘‘bounce back’’ is greatly increased (Wolin & Wolin, 1993).
HENDERSON AND MILSTEIN’S RESILIENCY MODEL Henderson and Milstein (2003) developed the Resiliency Model. In this model are six divisions or themes for the development of a six-step strategy for fostering resiliency. The left side of the model (Build Resiliency in the Environment) shows the conditions that are typically present in the lives of individuals who are able to bounce back from adversity. The division of the model – Mitigating Risk – offers the three main strategies for mitigating the impact of risk in the lives of children and youth, in effect moving them toward resiliency (Hawkins & Catalano, 1990). The study utilized three
206
TAWANNAH ALLEN
divisions: provides care and support adults, set and communicate high expectations, and provide opportunities for meaningful opportunities. Provide Care and Support The care and support of a child does not necessarily come only from parents. Many students seek care and support from teachers, coaches, or other adults with whom they have established a close relationship. Care and support involves providing unconditional positive regard and feedback, as these are most important when attempting to establish resiliency. This division alone is of most importance to resiliency in that without the presence of a caring individual, it is difficult to overcome life’s adversities (Henderson & Milstein, 2003). Werner (1984) states that the bond with a caring individual is most important if it is established during the first year of life, with active engagement continuing during middle childhood and adolescence. Bernard (1991) states that a caring and supportive relationship with at least one person greatly reduces the negative factors in an adolescent’s life. Rak and Patterson (1996) conclude that resilient children often have mentors outside of their family members, who assist in the nurturing and development of resiliency. Set and Communicate High Expectations Setting and communicating high, yet realistic expectations are crucial in the development of resiliency. Bernard (1991) concludes that the consistently clear, high expectation communicated to the child must be coupled with ample opportunities to participate in and contribute meaningfully to the child’s social environment in order for resiliency to be developed. Trice (2005) cited Alvidrez and Weinstein (1999), which contends ‘‘Teachers make judgments on a regular basis about the ability of students, and their appraisals can have critical implications for curricular and instructional opportunities and for the messages about ability conveyed to children’’ (p. 731). Research has concluded that many children are not achieving at an appropriate level due to low educational expectations. Trice also cites Good and Brophy (2000) and their description of the behaviors teachers exhibit in response to students for whom they hold low expectations. These behaviors include less waiting time for a student to answer a question, giving students answers, rewarding incorrect behavior or incorrect answers, criticizing students more often, demanding less, and lower acceptance of student ideas. These students are not expected to achieve at grade level or above. Low expectations and unmotivational instruction are pitfalls, culprits to the
Resiliency among African American Male Students
207
significant number of children who do not experience academic success, especially with African American males (Garibaldi, 1992). All students, but especially African American male students, must be challenged intellectually; when possible they should be provided with immediate, continuous, and appropriate reinforcement (Garibaldi). Trice acknowledges research from Timperley and Phillips (2003) that reveals, ‘‘When low expectations for students are held and the students achieve accordingly, there is little incentive for the teachers to change either their goals for their students or their ways of working to achieve those goals’’ (p. 629). It is only through selfreflection and professional development that these teachers will find a mechanism to support and sustain a practice grounded in accurately identifying the strengths and weakness of their students. Timperley and Phillips (2003) propose a plan of attack to address the origins of teachers’ low expectation of students. They advocate framing professional development of teachers around (1) student achievement, by presenting achievement information that is discrepant with teachers’ beliefs, (2) teachers’ sense of selfefficacy, by linking the task of the instructor and student learning in a way that is meaningful for the teacher, and (3) forming new domain knowledge, by relating the nature of their practice to methods which will allow them to teach more effectively. Provide Opportunities for Meaningful Participation Providing children opportunities for meaningful participation is just as important in promoting resiliency as setting high expectations. Although children are taught problem-solving or decision-making skills, students must be given opportunities to demonstrate these skills, via accepting more of the responsibility of what happens within the school setting. Bernard (1991) states that the opportunity for meaningful participation is one of the key protective factors found in families, schools, and communities of resilient children. The encouragement of participation in academic clubs, debate teams, rather than just athletics, occurs in extracurricular activities that are closely related to academics (Garibaldi, 1992). Exposure to these types of activities promotes the use and development of critical thinking skills while also enhancing positive self-esteem (Rak & Patterson, 1996). Steps in Fostering Resiliency In mitigating the significant impact or risks to children, the three divisions on the right side of the Henderson and Milstein (2003) Model are important
208
TAWANNAH ALLEN
strategies. They are increasing bonding, setting clear and consistent boundaries, and teaching life skills. Increase Pro-Social Bonding In the establishment of resiliency, employing such tenets as the development and attachment to a school have positive effects on self-image and concept, while also decreasing delinquency and drug use among students. Increasing bonding is based on the premise that when children develop positive strong bonds with adults, the chance of their getting involved in risky behaviors is greatly reduced. A teacher is the most frequently encountered positive role model outside the family, and a strong relationship can often be the determining factor for whether or not a child opens his/her mind to learn (Christle, Harley, Nelson, & Jones, 1991). Set Clear and Consistent Boundaries The school establishment must be involved in setting the clear and consistent boundaries of fair, clear, and concise rules and regulations, along with the consequences when rules are broken. These rules and expectations are clearly written and communicated to students. Teach Life Skills Teaching skills includes life skills (skills useful in getting along within one’s environment) plus conflict resolution skills, communication skills, problemsolving and decision-making skills. The development and establishment of these skills are conducive to student learning, and they assist with positive interactions within the school environment.
EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES OF AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE STUDENTS The educational experiences of African American male students have been a strong research interest of many researchers. Researchers are interested in finding ways of motivating Black males to be successful in academics, but also in finding the implementation and development of policies, strategies, and other academic support systems to promote the successful matriculation of African American males who may be considered as less desirable by many teachers. Historically, the American educational setting has rarely been effective in the education of African American males (Wilson & Banks, 1999). According
Resiliency among African American Male Students
209
to Asamen and Berry (1989), one reason the system is not working is because some educators have low expectations of African American male students, and also because the curriculum does not reflect the culture of African Americans, nor does it draw upon the strengths of these African American males and incorporate them into the teaching process (Baratz & Baratz, 1969). Added to these problems, the system does not work due to the huge number of minority children incorrectly labeled mentally retarded, and placed in special education classes (Wilson & Banks, 1999). The American education system is not conducive to helping African American males learn, as has been proven by the disproportionate number of students being expelled, suspended, and ultimately pushed out of schools (Hale-Benson, 1982). African American males are more than twice as likely as White males to be suspended or expelled from school (Edelman, 1987). Trice (2005) contends the trend of disproportionate number of African American males being expelled from school can be found across the country. He also references research from Mendez, Knoff, and Ferron (2002), which cite in 1997, African American students across the county were suspended 2.3 times more often than Caucasian students; and surprisingly in Arizona, African American students were suspended 22 times more often than Caucasian students. Many African American youth feel frustrated with school due to education’s being an unpleasant experience, coupled with their inability to perform well in the academic setting as presented to them (Corbin & Pruitt, 1999). In order for change to occur in this chronic failure of an educational system, practicing educators must become aware of the specific concerns required for the education of these children. It is thought by some that African American students are not provided the same academic preparedness for adult life as their White counterparts (Ascher, 1991). Trice (2005) investigated Atkins and Ellsesser (2003) research and concluded that historically students have been separated according to grades, standardized test scores, work habits, and general attitudes – all functions of perceived student intellect. Research shows that students have been historically separated based on race, gender, and socioeconomic status. This study offers the rationale behind such practices are grounded in a theory that tracking or ability grouping helps narrow the range of performance and motivation in a group of students; hence, making teaching easier and preventing less able students from interfering with the education of those students who have superior academic ability (Brewer, Rees, & Argys, 1995). African American males may be expected to show greater disparities in education when compared to other American groups (Wilson & Banks, 1999). Although federal and state mandates attempt to provide equal
210
TAWANNAH ALLEN
opportunities, if African American males start with a background handicap, they will typically remain largely isolated within the public school settings, and will receive an inferior education (Gill, 1991). These students are characterized as ‘‘at risk’’ students. Factors such as limited English proficiency, ethnic group status, and other individual-level factors affect the development and the educational success of many youths (Winfield, 1991). Labeling youths as at risk promotes victim-blaming. The cause for failure should not be seen as emerging from the student, his or her family or his or her culture, but rather as emerging from the differences in the social, political, and economic conditions surrounding them (Hare, 1988).
FACTORS INFLUENCING ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT Offering an explanation as to why some African American students do well in school, whereas others do poorly remains one of the most difficult tasks in education (Hopkins, 1997). The failures of many African American male students can be contributed to a combination of lack of positive information about racial heritage, lack of exposure to positive role models, and a feeling of disconnectedness with teachers and counselors (Ford, 1993). Research on the achievement of African American males, up to that date, does not show racecomparatives studies in which African American students as an entire group are compared to White students as a group, nor are there studies shown between only low-income African American students (Asamen, 1989). Academic failures for many African American male students tend to begin early, commonly leading to males becoming disinterested in school and ultimately dropping out of school even before reaching high school (Garibaldi, 1992). Often these youths are discouraged or prevented from incorporating schooling and education into their self-view due to (a) psychological mechanisms that protect them from anxiety, evaluation and apprehension, and adverse outcomes; (b) having to give up their identification with their minority group in order to identify with ‘‘white’’ pursuits and values including education; (c) peer group resistance to valuing education and rejection of those who do; or (d) psychological reactance that manifests as heightened or ritualized masculinity which also prevents the individual from succeeding in academics (Osborne, 1999, p. 559). Whatever the cause and/or mechanism, the final outcome appears to be selective devaluing of academics and education (Osborne, 1999, p. 559). The educational system significantly impacts the African American male. As a result, educators must be better prepared for the challenges to be
Resiliency among African American Male Students
211
presented. Children need an educational system that recognizes and values their abilities and their culture norms, while incorporating them both into the educational process. African American males must feel that they are respected, understood, and valued in order to function in an environment that is conducive to learning. A bonding process between students and those charged with educating them must first take place. Teachers play a pivotal role in reversing negative academic and social behaviors of African American males (Garibaldi, 1992). African American males cannot advance without an appropriate social psychological theory of the educational process. This theory must identify the social, historical, and cultural forces that affect the development of learning styles prevalent in the African American community (Osborne, 1999, p. 560). Counseling According to Corbin and Pruitt (1999), the most common negative influence on academic achievement is inappropriate counseling from guidance departments on course/class selections for students, specifically male students. Many male students’ curricular experiences do not match the student’s learning style. These differences can cause many students to dislike school. African American students are sometimes not given the opportunities to take challenging or advanced level courses, even when they clearly have the abilities necessary to be successful in these classes. Trice (2005) discusses how many African American males are not given the opportunity to enroll in higher level science courses. This research also references Crosby and Owens (1993) research, which contends teachers place fewer demands on students in low tracked classes because they have low expectation for these students. Misidentification of academic setting (e.g., self-contained, educable mentally handicapped) will be discussed later in this section. These negative developments with guidance counselors indicate a need for total revamping of the educational guidance offered by counselors, in order for the counselors to improve skills necessary to work effectively with African American males. Promoting cultural awareness, knowledge and sensitivity are the skills counselors need in order to become more versatile. Self-Identity Before the successful education of the African American male can begin, the African American male identity must be understood, respected, and
212
TAWANNAH ALLEN
accepted. The achievement of one’s self-identity involves defining who one is and hopes to become in the future, within a specific social context. In doing this, an individual must begin to explore various roles by experimenting with various attitudes, emotions, and behaviors, while receiving feedback rather positive, which validates the roles, or negatively, which invalidates the role (Corbin & Pruitt, 1999). Failure to establish an identity can lead to confusion within African American youths (Erickson, 1968). When confusion occurs, many youths withdraw from family, or may delve into the world of their peers, aspiring to become lost in the crowd of these peers (Simons, Kalichman, & Santrock, 1994). African American youth are faced with social, cultural, academic, and economic dilemmas that generate experiences and identity conflicts specific to African American males (Corbin & Pruitt, 1999). Key issues involved in the identity development of African American males include their ethnic development, role model identification, and peer acceptance issues (Harris, 1995). Ethnic Influence Awareness of inequalities within society is a clear factor to be coped with during the development of African American children. These inequities are perpetuated via the media, textbooks, newspapers, and at times in textbooks within the classrooms (White & Parkham, 1990). These media references assist in instilling the dominance, power, and beauty often associated with Euro-centricity, with these genres rarely promoting positive feedback toward African American males. Often, a sense of pessimism is generated toward society by African American males (Harris, 1995). The fact that many males at times feel both included and excluded from White society helps to foster feelings of anger and indignation, propelling these males in their attempt to identify with two very different and often conflicting value systems – the African American value system and the EuroAmerican system (White, 1984). Restrictions in choices, personal growth, social interactions, and economic opportunities are some of the consequences for total identification with either value system. In attempts to deal with this identity issue, suggestions have been offered. Corbin and Pruitt (1999) offer suggestions that include the processes of alienation, assimilation, withdrawal, and integration as methods of dealing with identity issues. Alienated individuals are those who (a) accept the negative image as part of his or her minority group that society presents; (b) alienate themselves from African American culture; and (c) do not adapt to the majority culture. Assimilated individuals attempt to become part of the
Resiliency among African American Male Students
213
majority culture and do not remain connected with their minority culture. Withdrawn individuals become immersed in their own culture while withdrawing from contact with the dominant culture. Individuals who withdraw tend to over-identify with their own culture to minimize any loss of selfesteem resulting from comparisons to the majority groups. Immersion in the minority culture can often lead to a lack of ability to interact within the mainstream culture. Integrated individuals find a way of accepting their ethnic identity within the majority culture. They feel secure and confident with their African American identify while maintaining health contact with the majority. Integration can be a challenge, however, it is considered to be the healthiest outcome (Berry, Kim, Minde, & Monk, 1987). Peers and Masculinity African American males tend to become deeply involved within their peer groups. Evidence has been presented that supports the disproportionately high incidence of academic failure among African American students – failure that can be linked to their peer and the anti-academic norms of their peer groups (Kennedy, 1995). Peers often serve as the source of achievement, security, social status, values, and self-validation – common things that are often lacking within many African American homes. Various peer groups emphasize varied values on education. Some groups may value education and academic achievement, whereas other peer groups may value the deviant behaviors of skipping or fighting. Different peer groups emphasize varied criteria for success (Harris & Majors, 1993). Some peer groups may view academic success as attempting to be White or feminine in nature (Ogbu, 1986). Rather than facing the shame and ridicule from their peers about being academically successful, many males tend to devalue or deny any academic interests (Harris & Majors, 1993). Males experiencing poor academic interests typically strive in areas in which they see themselves successful – areas such as athletics, or entertainment, as performers or executives. Violence and Aggression Violence and aggression are important factors that contribute to the selfidentity process of African American males (Hammond & Young, 1993). The numbers of African American males between the ages of 15 and 24 years are staggering and continue to rise, with this group’s being at greatest risk by age, gender, and ethnicity for experiencing violence and/or death (Rodriguez, 1990).
214
TAWANNAH ALLEN
Many researchers have offered reasons for increasingly high numbers experiencing violence. Many adolescents have poorly developed coping skills to address anger; these are commonly associated with economic problems and discrimination-related identity issues (Corbin & Pruitt, 1999). Negative selfperceptions help develop the environmental factors that facilitate violences becoming a staple in the development of one’s identity. Wilson (1992) made the argument that violence is part of the African American’s life experience. Acts of violence have manifested by virtue of slavery, racism, SES inequality, and cultural denial. School Organization Bryk, Lee, and Smith (1990) revealed that the organization of a school had significant effects on students’ success, especially for minorities. Factors such as smaller size, a constrained curriculum, and fairness in discipline processes are associated with outcomes that would be socially equitable (Lee & Bryk, 1989). This study also found that a safe and orderly climate within a school can be associated with achievement in mathematics being equal between minorities and White students. Effective schools (those identified as above-average student achievement for disadvantaged students) have strong instructional leadership from the principal, who closely monitors the progress of all students while also having high expectations for students, clear and consistent goals, coupled with an orderly environment (Clark, Lotto, & McCarthy, 1980). Many effective schools seek to identify educationally related factors that encourage achievement in economically disadvantaged students in racial/ethnic groups, rather than relying solely on socioeconomic and family factors (Lee, Winfield, & Wilson, 1991, p. 72).
TEACHING AFRICAN AMERICAN MALES For years the following questions have been asked pertaining to the teaching of African American male students: (a) What skills, knowledge, and dispositions are required to successfully teach African American males? (b) What are the characteristics of teachers who are effective with African American males? (c) Can the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of teachers who are successful with African American males be learned by prospective teachers (Foster & Peele, 1999)? To answer these and many other questions pertaining to teaching African American males, it must first be determined
Resiliency among African American Male Students
215
whether or not the attitudes, behaviors, and skills required in teaching predominately White middle-class students are the same skills needed to teach predominately African American students (Foster & Peele, 1999). Problems with teaching students of various cultures arise when teachers do not understand and appreciate the African American cultural background, language, values, and home environments. Ladson-Billings (1994) developed a set of postulates that mark culturally relevant as opposed to assimilationist teaching. These postulates involve teachers’ conceptions of self and others, on knowledge, and of social relations. The major concern for teachers working with a primarily predominately African American population is not teachers having the ability to teach a particular subject, but rather having the ability to teach a particular subject to a group of children who are in attendance at a particular school and who are from a particular community (Haberman, 1992). These teachers engage all of their students in learning while also taking responsibility for teaching all students in their classes (Foster & Peele, 1999). Still the question remains: What is needed to teach African American male students? The traits or skills in the following paragraph have been identified by successful teachers of African American students. Success in Teaching African American Males Personal Characteristics of the Teacher Successful teachers of African American males students contend that their teachers must possess emotional stamina, persistence, and resilience in order to navigate through the school bureaucracy, while also being able to solve the problem relating to the students (Foster & Peele, 1999). The teachers must also take pride in being able to reach students who many teachers have deemed as unapproachable or those who have been written off by society (Foster & Peele, 1999). Relationships with Students Successful teachers of African American males take extra steps to not only build relationships with their students, but also work to get parents and other family members involved in the education of these teens. With this relationship, teachers form an authoritative style that is woven by respect and acceptance, and is then meshed with firm control and psychological autonomy (Foster & Peele, 1999). The development of positive relationships helps the classroom climate in that students are more willing to become active participants in their learning and develop attachments to learning (Foster & Peele, 1999).
216
TAWANNAH ALLEN
Attitudes toward Learning Foster and Peele (1999) also found that attitude is everything when working with African American male students. It is imperative that teachers demonstrate by their attitude that they believe all students are capable of learning. This attitude is a mandatory commodity, especially when working with African American male students. This attitude allows the students to rely on their teachers to believe in them, even when the students often do not believe in themselves. Motivation, Linking to Students’ Real-Life Interests Successful teachers continuously find ways to motivate and engage their students by utilizing the interests of the students in their classes. The interests of each student can be integrated within a curriculum which includes all core subjects: math, science, and language arts. Successful teachers go a step further by linking classroom content to the experiences of each student, going the extra mile if needed (Ladson-Billings, 1991). Using real-life experiences, cultural knowledge and stories assists in supporting meaningful learning for students (Hollins, 1982). The Whole Student Successful teachers of African American males do not stop with just understanding that the primary goal of schools is facilitating cognitive growth. Many successful teachers accept adding to their roles the assisting and nurturing of both social and emotional growth of students. These are prerequisite skills needed for success in teaching African American males (Foster & Peele, 1999). These skills include but are not limited to patience, persistence, responsibility to self and to others, while also fostering the development of students’ attitudes, interests, motivation–aspiration, self-confidence, and leadership skills (Foster & Peele, 1999). A common theme of many African American students who participated in many unrelated studies concludes that their preference of teachers would be those who are strict and caring, who also provide personal support and are insistent about their academic achievement (Delpit, 1988). Many students concluded that the strictness is only effective when combined with caring and an interesting style of teaching (Noguera, 1996).
METHODOLOGY This is a descriptive case study utilizing the resiliency-building model by Henderson and Milstein (2003) focusing on caring and support, setting and
Resiliency among African American Male Students
217
communicating high expectations and providing opportunities for meaningful participation. This study sought to determine whether these divisions were instrumental in fostering resiliency among African American male students. The qualitative nature of this study allowed the researcher to look at Leenob Elementary, identified as a resiliency-building schools to determine if teachers in a resiliency-building school promoted resiliency among African American males. Quantitative data were not used because they would have been unable to measure the indicators of the resiliency-building protective factors or the student/teacher interactions based upon the three divisions mentioned. The study assessed students’ perceptions of their interactions with teachers as they discussed their experiences in classes, meanwhile also interviewing teachers to obtain insight as to what practices we incorporated in their classes that might have promoted resiliency among their African American male students. These practices, along with teacher and student perceptions of interactions, were then correlated with the resiliency-building divisions on Henderson and Milstein’s Resiliency Wheel. The descriptive case study methodology gave students and teachers an opportunity to share their stories. The study is also able to inform its readers as to what African American males at Leenob attributed their academic success. The stories or common themes shared by Leenob teachers and their African American male students became the beginning of the answer to the question of whether or not teachers in a resiliency-building school could promote resiliency among African American males.
DIVISIONS’ THEMES Caring and Support Theme Data revealed some common themes emerged from each division that were used to guide and focus this research investigation. The following themes were extracted from teacher and student interviews per resiliency-building division. The Caring and Supportive Adults division generated the themes: students know teachers care, establish a ridicule-free classroom environment for mistakes, use multiple ways of praise, and the teacher plays multiple roles with students. The setting and communicating high expectations interviews and classroom observations generated the following themes: all children have the right to learn, giving tasks for which students can be successful builds self-confidence and self-esteem, and knowing and expecting
218
TAWANNAH ALLEN
students to be successful assures success. The final division, providing opportunities for meaningful participation, generated the following themes: student participation is a must; positive criticism encourages greater class participation; and using various instructional strategies to help students experience success result in success. The following section discusses the themes extracted from the three resiliency-building divisions and their overall impact on resiliency-building among African American male students. Caring and Supportive Teachers Coldarci and Hancock (2002) believed there is a strong relationship between grade span and grade configurations. Students in a K–8 configuration do not experience school-to-school transitions, due to the unfamiliarity of a new school building, new teachers and administration, and the need to become acclimated to new/different behavioral expectations related to student behaviors. Leenob’s teachers adamantly spoke of establishing lasting relationships with their students. Teachers in the current study believed that with Leenob’s K–8 grade configuration, students did not experience transition anxieties. They felt that this grade-configuration promoted lasting relationships with caring and supportive adults, with success resulting from students having continual access to those teachers with whom special bonds had been developed. Typically, these bonds remained even after the students had been promoted to the next grade. Another supportive factor for Leenob’s grade configuration was that the normal stressors that accompany transitions from elementary to middle school had been alleviated. Leenob’s African American male students were able to establish and maintain positive relationships with caring and supportive teachers for longer periods of time. Hale-Benson (1982) stated that the education system currently expelled a disproportionate number of African American male students. This finding was supported by the Trice’s (2005) study. Although males experienced more suspensions, discipline was not a major problem for African American males attending Leenob. Students understood that although they were being disciplined, their teachers and administrators still cared for them, and still had high expectations and provided support and encouragement with firmness. McMillan and Reed (1994) believed that students respected these teachers because they cared about their welfare. Teachers at Leenob were willing to handle disciplinary infractions independently of administration, while also providing students multiple chances to rectify inappropriate behaviors prior to their being removed from their classrooms. Leenob was so committed to the academic success of their students, especially African
Resiliency among African American Male Students
219
American males, that all efforts were exhausted for students to remain within their classes, prior to ISS or out of school suspension (OSS) being utilized. This factor, in itself, assisted with the percentage of Leenob’s African American males remaining proficient or on grade level, despite inappropriate behaviors. Leenob teachers indicated that they believed the support and care of a child did not necessarily come only from parents. Many students sought care and support from teachers, coaches, or other adults with whom they had established a close relationship. Care and support involved providing unconditional positive regard and feedback, which the teachers felt were most important when attempting to establish resiliency. Foster and Peele (1999) identified establishing relationships with students as a trait or skill identified by successful teachers of African American male students. According to Lock and Janas (2002), a supportive web of positive relationship provides students with opportunities to understand the functions, expectations, and dynamics of different relationships. Teachers play an important role in the success of resilient students (McMillan & Reed, 1994). Trice (2005) discussed the importance of a supportive teacher when African American males were encouraged to enroll and take a higher level science course. Commonly, the strong relationships between teachers and their students assist in tipping the scale from risk to resilience (Bernard, 1991). Teachers possess the ability to convey love and support to their students by listening, validating their feelings, and by demonstrating kindness, compassion, and respect (Higgins, 1994; Meir, 1995). These teachers accept the level of students development, and appreciate students for who they are as individuals (Lewis, 1999). Teachers must practice unconditional positive acceptance as a manner of developing desirable character traits for future decision-making skills (Lock & Janas, 2002). Positive attitudes generated by teachers and other supportive adults help students see the work as a positive place in spite of the difficult issues with which they have to deal (McMillan & Reed, 1994). Leenob’s teachers in the current study possessed and demonstrated many of the aforementioned tenets. With the establishment of a caring and supportive adult, the support system assists in the development of personal traits such as self-efficacy, goal orientation, personal responsibility, optimism, internal expectations, and coping ability (Pisapia & Westfall, 1994). The current study shows that the establishing of these traits is the foundation of educational experiences at Leenob School. Coburn and Nelson (1989) cited the following interpersonal qualities of a teacher as important: caring, having respect for them as persons and as learners, being able to get along with them, listening without
220
TAWANNAH ALLEN
being intrusive, taking them seriously, being available and understanding, helping and providing encouragement, and laughing with them. These were many of the same qualities students used to describe their teachers at Leenob during student interviews. The study revealed the importance of caring and supportive teachers working to establish and maintain a ridicule-free environment for students to make mistakes. Using the low-criticism or ridicule-free environment allowed the focus to be on desired behaviors, while providing students the opportunity to respond to warm and positive instruction (Lock & Janas, 2002). This was considered a well-defined safety net for those students who are falling behind academically (Krovetz, 1999). This invitational and risk-free climate included ensuring time-on-task, facilitating a high degree of students’ interaction, providing high reinforcement for desired classroom behavior, maintaining high expectations, inviting success and participation, and establishing a cooperative learning environment (Purkey & Novak, 1998). When students realize they will not be penalized for mistakes and they will continue to receive support from their teachers despite their mistakes, students learn to become decisive risk-takers. By becoming risk-takers, students assume the personal responsibility by making some crucial decisions even if these decisions carry personal risks (Jew, Green, & Kroger, 1999). Using purposeful and meaningful feedback minimizes confusion while also keeping students motivated to participate. Offering praise for positive behaviors and performances is critical for students to develop feelings of accomplishment (Pisapia & Westfall, 1994). The use of concrete and frequent praise acknowledges appropriate behaviors while increasing the likelihood that those behaviors will be repeated (Lock & Janas, 2002). Leenob elementary school used methods of praise ranging from pats on the head to special treats and activities. Frequently, students as a class, were able to select the reward when certain skills or goals had been achieved by the class. It was not uncommon for teachers at Leenob to offer praise to those students who had been ‘‘caught succeeding.’’ Pisapia and Westfall (1994) encouraged teachers to attempt to ‘‘catch students succeeding,’’ while also making sure the praise was pertinent and on-the-spot. Negative feedback was supposed to be presented in a positive manner. These practices were implemented within Leenob’s school environment. Another simple form of praise used to motivate students is known as celebratory efforts. Celebratory efforts acknowledge success and efforts by utilizing context-specific celebrations (Lock & Janas, 2002). This form of praise increases student’s motivation, self-esteem, and self-confidence, while forming the importance of mastering set goals.
Resiliency among African American Male Students
221
Continuous and open dialogs are important in developing resilient students. Pisapia and Westfall (1994) discussed the importance of schools encouraging parents, teacher, counselors, and administrators to develop significant adult relationships and maintain open lines of communication with at-risk students, to increase the chances of students becoming more resilient. Grossman et al. (1992) believed that good communication with parents is strongly associated with good adaptation in young adolescents. In the current study, not only were relationships established between Leenob’s teachers and students; these relationships included parents and administrators, as research suggested, coupled with a continuous dialog with parents about their child’s successes and areas of improvement. This dialog was usually conducted with ease. Commonly, many of Leenob’s teachers had taught the parents of their students, and therefore, the relationships and openness of conversations had been initiated during previous years. This only strengthened the relationship between the teacher and the pupil, while assisting parents with ‘‘buying into’’ becoming active participants in their child’s educational process. Results in the current study showed that when strong relationships were fostered with students, teachers were able to convey to their students that their level of care went beyond the classroom or academics to include their lives outside the school. This relationship enabled teachers to note when the student was down, and to communicate that their teacher was willing to help with the situation. Friendship between teachers and students was coupled with concern for the students’ academic achievement. It was evident the teachers at Leenob had developed strong, positive relationships with many of their students both in and outside of the classroom. The student/teacher relationship was strengthened by the fact that many Leenob teachers lived within the Leenob community. Many teachers worshipped, shopped, and attended athletic events with the students’ parents and with the students they taught, thus continuously strengthening the bond/relationship between the students and their teachers. When teachers lived in the community in which they teach, an understanding of the culture of the community and its members was developed. Table 3.2 (see Chapter III) indicates the percentage of teachers at Leenob who had ties to the Leenob community. Leenob School served as the center of the community and helped to strengthen community ties, which ultimately assisted in promoting academics. Lastly, Worrell (1996) identified characteristics that resilient children possess. These characteristics include social competence, problem-solving, autonomy, and a sense of purpose and future. The most significant
222
TAWANNAH ALLEN
characteristic for the African American male students participating in the study was social competence. This is the ability to establish positive relationships. Leenob’s African American males have established strong relationships with their teachers and administrators. A sense of purpose and future was another characteristic readily identified within many of the males participating in this study. Many of these males believed in a bright future and that they were able to exert control over what happened to them (Eckhart, 1998). Their belief in a bright future was possible due to the strong relationship and bonds established with teachers at Leenob. It was evident that many of the Leenob’s African American male students believed their teachers were the important adults whom they could confide in when problems arose or when they just needed kind words of motivation. Teachers at Leenob definitely accepted the responsibilities of being the adult who provided unconditional positive feedback. The behaviors of Leenob’s teachers and the sentiments expressed by the African American male students significantly correlated with Werner’s (1984) research. Werner’s research stated that the bond with a caring individual is most important if it is established during the first year of life, with active engagement continuing during middle childhood and adolescence. Bernard’s (1991) research also stated that a caring and supportive relationship with at least one person would greatly reduce the negative factors in an adolescent’s life. Rak and Patterson (1996) concluded that resilient children often have mentors outside of their family members who assist in the nurturing and development of resiliency. Setting and Communicating High Expectations First, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) measures districts’ and schools’ academic yearly progress (AYP). One Leenob participating teacher discussed the fact that the NCLB forced teachers to deal with varied learning styles of students, especially minority students, while forcing teachers to raise their level of expectations for these students. Stern (1994) proposed that the AYP component consistently poses challenges for rural schools because of fewer than 100 students per subgroup and also because of having relatively lower percentages of minority students. Leenob correlated with Stern’s (1994) study in that many of Leenob’s AYP subgroups have fewer than 100 students and fewer minority students. However, many of Leenob’s students identified within the NCLB subgroups experience academic success. This success can be attributed to the academic support and instructional strategies implemented by teachers and administrators. Leenob continued to make growth with the AYP subgroups. Table 3.1 (see Chapter III) reflects Leenob’s growth from 1999 to 2004.
Resiliency among African American Male Students
223
Asamen and Berry (1989) proposed that the educational system is not working for African American males because educators have low expectations for Black males. Boman and Rachuba (2001) contended that schools that serve children of poverty and of color also may introduce risk factors by failing to provide a supportive school climate, by institutionalizing low academic expectations, or delivering inadequate educational resources. Themes generated from both teacher and student interviews dispute the studies of Asamen and Berry, and Borman and Rachuba. Leenob Elementary School teachers and administrators had high expectations for their African American male students and these expectations were constantly and consistently articulated to students. Leenob’s administrators diligently worked to provide teachers with the necessary resources to promote academic success for students, especially for African American males. High expectations must communicate realistic standards (Lock & Janas, 2002) coupled with support, in order for students to meet and achieve their expectations. However, communicating the expected standards or goals must be accompanied by a methodology of achieving set goals. Lock and Janas, outlined a four-step process for reaching goals. These steps include (a) clearly identify the goals; (b) decide why you want to achieve the goal; (c) clarify the appropriate line of action; and (d) take action. These steps were implemented and revisited each nine weeks at Leenob. Teachers and administrators at Leenob met as a group and reviewed pre-assessment scores. After reviewing the scores, students who needed additional assistance on specific content areas were identified. Lock and Janas’ (2002) four-step process was followed for the following nine weeks. The results were reviewed, with modifications implemented as needed. This was an in-depth method of monitoring students’ learning. Student learning at Leenob was also monitored via homework assignments and by not accepting ‘‘I can’t do this’’ as a response when students were presented with difficult tasks. These behaviors were supported by Malloy and Malloy’s (1998) research. Once goals had been established, Leenob’s teachers provided instruction to their students based upon results from their nine-weeks assessment. This instruction acknowledged the various learning styles of the students and had activities that were participatory and facilitative. Students participated in activities that were heterogeneously grouped and were very inclusive. This form of grouping promoted cooperation, shared responsibilities, and a sense of belonging. These behaviors strongly aligned with Bernard’s (1991) research. Educators who motivate students by expecting them to maintain high standards for attendance, academics, and behavior get more in return
224
TAWANNAH ALLEN
(Pisapia & Westfall, 1994). Bernard (1992) found that the undermining of youths’ sense of self-efficacy through low expectations is the beginning of the process of decreasing motivation and increasing alienation. When students do not feel included in their classes, or the activities of their school, many students begin to feel devalued or that they are not expected to participate. Taylor (1991) explained how academic risks may be associated with the potential discontinuity or ‘‘lack of fit.’’ This was not the case with Leenob. Teachers and administrators felt that their students, parents, and other staff comprised a Leenob family or community and encouraged social bonding among its members. This sense of family or community was supported by Battistich, Schapps, Watson, and Solomon’s (1996) research. An important component with the establishment of high expectations includes teachers helping students to see themselves as being successful or as having a strong sense of self-efficacy (McMillan & Reed, 1994). Howard (1990) explained how expectancies affect behavior. First, expectancies directly affect performance behavior by increasing or decreasing our confidence level when tasks are approached, thus affecting the intensity of effort is expended. Second, expectations also influence the way performances are thought about or explained. Stress-resilient children perceive themselves as having a stronger sense of self-worth and higher self-esteem (Parker, Cowen, Work, & Wyman, 1990). Teachers of resilient students always speak and act as if they believe students are capable of being successful (Brodinsky & Keough, 1989). Despite negative circumstances in their lives, resilient students have clear, realistic goals and are optimistic about their futures. Teachers provide the motivations and expectations for students to work toward their positive goals.
CONCLUSION Interviewing the 12 students and 10 teachers with questions focusing around the three themes: providing caring and support, setting and communicating high expectations, and providing opportunities for meaningful participation as in Henderson and Milstein’s (2003) Resiliency Model allowed the current research to look at the interactions between African American male students and their teachers, in comparison to what has been outlined within the literature. From the teacher and student interviews, classroom observations and archival data reviews of the current study, some common themes emerged in this study. Resiliency-building protective factors were significant in establishing resiliency among African American males. Henderson and Milstein (2003)
Resiliency among African American Male Students
225
suggested that in order for educators to promote resiliency among their students, their teachers had to have resilient instructional skills. The resiliency-building factors – caring and support, setting and communicating high expectations and opportunities for meaningful opportunities – had an impact on the African American males attending Leenob. However, the protective factor, the inclusion of caring and supportive adults, was significantly. The conversations with both teachers and students led the researcher to believe that this protective factor alone was the most significant of the factors. It is evident that the Leenob teachers, in their role as caring and supportive adults, were the driving force behind the success of many of the programs and activities that occurred at Leenob. It is also evident that this caring and supportive adult and success of the African American males at Leenob School. However, the protective factors, coupled with teachers who themselves were supportive, amplified the degree of success achieved by the students. The findings of this qualitative study indicate that teachers in a resiliency building schools can promote resiliency within African American male students.
REFERENCES Alvidrez, J., & Weinstein, R. (1999). Early teachers’ perceptions and later student academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 731–746. Anthony, E. J. (1974). The syndrome of the psychologically vulnerable child. In: E. J. Anthony & C. Koupernik (Eds), The child in his family: Children at psychiatric risk (Vol. 3, pp. 3–10). New York: Wiley. Asamen, J. K. (1989). Afro-American students and academic achievement. In: G. L. Berry & J. K. Asamen (Eds), Black students: Psychosocial issues and achievement (pp. 10–16). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press. Asamen, J. K., & Berry, G. L. (1989). Black students psychological issues and academic achievement. New York: Sage Publications, Inc. Ascher, C. (1991). Schools programs for African American male students: Trends and issues. ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education. ERIC document reproduction services no. ED 334340. Atkins, J. T., & Ellsesser, J. (2003). Tracking: The good, the bad, and the questions. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 44–47. Baratz, S. S., & Baratz, J. C. (1969). Negro ghetto children and the urban education: A cultural solution. Social Education, 33, 400–404. Battistich, V., Schapps, E., Watson, M., & Solomon, D. (1996). Prevention effects of the child development project: Early findings from an ongoing multi-site demonstration trial. Journal of Adolescent Research, 11(1), 12–35. Bernard, B. (1991). Fostering resiliency in kids: Protective factors in the family, school and community. Portland, OR: Western Center for Drug-Free Schools.
226
TAWANNAH ALLEN
Bernard, B. (1992). How schools convey high expectations for kids. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 5(3), 17–19. Berry, J., Kim, U., Minde, T., & Monk, D. (1987). Comparative studies of acculturative stress. International Migration Review, 21, 491–511. Boman, G. D., & Rachuba, L. T. (2001). Academic success among poor and minority students: An analysis of competing models of school effects. Baltimore, MD: Center of Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk. Brewer, D., Rees, D., & Argys, L. (1995). Detracking America’s schools: The reform without cost? (with reply by J. J. Gallagher). Phi Delta Kappan, 77(November), 210–212. Brodinsky, B., & Keough, K. E. (1989). Students at-risk: Problems and solutions: American association of school administrations. Critical Issues Report, Arlington, VA (Ed 306642). Bryk, A. S., Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1990). High school organization and its effects on teachers and students: An interpretative summary of the research. In: W. H. Clune & J. F. Wittle (Eds), Choice and control in American education (Vol. 1). Philadelphia, PA: Falmer. Christle, C. A., Harley, D. A., Nelson, C. M., & Jones, K. (1991). Promoting resilience in children: What parents can do. Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice, University of Kentucky. Cicchetti, D., & Schneider-Rusen, K. (1986). An organizational approach to childhood depression. In: M. Rutter, C. Izard & P. Read (Eds), Depression in young people: Clinical and development perspectives (pp. 71–134). New York: Guildford. Clark, D. L., Lotto, L. S., & McCarthy, M. M. (1980). Factors associated with success in urban elementary schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 61(March), 467–470. Coburn, J., & Nelson, S. (1989). Teachers do make a difference: What Indian graduates say about their school experience. Report No. RC-017-103. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ERIC document reproduction service no. ED306 071). Coldarci, T., & Hancock, J. (2002). The limited evidence regarding effects of grade-span configuration on academic achievement. What rural educators should know (ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools for the US Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics Common Core of Data). Corbin, S. K., & Pruitt, R. L. (1999). Who am I? The development of the African American males in school and society: Practices and policies for effective education (Forwarded by Edmund W. Gordon, pp. 68–81). New York: Teachers College. Crosby, M. S., & Owens, E. M. (1993). The disadvantages of tracking and ability grouping: A look at cooperative learning as an alternative. Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention Center. Delpit, L. D. (1988). The silenced dialog: Power and pedagogy in educating other peoples children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280–298. Doll, B., & Lyons, M. A. (1998). Risk and resiliency: Implication for the delivery of educational and mental health services in school. School Psychology Review, 27(3), 348–364. Eckhart, A. S. (1998). Benefit-based leisure programming: An analysis of the usage of risk and protective factors for resiliency development with recreating participants. The Ohio State University. Edelman, M. (1987). Families in peril: An agenda for social change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Egeland, B., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, A. L. (1993). Resiliency as process. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 517–528. Erickson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Resiliency among African American Male Students
227
Ford, D. Y. (1993). Support for the achievement ideology and determinants of under-achievement as perceived by gifted, above-average, and average black students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 280–298. Foster, M., & Peele, T. B. (1999). Teaching black males: Lessons from the experts. In: C. P. Vernon & E. D. James (Eds), African American males in school and society: Practices and policies for effective education (Forwarded by Edmund W. Gordon, pp. 8–19). New York: Teachers College. Garibaldi, A. M. (1992). Education and motivating African American males to succeed. The Journal of Negro Education, 61(1), 4–11. Gill, W. (1991). African American males: Leaving the nightmare. Paper presented at the conference on the troubled adolescent: A nation’s concern and its response. Milwaukee, WI. Good, T., & Brophy, J. (2000). Looking in classrooms (8th ed.). New York: Addison-Wesley. Grossman, F. K., Beinashowitz, J., Anderson, L., Sakurai, M., Finnin, L., & Flaherty, M. (1992). Risk and resilience in young adults. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21(5), 529–550. Haberman, M. (1992). The ideology of star teachers of children in poverty. Educational Horizons, 70(3), 125–129. Hale-Benson, J. E. (1982). Black children: Their roots, culture and learning styles. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hammond, W. R., & Young, B. (1993). Psychology’s role in the public health response to assaultive violence among young African American men. American Psychologists, 48(2), 142–154. Hare, B. R. (1988). African American youth at risk. Urban League Review, 12, 25–38. Harris, S. (1995). Psychosocial development and black male masculinity: Implications for counseling economically disadvantaged African-American male adolescents. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 279–287. Harris, S., & Majors, R. (1993). Cultural value differences: Implication for the experiences of African American men. Journal of Men’s Studies, 1(3), 227–238. Hauser, S. T., Vieyra, M. A., Jacobson, A. M., & Wertreib, D. (1985). Vulnerability and resilience in adolescence: Views from the family. Journal of Early Adolescence, 5(1), 81–100. Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (1990). 20 questions: Adolescent substance abuse risk factors. Seattle, Washington: Development Research and Programs, Inc. Henderson, N., & Milstein, M. (1996). Resiliency in schools: Making it happen for students and educators. Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Henderson, N., & Milstein, M. (2003). Resiliency in schools. California: Corwin Press. Higgins, G. (1994). Resiliency adults: Overcoming a cruel past. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hollins, E. (1982). The Marva Collins story revised: Implications for regular classroom instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 227–238. Honig, A. (1984). Research in review: Risk factors in infants and young children. Young Children, 38(4), 673. Hopkins, R. (1997). Education black males: Critical lessons in schooling, community and power. Albany State University: University of New York Press. Howard, J. (1990). Getting smart: The social construction of intelligence (pp. 1–18). Lexington, MA: The Efficacy Institute. Jew, C. L., Green, K. E., & Kroger, J. (1999). Development and validation of a measure of resiliency. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 32(2), 75.
228
TAWANNAH ALLEN
Kennedy, E. (1995). Correlates of perceived popularity among peers: A study of race and gender differences among middle school students. Journal of Negro Education, 64(2), 186–195. Krovetz, M. L. (1999). Resiliency: A key element for supporting youth at-risk. Clearing House, 73(2), 121. Ladson-Billings, G. (1991). Like lightning in a bottle: Attempting to capture the pedagogical excellence of successful teachers of black students. International Journal of Qualitative Students in Education, 3(4), 335–344. Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers successful teachers of African Amerian children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Lee, V. E., & Bryk, A. S. (1989). A multilevel model of the social distribution of high school achievement. Sociology of Education, 62(3), 172–192. Lee, V. E., Winfield, L. F., & Wilson, T. C. (1991). Academic behaviors among high achieving African American students. Education and Urban Society, 24(1), 65–86. Lewis, R. E. (1999). A write way: Fostering resiliency during transitions. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 37(4), 200–205. Linquanti, R. (1992). Using community-wide collaboration to foster resiliency in kids: A conceptual framework. Portland, OR: Western Regional Center for Drug-Free Schools and Communities (ERIC document reproduction service no. ED353666). Lock, R. H., & Janas, M. (2002). Building resiliency. Intervention in Schools and Clinics, 38(2), 117. Luthar, S. S., Cichetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). Research on resiliency: Response to commentaries. Child Development, 71(3), 543–562. Luthar, S. S., & Zigler, E. (1991). Vulnerability and competence: A review of research in resiliency in childhood. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 6–22. Malloy, C. E., & Malloy, W. W. (1998). Resiliency and algebra: A promising non-traditional approach to teaching low-achieving students. Clearing House, 71(5), 1–6. Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227–238. Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environment: Lessons from research on successful children. American Psychologist, 53, 205–220. Masten, A. S., & Gramezy, N. (1985). Risk, vulnerability, and protective factors in the developmental psychopathology. In: B. B. Lahey & A. E. Kazdin (Eds), Advances in clinical child psychology (Vol. 8, Issue 99, pp. 1–51). New York: Plenum. McMillan, J. H., & Reed, D. F. (1994). At risk students and resiliency: Factors contributing to academic success. Clearing House, 67(3), 137–141. Meir, D. (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school in Harlem. Boston: Beacon Press (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 481). Mendez, L. M. R., Knoff, H. M., & Ferron, J. M. (2002). School demographic variables and out-of-school suspension rates: A quantitative and qualitative analysis of a large, ethnically diverse school district. Psychology in the Schools, 39(3), 259–277. Noguera, P. (1996). Responding to the crisis of black youth: Providing support without furthering marginalization. Journal of Negro Education, 65(1), 37–60. Ogbu, J. U. (1986). The consequences of the caste system. In: U. Neisser (Ed.), The school achievement of minority children: New perspectives (pp. 19–56). Hillsdale, NC: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Resiliency among African American Male Students
229
Osborne, J. W. (1999). Unraveling underachievement among African American boys from an identification with academics perspectives. Journal of Negro Education, 68(4), 555–563. Parker, G. R., Cowen, E. L., Work, W. C., & Wyman, P. A. (1990). Test correlates of stress resilience among urban school children. Journal of Primary Prevention, 11(1), 19–33. Pisapia, J., & Westfall, A. (1994). Developing resilient schools and resilient students. Research brief No. 19 for Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium, Richmond, VA. Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (1998). Education: By invitation only. Fastback No. 268. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan Educational Foundation (ED 296 –471). Rak, C., & Patterson, L. E. (1996). Promoting resilience in at-risk children. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74(4), 368–373. Rodriguez, J. (1990). Childhood injuries in the U.S. American Journal of Diseases of Childhood, 144, 627–646. Rutter, M. (1985a). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 37, 316–331. Rutter, M. (1985b). Resiliency in the face of adversity. Protective factors and resistance to psychiatric disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 598–611. Rutter, M. (1987). Resiliency in the face of adversity: Protective factors and resistance to psychiatric disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 598–611. Rutter, M. (1990). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. In: A. Rolf, A. S. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H. Neuchterlein & S. Weintraub (Eds), Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 181–214). New York: Cambridge University Press. Simons, K., Kalichman, S., & Santrock, J. (1994). Human adjustment. Madison, WI: WCB Communications. Stern, J. (1994). The condition of education in rural school. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Taylor, A. R. (1991). Social competence and the early school transition: Risk and protective factors for African American children. Education and Urban Society, 24, 15–26. Timperley, H. S., & Phillips, G. (2003). Changing and sustaining teachers’ expectations through professional development in literacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 627–641. Trice, R. (2005). Academic attainment and the high school science experiences among high achieving African American males (Under Review). Werner, E. E. (1984). Resilient children. Young Children, 40(1), 68–72. White, J. (1984). The psychology of blacks. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. White, J., & Parkham, T. A. (1990). The psychology of blacks. New York: Prentice-Hall. Wilson, A. N. (1992). Understanding black adolescent male violence: Its remediation and Prevention. New York: Afrikan Would Infosystems. Wilson, T., & Banks, B. (1999). A perspective on the education of African American males. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 21(1), 97–100. Winfield, L. (1991). Resilience, schooling, and development in African American youth: A conceptual framework. Education and Urban Society, 24(1), 5–14. Wolin, S. J., & Wolin, S. (1993). The resilient self: How survivors of troubled families rise above adversity. New York: Villard. Worrell, F. C. (1996). The risk-resiliency paradigm in research on dropping out. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association (ED 407 624).
This page intentionally left blank
230
THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP AND THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT: IS THERE A CONNECTION Mark A. Gooden and Teresa Y. Nowlin ABSTRACT Closing the achievement gap between white and minority students is a proposed goal of the federal 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). We discuss equity in assess to quality education since most students attend public schools; and should enjoy educational equity under the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We examine the academic achievement gap between the races; and the responsibility of educators and students to close this gap; and the NCLB connection to closing this gap. We also examine the intended and unintended effects of NCLB on minority students and educators.
INTRODUCTION The value of educational equity is the focus of many national initiatives and schools are being held accountable for new demands which include providing an equitable and excellent education for all students (Haycock, 2000; Kober, 2001; Ramey, 2000). Due to the growing focus on accountability as outlined by the of 2001 (NCLB), the role of educators, particularly school leaders is No Child Left Behind and other Federal Programs for Urban School Districts Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 9, 231–247 Copyright r 2006 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(06)09012-3
231
232
MARK A. GOODEN AND TERESA Y. NOWLIN
being closely scrutinized (NCLB, 2002). Accordingly, there are analyses of the law and questions about its implications for leaders, thus confirming that it has had an impact on how school leaders and educational administration professors do business (Fusarelli, 2004; Petersen & Young, 2004). In particular this law has made it necessary for school leaders to critically examine student achievement gaps by collecting, analyzing and disaggregating data and looking at the results through the lens of race and culture. In addition to placing more responsibility on educators, the law also places a great deal of responsibility on parents and students, even though it purports to offer more choices to them. However, it manages to add another layer of stress to their lives. Linn (2003) argues that while he generally supports accountability it must include shared responsibility and reasonable expectations if it is going to have mostly positive effects while minimizing the unintended negative effects. He points out that most state and federal laws, including NCLB, enacted in the last years have focused narrowly on students and educators but should involve administrators, parents, and policymakers, and even researchers in examining shared responsibility. Hence, greater emphasis should be placed on increasing the involvement of the other parties through a more desirable framework of shared responsibility. This increased focus on the NCLB might lead one to assume there is a connection between the law and the achievement gap. Indeed this legislation was designed to address and eventually close the achievement gap by 2012. However, as each year passes scholars and educators appear to become more skeptical about whether this is possible in the allotted time, especially given the amount of resistance the law has met in several states. Does the law represent a disconnection from the very problem it seeks to solve? Is the skepticism warranted or are critics afraid of the implications of closing the achievement gap? In this chapter, we will briefly describe the achievement gap and the major objectives of NCLB. We will then examine its connection to and adequacy for closing the achievement gap and factors that may help or hinder those who use the law as framework closing the achievement gap. Specifically, after examining intentions, we will move to what (Linn, 2003) calls the law’s intended positive effects and unintended negative effects.
THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP The achievement gap generally refers to the gap in test scores on the so-called achievement tests between ethnic groups. The achievement gap between White or Asian students and their Hispanic/Latino or African-American
The Achievement Gap and the No Child Left Behind Act
233
counterparts is troubling and persistent. While the gap is often examined across different socio-economic strata, it seems to persist even when researchers examine achievement of black and white students from similar socio-economic backgrounds (Johnston & Viadero, 2000; Viadero, 2004). However, there are some criticisms of how the achievement gap is measured and many of them are valid. For example (Hunter & Bartee, 2003) have pointed out that most measurements of this gap are based on or include students’ performance on state administered examinations, which fail to adequately address the true potential of children. Furthermore, performance on such examinations has an impact on the postsecondary opportunities of minority students, particularly those in urban schools who tend not to do as well on them. For instance, many states condition graduation from high school on whether students make the cut-off score on these examinations. Ohio is one of those states. This has historically created feelings of suspicion and mistrust in parents. Moreover, because of the large percentage of students of color who fail to meet cut-off scores relative to their white counterparts, their parents and community leaders have made accusations that the exams are culturally biased numerous times. Researchers have also studied this question, particularly in the context of college entrance exams. If left unaddressed, such feelings lead to parents in urban districts failing to clearly understand the purpose of these high-stakes exams, thus leaving many of them feeling disempowered. Understanding the achievement gap is much easier than understanding why it occurs and how to eradicate it. Recall that the gap itself is measured almost exclusively by standardized examination scores, which often brings into the question the strict reliance on them. It is worth noting that researchers with broader views include other variables in measuring the gap, though they have not been widely used. The fact that there is little agreement on the standardized examination’s validity has not prevented scholars, educators, and even parents from using this measure to indicate which students ‘‘pass’’ or ‘‘fail’’. While the standardized measures may not be the best way to measure the success of schools, they have nevertheless become the predominant way to measure the accountability of schools; especially as far state and federal legislators are concerned. Thus, these tests accentuate the gaps between schools within districts and they provide socalled straightforward and easily measurable tools that are used by many to compare districts within states, even though these may be inappropriate comparisons. Hence, the position of the exams as the most important part of the criteria that comprise the framework used to distinguish between good, bad, and even great school districts is solidified. Hence, even those who
234
MARK A. GOODEN AND TERESA Y. NOWLIN
question the legitimacy of these measures are overcome by their influence as we work with struggling students on the cusp of not graduating because of them. This is because the stakes are so high. I have also been one of those working in a local urban school to assist students in their quest to achieve the qualifying score in order to graduate. Because without this credential they will lose out on valuable education opportunities Reviewing a sampling of the many theories on achievement of students of color confirms that indeed there are those who posit that African-American and other students of color are failing to achieve because they are more concerned with image. For example, scholars have conjectured that reasons for failure in general include middle-class African-American students opposing academics because pursuing good grades or doing well is synonymous with acting white (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 2004). Still, other scholars have argued that failing to achieve is part of a movement of ‘‘anti-intellectualism’’ and a ‘‘culture of victimology’’ on the part of those living in poverty (McWhorter, 2000). While these may be appealing reasons to many, that if plausible may offer seemingly sensible solutions, there are some serious concerns about these approaches. First, several run the risk of oversimplifying this complex problem and put the onus of solving it on the students and/or their parents (Noguera, 2001). Moreover, this approach, often popular with state and federal legislators and the scholars mentioned above, ignores Linn’s (2003) shared responsibility argument discussed earlier because it places the bulk of the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of students and parents. Of course the argument here is not to absolve them of any responsibility or part they own, but because it dangerously oversimplifies it leaves others free to re-state the problem and lay blame without any obligation to contribute to the extremely elusive solution of a major social issue. The message to students seems to be if you are failing because you refuse to do your work because you believe that such actions are acting white, and then promptly refrain from this behavior and the problem will be solved. Similarly, if you as a student are part of a movement that promotes ‘‘anti-intellectualism’’, then you should divorce yourself completely from this philosophy and take advantage of the opportunities that schools have to offer. Lastly, a culture of victimization acknowledges and criticizes an over reliance by Blacks and other minorities on racism as the root of social problems and a reason or least a contributing factor to their challenges in education. There is at least enough proof, especially as outlined in case law, that while it is arguable that racism may not be the primary factor, it is certainly a contributor (Gooden, 2004). Moreover, the belief that it is not a factor is
The Achievement Gap and the No Child Left Behind Act
235
confusing because it ignores the complex set of social forces related to black student performance and larger societal issues. The challenge with these arguments is that they also minimize the fact that race is a factor in how we educate children, much as it is in the larger society. Even today, the race of the student can be related to where he or she lives or can afford to live and that is correlated to one’s school of choice and concomitant resources. Federal and state accountability systems place a large part of the burden on the students, but teachers and district leaders, are forced to bear a great deal of the burden. For instance, there is much pressure on these groups to perform within this framework or be labeled deficient or worse, a failure (Linn, 2003). So educators receive the pressure of the policies as interpreted by officials working in the state education departments. For example, in Ohio, report cards of how each school is performing are made available on the Internet at the school district’s web site and the department of education web site (ODE, 2005). Other states are required to produce such cards also. In any accountability system there is some consideration of who is accountable, but the obvious answer is often not the correct one. While it is debatable whether educators and students are the only groups accountable, it is clear they are the groups that come to mind when we consider who might be accountable. Accordingly, these are the groups expected to work the hardest to raise the test scores. Parents are part of this equation also. Linn (2003) posits that ‘‘[a]lthough broadly shared responsibility is the most likely way for expectations to be achieved, the reality is that most accountability systems now in place focus so heavily on educators and/or students that others are largely ignored’’ (p. 3). ‘‘What counts?’’ is the question that gains more focus on the part of educators in the complex task of attempting to satisfy accountability systems. It is determined by legislators generally in the law but is outlined more specifically by state departments and/or designees. What counts usually refers to standards, which ostensibly seem to make sense. Measuring those standards and their connection to the curriculum and the test becomes an issue. What counts? Is it the curriculum, the standards or the measurement of the standards (the test)? The reality of the answer seems to be lost on the general public and others who do not share the responsibility and thus are not involved directly. The answer, of course, is performance on a standardized examination. While we would like to argue that schools that meet the requirements are so much better off as a result of the system, we should stop short of this when we honestly think about it. (English & Steffy, 2001) remind us there is often a loose coupling between the standards and the examinations on them.
236
MARK A. GOODEN AND TERESA Y. NOWLIN
THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001 The NCLB of 2001 (NCLB, 2002) was signed into law in January 8, 2002 and was expected to address issues of the achievement gap by determining the quality of schools as measured by how well students performed on state standardized examinations. According to the text of the law, Congress expected NCLB (2001) to ‘‘close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind’’ (115 Stat. 1425). It seems that since the law’s passing many of the issues of the achievement gap have been addressed by enforcing a system that punishes those schools that fail to meet benchmarks. Fusarelli (2004) argues that the law represents a major shift from the federal government being a primary source of funding for low-income students to a major force in shaping educational outcomes. NCLB is a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. However, it contains a more comprehensive framework because it provides that standards, testing, and accountability should all be part of the requirements states must comply with if they wish to continue to get Title I funding. It clearly states that schools that succeed will be given more federal dollars as a reward and those that do not will lose money as punishment. Generally, federal funding makes up a maximum of 7% of the all funding received by school systems. The remaining amount comes from state and property taxes (King, Swanson, & Sweetland, 2003). NCLB (2002) provides that adequate yearly progress (AYP) shall be defined by the state in a manner that applies the same high standards of academic achievement to all public elementary and secondary school students in the state and is statistically valid and reliable and results in continuous and substantial academic improvement for all students. AYP measures the progress of public elementary schools, secondary schools and local educational agencies and the state based primarily on the academic assessments. This includes separate measurable annual objectives for continuous and substantial improvement for each of the following subgroups organized race and ethnicity, disability, socioeconomic level, and limited English proficiency (NCLB, 2002, p. 1446). Each state must demonstrate that it has implemented a set of high-quality, yearly student academic assessments, also known as standardized tests, in mathematics and reading/language arts. These exams will be used as the primary means of determining the yearly performance of the state and of each local educational agency and school in the state in enabling all children to
The Achievement Gap and the No Child Left Behind Act
237
meet the state’s challenging student academic achievement standards. The requirements relating to science assessments will go into effect the beginning of the 2007–2008 academic year (NCLB, 2002, p. 1449). Clearly, these academic assessments are not the only indicators but they certainly are the focus. In order to satisfy the requirements of accountability the law requires that states prepare and disseminate annual state report cards at the beginning of the 2002–2003 academic year. Each state agency must also ensure that every local school district collects appropriate data at the district level and for each school and each state must includes such data in its annual report. In this report the state should provide disaggregated achievement data for students on the state assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics. The achievement data on these assessments are to be disaggregated by student subgroups organized by ‘‘race and ethnicity, disability, socio-economic level, and limited English proficiency’’ (NCLB, 2002, p. 1447). A school’s plan for AYP must include separate measurable annual objectives for continuous and substantial improvement for each of these groups. If a school fails to educate any one of these student groups, it will not meet AYP. Applying AYP means schools look at attendance of these students on the date of the test and also if they are improving each year. The exception is that disaggregation of data will not be required in a case in which the number of students in a category is insufficient to yield statistically reliable information or the results would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual student. This is illustrated clearly in the tables in the next section. Beyond academic assessments, the requirements also include high school graduation rates, the proportion of students tested, and other academic indicators. There must be data comparing actual achievement levels of each group of students to annual student achievement goals. However, schools and districts must report the percentage of students not tested and disaggregate it by members of the subgroups listed above. At the high school level schools musts report graduation rates by these subgroups. Relevant still to this discussion are the data on the teacher qualifications that states must report including the number of teachers with emergency certification and the percentages of classes not taught by highly qualified teachers (NCLB, 2002). Specifically, states must outline steps it will take to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers, and the measures that the State educational agency will use to evaluate and publicly report the progress of the State educational agency with respect to such steps. (p. 1454)
238
MARK A. GOODEN AND TERESA Y. NOWLIN
An Illustration States are required to report data in report cards. We have taken portions of two-report cards from the 2004 to 2005 academic year for two-Ohio schools in two different districts. The names of the schools have been changed and are in no way similar to the real names. Using real data of these two schools will provide a cogent illustration of how the law is applied in the state of Ohio. This will also provide guidance on how it may be done in other states. Keep in mind that the law does allow flexibility. Moreover, this illustration serves as a clear reference to better explain the strengths and weaknesses of NCLB in the following sections. We will call the schools Frederick Douglass High School (Douglass) and George Washington High School (Washington). Douglass is an urban school and Washington High is part of a suburban district. Potential Positive Effects NCLB has outlined a charge for educators to meet the growing needs of the students of the subgroups in this era of accountability. The law challenges those leaders or educators who simply relied on standard operating procedures and bureaucratic policy to determine their actions. Leaders must create opportunities within their buildings that will adequately address the sources of the achievement gaps that have resulted in inequitable educational opportunities for students of color (Haycock, 2000; Kober, 2001; Marshall & Parker, 2004; Ramey, 2000). For example, school leaders who are driven by a sense of justice will spend more time outside of their office and inside classrooms assessing and addressing the needs of students. An administrator who leads for change realizes that her true work extends beyond the paperwork and into the people work of building communities of learning and support (Haycock, 2000). While this type of mission is not likely to be fostered by a piece of legislation only, it certainly forces those who would quietly look away to seriously examine how they serve the students of these subgroups. In the Table 1, we can see that the Washington High met its AYP requirements, which means that every student subgroup must be at or above the annual goals or make improvements over the previous year. Graduation and attendance goals must be established for the school as a whole. Most of the subgroups get an NR notation, indicating each group’s size was below minimum required for statistical reliability, reported on Ohio’s Report Card as 30 students, except for those with disabilities in which case the minimum
239
The Achievement Gap and the No Child Left Behind Act
Table 1.
Washington High School.
AYP Goals Met in 2004–2005 Washington High School Student group bold type indicates AYP was met African-American American Indian/ Native Alaskan Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic Multi-racial White Economically disadvantaged Limited English proficient Students with disabilities All students
Reading: Ohio Graduation Test
Mathematics: Ohio Graduation Test
% Tested goal: 95%
% Proficient or above goal: 71.8% or improvement
% Tested goal: 95%
% Proficient or above goal: 60% or improvement
NRi NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR NR 99.2 NR
NR NR NR 97.8 NR
NR NR NR 99.2 NR
NR NR NR 94.9 NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
96.1
87.8
98
64
99.3
98.1
99.3
94.8
Note: NR ¼ Not required for AYP due to student group size below number of statistical reliability. The minimum student group is 30, except ‘‘students with disabilities’’, which has a minimum group size of 45. i Completely lost.
number is 45. We see that the school does not appear to meet the required minimum for student group sizes for racial groups except white, signaling little racial diversity in the school. Similarly, the economically disadvantaged and limited English proficient groups are below the minimums of the Ohio requirement. However, the disabilities student group was reported and Washington met AYP goals here. That is, over 95% of these students were tested in reading and mathematics and over 71.8% were proficient or above the goal for last year in reading Ohio’s Graduation Test (see second column in Table 1). Similarly, over 60% were proficient or above the goal for last year in mathematics on Ohio’s Graduation Test. The school also passed all indicators for all students as required by AYP (ODE, 2005). Washington’s report card shows a discrepancy in data in regards to African-American students. Specifically the school claims elsewhere in the report that its student population is comprised of 4.1% African-Americans or
240
MARK A. GOODEN AND TERESA Y. NOWLIN
98 students. If this is true, then this group’s size crosses the threshold numerical minimum of 30 and these students should be tested, according to NCLB and state provision. Moreover, there should be no NR on the report card. There could be an era in the data. What’s even more peculiar is that the school reports that 4.6% (110) of its students are economically disadvantaged and 5.3% (127) of its students are Asian/Pacific Islander. We contacted the school but had not received a response at the time this chapter went to press. Regardless of whether the figures are true, the reporting of the data creates an environment where the questions can be raised. This is a good objective of NCLB because the reporting requirements relative to these groups have received too little attention in the education system in the past. Turning our attention to Douglass we see a very different picture indeed (see Table 2). The school did meet its AYP requirements for AfricanAmericans in reading, which means that every other student subgroup was Table 2.
Douglass High School.
AYP Goals Met in 2004–2005 Douglass high school
Student group bold type indicates AYP was met African-American American Indian/ Native Alaskan Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic Multi-racial White Economically disadvantaged Limited English proficient Students with disabilities All students
Reading: Ohio graduation test
Mathematics: Ohio graduation test
% Tested goal: 95%
% Proficient or above goal: 71.8% or improvement
% Tested goal: 95%
% Proficient or above goal: 60% or improvement
89.2 NRi
73.3 NR
89.2 NR
46 NR
NR NR NR NR 94.8
NR NR NR NR 70.6
NR NR NR NR 94.8
NR NR NR NR 51
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
89.8
73
89.8
46.7
Note: NR ¼ Not required for AYP due to student group size below number of statistical reliability. The minimum student group is 30, except ‘‘students with disabilities’’, which has a minimum group size of 45. i Completely lost.
The Achievement Gap and the No Child Left Behind Act
241
not above the annual goals or failed to make improvements over the prior year. Incidentally the school is 93% African-American, which indicates little racial diversity in the school, making it the near opposite of Washington in racial makeup. Of concern is that the disabilities student group was recorded as NR even though elsewhere it is noted that it comprises 24% of the school’s population. The school falls just short of the 95% participation goal of reported groups even though it comes close with 94.8% of the disadvantaged students taking the test for reading and mathematics. Alas, coming within two-tenths of the mark does not matter as rounding is apparently not permitted. Having these data accessible improves the wisdom of decision-making relative to instruction. Moreover, this may be a good way to present the school with a target of increasing student participation in these areas on examination day. NCLB also requires that schools report the educational level of teachers. Each school seems to fall into the expected categories when examining who is a highly qualified teachers and where they teach. For instance, Washington has 56.2% of its teachers holding a Master’s degree or higher whereas Douglass has 48.6% with at least a Master’s degree. In a more dramatic comparison, we discovered 98.8% of the teachers in Washington are properly licensed/certified in the areas in which they teach versus only 45.5% at Douglass (ODE, 2005). Washington’s percentage of licensed teachers is more than double Douglass’s percentage. While the AYP reporting for both schools seem to be lacking somewhat, both delineate which students are passing which parts of the state’s examinations. From that information we can glean the percentage of students who took the exams and how the groups scored on these exams. Douglass is an urban school that can benefit from the reporting of the data as required by NCLB, even though scores are not outstanding in all categories. Douglass school officials can make the argument that it has acknowledged the data and is using it in making sound decisions. Additionally, using the data the school can highlight the fact that it showed overall improvement from the prior year. Other arguments might include the glaring discrepancies that are made clearer with the use of data. Discriminating users can quickly note how unfair such comparisons are between districts that contain schools like Douglass and Washington, especially in the context of the teacher qualifications. For instance, it is clear that if we use the business principles upon which the law is based, we can see that there is a great discrepancy between the inputs of both schools. Naturally the one with more will have better outputs, thus confirming the unfairness of the comparison.
242
MARK A. GOODEN AND TERESA Y. NOWLIN
Another positive effect of NCLB, also made clearer by examining the tables, is that it will challenge good leaders to look at race and culture. Such leaders have often been called those who are leaders for social justice (Nowlin & Gooden, 2005). Learning to lead for social justice and becoming sincerely committed to this cause puts the leader on a collision course with the harsh realities inherent in addressing issues of race and culture. Simply put, data like these provide leaders with some of the much needed ammunition to fight the good fight and ironically NCLB provides the impetus for collecting these data. Accordingly, these leaders must be deliberately prepared to defend children and perhaps teachers who are not members of the dominant races and cultures. Because many US schools are filled with predominately White female teachers who instruct in increasingly diverse classrooms, school level leaders must be aware of the role race plays in schools, classrooms, and in their leadership practices (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Tatum, 1997). Unfortunately, far too many educators seem to believe that the way to address racial and cultural issues in schools is simply to pretend they do not exist (Aaronsohn, Carter, & Howell, 1995). The data clearly outline the issues for individual schools on the report cards. Even if it were possible for educators to become colorblind and treat all children absolutely equally, there are racial issues in our society that infiltrate our schools (Delpit, 1995). Consequently, educational leadership programs have a duty to prepare leaders who will not only examine the role that race plays in the academic achievement of students, and the relationships between White teachers and students of color, but to prepare these leaders to examine how their own racial identity development plays a role in their leadership practices (Cody, Woodward, & Elliot, 1993; Lo´pez, 2003; Tatum, 1994, 1997). Moreover, new leaders must be prepared to address the situation regarding missing data on race as seen in the Washington High example. Potential Negative Effects NCLB (2002) establishes a 12-year timetable for closing the achievement gap. Many of the challenges of the gap have been apparent in the urban environments for decades and eradicating them is consistent with parents’ desire to gain educational equality for their children, especially 50 years after Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) (Gooden, 2004). However, gaps in achievement between Black and White students have been allowed to exist unquestioned within some school districts around the country including those that have been characterized as being successful.
The Achievement Gap and the No Child Left Behind Act
243
Simply put, there has been a failure to systematically and seriously address the challenges of those students in the subgroups who have a history of doing poorly on the standardized examinations (Delpit, 1995; Hale, 2004). In the past such scores were subsumed in the school district’s overall scores. Despite its many challenges, ironically, the law has, intentionally or inadvertently, revitalized a debate between and among practitioners and scholars on the need to address the intractable issues of the achievement gap (Fusarelli, 2004; Petersen & Young, 2004). NCLB (2002) assumes that there is a strong connection between each state’s standardized test and that state’s respective curriculum. Next, the law organizes a set of punishments designed to force schools to comply and show they have done so by performance on the examinations and attendance benchmarks. Lastly, the law blindly assumes that high performance by minorities on a standardized test is all that is necessary to close the achievement gap. English and Steffy (2001) have skillfully argued that a good example of a poor policy initiative is the belief that high stakes can drive quality into public schools by increasing consequences by not doing well on them. They questioned the effectiveness of using punitive actions and coercion to motivate educators to achieve cooperation. Moreover, exams are not always an accurate reflection of what is taught in the curriculum or the best way to measure it. While measuring achievement this way is most problematic, it is the easiest. Does it give us an accurate synopsis of student achievement or an in incomplete, easily measurable snapshot of performance on the exam? Hunter and Bartee (2003) argue that ‘‘ y the utilization of standardized tests alone does not create a leveled playing field between racial minorities and the racial majority in schools’’ (p. 157). This punitive system will result in perpetual distrust of an accountability system that seems to be top down. Schools like Washington High and Douglass will be affected differently by the law and its set of punishments that accompany noncompliance or the failure to make the mark. Washington, a high achieving school with little or no diversity, will be touted as model under the law because most of its subgroups when it comes to AYP are below the required percentage, or at least so it reports. However, another school within the state reported its numbers to be more diverse and had subgroups that met the Ohio minimum to be counted. That school was punished because it failed to make AYP. It had at least two subgroups that met the threshold number. However, it failed to meet AYP because students within the subgroups missed school on exam day. This is an absolute requirement that as applied in Ohio and it leaves little room for error or growth. Moreover, it seems to work against
244
MARK A. GOODEN AND TERESA Y. NOWLIN
the promotion of diversity of the student body because if schools can get the numbers of these subgroups below the minimum, it does not have to count them. Sadly it also has the potential to promote an environment of finger pointing on the part of educators. While the concept may be salvageable, as it is presently established, AYP should be revamped to recognize those districts that are working with students to improve. Also related is the attendance requirement of the subgroups. If that group is already small and if members of the same family are absent on test day, the school can miss the 95% mark (Barlow, 2004). We see how punitive this can be in the Douglass example where they missed by two-tenths of a percent. If we consider Douglass’s population of 556 students, we discover that this translates into one student failing to show to take the test caused to school to miss the attendance requirement. Still related to this is Douglass, as an urban school, is going to have unique challenges because it’s not uncommon for such a school to have a high percentage of African-American students and/or students with disabilities, poor students, and those with less than stellar attendance rates. Immediately, achieving AYP becomes a larger barrier for Douglass to overcome than Washington. Without more flexibility in the applicability or interpretation of the law, it inherently overburdens urban schools like Douglass, which serve a significantly higher minority population. The symptoms of the achievement gap have served as points of true disappointment for parents who send their children to urban schools. Consequently, several of them have responded by pulling their children out of the schools. In theory, NCLB has provided a framework for savvy parents to search for the best education for their children if their school does not meet AYP in two years. Clearly, there are plenty of politics and problems with the policy. To be sure, the law fails to offer earnest options for all the students to attend a successful school within their district (Gooden, 2003). The problem with this is that there are no spaces in the successful schools for all of those who want to attend. Students who want to transfer find that they are without successful schools. There is the challenge of those districts that have agreed to comply. Additionally, there is the challenge of those states that are resistant to the plans because of the lack of money to support them. Of course the students to remain left without options and they remain mostly of color and pull. The law has been referred to as an unfair and unfunded mandate. Those state legislatures such as Hawaii, Utah, and New Hampshire have decided to reject funds rather than comply or what is believed to be the unfunded mandate. The legislators claimed the bill is too expensive and they have ordered state education department not to spend any of the money that’s been given as a result of the law. (Robelen, 2005) argues that studies
The Achievement Gap and the No Child Left Behind Act
245
on cost issues associated with implementation of the law are producing widely varying findings. Other states are also considering this option. After three years of NCLB, it is apparent that uncertainties still exists about the cost of implementing the law (Mathis, 2005). However, the General Accounting Office notes NCLB cannot be an unfunded mandate because states and districts participate as a condition of receiving federal aid, and such programs are not considered to fit that label under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Hoff, 2004).
CONCLUSION Is there a connection between the achievement gap and NCLB? We conclude that here is a tenuous connection between the achievement gap and the federal statute, at best. NCLB presents opportunities for social justice leaders to take a stand. For example, it requires the disaggregation of data by race, socio-economic status, limited English proficiency, and disability. It also requires data on teacher qualifications and all of this must be made available to the public. However, it has challenges that tend to outweigh any opportunities it presents for seriously addressing the achievement gap. For example, the narrow focus of NCLB on testing as the primary measure of the achievement gap is problematic. While NCLB has occupied a great deal of educators’ time in the last three years and continues to demand a great deal of resources which are yet to be realized, it is an inadequate response to the call for closing the achievement gap. Despite the intent of Congress, NCLB will have limited impact on the achievement gap because it operates from a system of top down directives, despite promises of flexibility and it shifts the burdens of a societal issues and priority squarely upon the shoulders of educators, students, and parents. In the end, NCLB really amounts to a continuation of a political blame game where educators, students and parents are the only ones truly held accountable while the rest get to point to ‘‘low-achieving’’ urban schools with no fear of reprisal.
REFERENCES Aaronsohn, E., Carter, C., & Howell, M. (1995). Preparing monocultural teachers for a multicultural world attitudes toward inner-city schools. Equity and Excellence in Education, 28, 5–14. Barlow, D. (2004). Education in the twilight zone. Education Digest, 70(2), 64–67.
246
MARK A. GOODEN AND TERESA Y. NOWLIN
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954). 347 U.S. 483. Shawnee City, Kansas. Cody, C., Woodward, A., & Elliot, D. (1993). Race, ideology and the battle over curriculum. In: C. Marshall (Ed.), The new politics of race and gender (pp. 48–57). Bristol, PA: Falmer Press. Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY: New Press. English, F. W., & Steffy, B. E. (2001). Deep curriculum alignment: Creating a level playing field for all children on high-stakes tests of educational accountability. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students’ school success: Coping with the burden of ‘acting white. The Urban Review, 18(3), 176–206. Fusarelli, L. D. (2004). The potential impact of the No Child Left Behind act on equity and diversity in American education. Educational Policy, 18(1), 71–94. Gooden, M. A. (2003). At-risk children: Title I almost 40 years later. School Business Affairs, 69(1), 14–18. Gooden, M. A. (2004). A history of black achievement as impacted by federal court decisions in the last century. The Journal of Negro Education, 73(3), 230–238. Hale, J. E. (2004). How schools shortchange African-American children. Educational Leadership, 62(3), 34–39. Haycock, K. (2000). Closing the achievement gap. Principal, 82(2), 20–23. Hoff, D. J. (2004). Gao: ‘no child’ law is not an ‘unfunded mandate.’ Education Week, 23(39), 28. Hunter, R. C., & Bartee, R. (2003). The achievement gap: Issues of competition, class, and race. Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 151–160. Johnston, R. C., & Viadero, D. (2000). Lifting minority achievement: Complex answers. Education Week, 19(30), 1, 14–16. King, R. A., Swanson, A. D., & Sweetland, S. R. (2003). School finance: Achieving high standards with equity and efficiency (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Kober, N. (2001). It takes more than testing: Closing the achievement gap. A report of the center on education policy. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED454358. Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47–68. Linn, R. L. (2003). Accountability: Responsibility and reasonable expectations. Educational Researcher, 32(7), 3–13. Lo´pez, G. R. (2003). The (racially neutral) politics of education: A critical race theory perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 69–94. Marshall, C., & Parker, L. (2004). Vignettes of leaders’ social justice dilemmas. In: C. Marshall & M. Oliva (Eds), Social justice leadership: Making it happen. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Mathis, W. J. (2005). The cost of implementing the federal no child left behind act: Different assumptions, different answers. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 90–119. McWhorter, J. H. (2000). Losing the race: Self-sabotage in black America. New York: Free Press. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002). Pub. L. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425. Noguera, P. (2001). Racial politics and the elusive quest for excellence and equity in education. Education and Urban Society, 34(1), 18–41. Nowlin, T. Y., & Gooden, M. A. (2005). Daring leaders to lead: A reflection on social justice leadership from the perspective of a Jackson scholar and her mentor. UCEA Review, XLVII(3), 7–9.
The Achievement Gap and the No Child Left Behind Act
247
Ogbu, J. U. (2004). Collective identity and the burden of ‘‘acting white’’ in black history, community, and education. Urban Review, 36(1), 1–35. Ohio Department of Education (ODE). (2005). Ohio report card. Retrieved August 1, 2005 from http://www.ode.state.oh.us/reportcard/ Petersen, G. J., & Young, M. D. (2004). The no child left behind act and its influence on current and future district leaders. Journal of Law & Education, 33(3), 343–363. Ramey, M. (2000). Reducing the white-nonwhite achievement gap. Paper present at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA: Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED454358. Robelen, E. W. (2005). Uncertain costs. Education Week, 24(17), 34. Tatum, B. (1994). Teaching white student about racism: The search for white allies and the restoration of hope. Teacher’s College Record, 95(4), 462–476. Tatum, B. (1997). Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? New York, NY: Basic Books. Viadero, D. (2004). Report: States see test-score gains. Education Week, 24(8), 1, 16.
This page intentionally left blank
248
PUBLIC EDUCATION IN AN ERA OF NEO-LIBERAL GLOBALIZATION: THE BROKEN PROMISE OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND Jite Eferakorho ABSTRACT This chapter examines the federal 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and discusses neo-liberal global ideology that informs NCLB. I review data from the state of Missouri and find that NCLB has not met its goal of improving the academic achievement of students from ethnic minority and lower socioeconomic groups. Minority students represent a large and growing proportion of the school age population; and they are failing disproportionately compared to white students. I also discuss the major focus, accountability, which requires states to annually assess and report progress made by different subgroup of students on standardized tests in the State of Missouri. This neo-liberal globalization education reform agenda is designed to meet the needs of free market capitalism. In spite of the rhetoric of equality of educational opportunity and the value of diversity in America, we find ourselves in the midst of an ultraconservative set of federal policies that is shifting resources from the ‘‘have-nots’’ to ‘‘have-mores.’’ (Joyce Payne)
No Child Left Behind and other Federal Programs for Urban School Districts Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 9, 249–262 Copyright r 2006 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(06)09013-5
249
250
JITE EFERAKORHO
CONTEXT A major demographic shift is evident in the PK-12 student population as reported in the 2000 Census. The 2000 Census Bureau projected that by the year 2040, the majority of school-age population will be members of minority groups (U.S. Department of Commerce). Minority groups represent a large and growing segment of the population that cannot be ignored, especially since these groups are disproportionately ‘‘failing, as evidenced by high school attrition rates and academic achievement levels [that is] below that of other students’’ (Morey, Bezuk, & Chiero, 1997, p. 9). This trend of minority underachievement calls for changing the educational practices in the United States through reform initiatives aimed at closing the achievement gaps that persist between students from different socioeconomic and ethnic groups (NCLB, 2001). This chapter examines NCLB legislation and addresses some of the underlying neo-liberal global ideology that informs NCLB reform agenda. Finally, by examining the data from the state of Missouri, the author contends that NCLB has fallen short of the proposed goal to improve the academic achievement of students from racial minority and lower socioeconomic groups.
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT (2001) When President George W. Bush signed the NCLB Act of 2001, this federal mandate enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support in both houses of Congress. NCLB education reform legislation represents a reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). NCLB also increased federal government role in K-12 education by taking a greater hands-on approach than in the past and promised to close the achievement gap between minority and Anglo students on the one hand and between rich and poor students on the other. The primary mechanism for closing these gaps is by ensuring that by the end of 2005–2006 school year all teachers must meet the highly qualified teacher (HQT) requirement. According to NCLB statute, to be highly qualified, a teacher must (1) hold a bachelor’s degree, (2) hold a certification or licensure to teach in the state of his or her employment, and (3) have proven knowledge of the subjects he or she teaches. A greater focus on accountability under NCLB requires states to annually assess and report the progress made by different subgroups of students on standardized tests. These disaggregated data are meant to help parents and other stakeholders to make informed judgment as to whether
Public Education in an Era of Neo-Liberal Globalization
251
the schools their children are attending are performing highly. Otherwise parents can hold schools accountable, even exercise choice options, among other measures, built into the NCLB mandate if schools are not consistently meeting the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) benchmark. According to NCLB, schools must meet 100% AYP targets by the year 2014. In the following section, evidence from NAEP data are presented to highlight some of the challenges of NCLB in closing the achievement gaps in the state of Missouri.
NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS (NAEP) National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is responsible for providing nationally representative data of student achievement on major academic subjects. As a condition for receiving federal funding under NCLB, states are required to participate on the NAEP math and reading assessments for fourth and eighth grade students every two years, beginning in 2002–2003. The results are made public so that parents and other stakeholders can then use this publicly available data to make informed judgment and comparison of children performance in other schools, districts and states. In a recently released report, evidence indicated ‘‘after two full years of implementation, states have made progress in reading and math at the elementary grades, but results are lagging in the middle grades and high grades, particularly when it comes to narrowing gaps (The Education Trust, 2005, p. 1).’’ The Education Trust went further to state that in reading and math, ‘‘both the Latino-White gap and the gap between poor and non-poor students grew or stayed the same in more states than they narrowed’’ (The Education Trust, 2005, p. 2). Clearly the picture requires an immediate intervention in order to interrupt this trend. Although, the purpose of NCLB in reporting the national data is to use the performance indicators across states to determine the rigor of standards and tests for individual states, that criterion is not relevant in this case since this study examined the data in a single state. Missouri was chosen for two reasons: (1) Missouri students’ performance on the 2005 NAEP tests is above the national average in reading and slightly below average in math (Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2005 data); and (2) Missouri is a good exemplar for how the overall reporting of results on standardized test score misses a major cross section of the student population-poor and
252
JITE EFERAKORHO
minority students. To underscore the importance of the second criterion, a recent report urged, ‘‘It is also important to look underneath overall averages to see how different groups of students are performing. By looking at achievement data by group, states can draw attention to the students who need the most help (Education Watch, 2004, p. 3).’’ It is in that spirit that this chapter looks at the performance data on African–American and poor students in Missouri. Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) is the state annual test used to measure students’ progress on state assessment standards. Missouri: A Case Study In this section, NAEP data from 2002 to 2004 are presented to examine the academic progress of students in Missouri on standardized test scores in reading and math along social economic status and race/ethnicity categories. Socioeconomic Status It is clear from the literature that there is a strong correlation between social class and educational outcomes (Coleman et al., 1966). The pervasiveness of social-class dynamics transcends American society, even in public institutions (schools) so long associated with social mobility (Knapp & Woolverton, 2004). Students on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder tend to perform poorly when compared to their counterparts on the higher economic rungs. More often than not, this achievement gap is closely linked to the availability of educational resources, such as quality teachers, funds, and challenging curriculums (Education Watch, 2004). Students in high-poverty and highminority schools are far more likely to be taught by teachers outside their field of expertise (Education Watch, 2004; Olson, 2003). As Olson (2003) pointed out ‘‘In Missouri, the lowest-performing students have teachers with the lowest scores on the ACT college-admissions test. High-poverty, highminority districts also employ a disproportionate share of new teachers and those with low ACT scores (Olson, 2003, p. 2).’’ In Missouri, 1999–2000 data (see Graph 1) indicate that a whopping 37% of secondary classes in highpoverty schools are taught by teachers who lack a major or minor in the field they are teaching (Education Watch, 2004). Consequently, from the elementary grade level we see a widening of the achievement gap between poor and non-poor students in reading and math on assessment data from 2002 to 2004 that grows significantly worse as they progress through high school (The Education Trust, 2005). From all
Public Education in an Era of Neo-Liberal Globalization
253
Graph 1. Percentage of Missouri Secondary Classes Taught by Teachers Lacking a Major or Minor Field 1999–2000. Source: Education Watch Missouri (2004).
indications, poverty is a major risk factor and indicator of students’ academic performance contrary to popular belief that schools are a major social equalizer. This raises some major concerns since the United States has the highest percentage (22%) of children living in poverty among any of the advanced industrial democratic states (Hodgkinson, 2003). While NCLB should be credited for making sure these disparities are exposed and for setting 2006 as the benchmark for meeting the goal of HQT for all schools, states need to make more concerted efforts to ensure an equitable distribution of qualified and experience teachers are made available to poor students. In Missouri, this target is far from being attained despite overwhelming evidence that suggests that quality teachers are the key to academic success (Darling-Hammond, 2000). Race and Ethnicity Interestingly, the data in math reveals a troubling trend which shows significant narrowing of the achievement gap at the elementary grades between White and African–American students, however by high school the achievement gap widens significantly between African–American and White students (The Education Trust, 2005). In reading however, it is a different story altogether. Although there is a slight narrowing of the achievement gap between White and African–American students at the elementary and secondary grade levels, the data suggest that this narrowing is partly due to decline in the performance of White or non-poor students when the overall learning gains are considered between these subgroups (The Education Trust, 2005). However, by the middle school there is a significant widening of the achievement gap between White and African–American students as
254
JITE EFERAKORHO
indicated by NAEP 2002–2004 data. This conundrum in achievement level at the middle school has been widely speculated about in the literature. Some have argued that the widening of the gap at the onset of middle school might be attributed to limited access to federal Title 1 monies available to fund such programs as the reading first. This raises the question as to why there is a narrowing in the secondary schools test score, when in fact 1999–2000 Missouri data (see Graph 1) indicate that an even higher percentage (39%) of secondary school students in high-minority schools are taught by teachers lacking a major or minor in the field the teach (Education Watch, 2004). The answer to this question could be attributed to some data not accounting for the number of minority students who have dropped out of the school system as a consequence of excessive testing (Novak & Fuller, 2003); further demonstrating that the test score really is not a true reflection of the performance of all students. Consequently, increased dropout rate becomes one of the unintended consequences of over-reliance on high-stakes tests as the only indicator of students’ achievement. Ironically, a lot of the underachieving students that NCLB intends to help are the very ones falling through the cracks. Thus providing ample evidence for critics of NCLB who argue that one of the problems of NCLB is that it imposes excessive burden of testing and assessment; it is punitive and imposes unreasonable sanctions on states and school districts; and it is also an unfunded mandate, which rewards schools that perform well and sanctions those that underachieve. To help understand the rationale for NCLB, this chapter examines educational reforms within the conceptual framework of neo-liberal globalization.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: NEO-LIBERAL GLOBALIZATION This chapter employs neo-liberal globalization as a conceptual lens for analyzing NCLB mandate as well as understanding the rationale for its renewed emphasis on accountability and standard based reform in the United States. Torres (2005) offered a critique of the NCLB act as a neoliberal globalization reform agenda and pointed out that neo-liberal reform is essentially based on a free market ideology designed to undermine the social democratic policies that have largely benefited disenfranchised members of society. According to Apple (2001), American schools are experiencing a shift to the [ideological] right and he identified the major factions that comprise the ‘conservative movement’ as the neo-liberals, the
Public Education in an Era of Neo-Liberal Globalization
255
neo-conservatives, the authoritarian populists, and the new middle class. Apple describes the neoliberals are the most influential and powerful faction because their influence transcends the boundaries of nation-states, and they represent a major force within the growing globalization movement that has a strong ideological basis in western ‘free-market’ capitalism. Advocates of neoliberalism believe that freedom and individual choices are necessary to solve educational problems and improve quality of education; government influences must be curtailed; the market should reign supreme; and they typically support school choice and voucher policies. Within neoliberalism, individuals are viewed as commodities or consumers. Together, these four groups are part of the powerful alliances within the modern conservative movement. Torres argued that embedded within the neo-liberal ideology is a ‘‘drive towards privatization and decentralization of public forms of education, a movement toward educational standards, a strong emphasis on testing, and a focus on accountability’’ (Torres, 2005, p. 1). Building upon Torres’ description of NCLB’s neo-liberal agenda, this chapter examines NCLB within the context of globalization, and specifically addresses the role of international organizations in influencing educational policies and practices (Carnoy, 1999). Carnoy (1999) posits that changes in the world economy have provoked responses in the education sector, and identified three forms of reform: competitiveness, finance, and equity-driven reforms. 1. Competitiveness-driven reforms- aimed at improving the overall economic productivity via improving the quality of labor. Here it is important to mention that quality is measured mainly by student achievement, and part of the key mechanisms for implementing this reform is through decentralization (greater autonomy given to schools in decision-making), choice plans (vouchers and privatization), ratcheting up standards (standardized testing), improved management of educational resources (low cost and high performance schools), and improved teacher recruitment and training. 2. Finance-driven reforms-mostly imposed by international organizations and regional alliances, like IMF and world bank, designed to address imbalance in the local economy. This is a convoluted way of suggesting a reduction in public spending relative to private sector, including education expenditure. Some important aspects of this reform include shifting public funding from higher to lower levels of education, privatization of secondary and higher education, and reduction of cost per student at all schooling levels.
256
JITE EFERAKORHO
3. Equity-driven reforms-designed to promote equality of educational opportunities, hence economic opportunities. Student are viewed as human capital and thus investing in human capital will no doubt level the playing field, particularly for students in the lower and underserved strata of society. Often investments are made at the basic level of education, where economists have argued yields greater return than at the higher levels. Consequently, the thinking is that providing basic education for the lower income families will result in efficient use of resources. In principle, NCLB proposes to be an equity-driven reform because of expressed concerns for equalizing educational opportunities for all, closing the achievement gaps, using education as a vehicle for social mobility, and its close alignment with the political impulse to use education to promote responsible citizenry. NCLB is predicated on the logic that the United States does not compare favorably to other advanced industrial nations as measured on international comparative data, and consequently fears losing its coveted dominance in the global economy. In practice, however, in spite of its rhetoric to promote equity-based reform, NCLB is actually a competitiveness-driven reform informed by a neo-liberal ideology designed to improve the quality of education through competition. The emphasis on competition underscores the economic purpose of education, and simultaneously belies the espoused commitment to equity. These reforms are by no means mutually exclusive. Indeed, elements from finance- and equityreforms are included in NCLB, however it is essentially a competitiveness reform. Within NCLB reform, quality is measured mainly by student achievement on high-stakes tests. Part of the key mechanisms for implementing this reform is through decentralization (local control and greater autonomy), choice plans (vouchers and parental choice), ratcheting up standards (standardized testing), improved management of educational resources (flexibility to use Title 1 funds), and improved teacher recruitment and training (Title 2, teacher professional development).
NCLB REVISITED NCLB requires states to implement challenging school academic content and academic achievement standards. What we have witnessed as a result of NCLB is an increased role of federal government in accountability while simultaneously diminishing state autonomy (Torres, 2005). Thus, in spite of the rhetoric of NCLB to improve the performance of all students and close
Public Education in an Era of Neo-Liberal Globalization
257
achievement gaps, evidence from 2004 NAEP data indicate that poor and minority students are still not improving academically, especially in the secondary grades (The Education Trust, 2005). According to NCLB mandate, the federal government imposes a system of sanctions and rewards based on performance of students on high-stakes tests. NCLB’s increased demand for accountability creates barriers for states to enforce some important reform initiatives that have been proven to solve the problem of underachievement among poor and minority students. For instance, a recent report by the National Collaborative on Diversity in the Teaching Force (2004) concluded that despite research findings that indicate that cultural competence and diversity in the teaching force are critical to improving the performance of students of color, the logistics of NCLB create significant barriers to recruiting teachers of color. Multicultural scholars have also addressed the salience of the ‘‘demographic Imperative’’ in ‘‘altering the disparities deeply embedded in American educational system’’ (Cochran-Smith, Davis, & Fries, 2004, p. 933). Citing statistical figures from National Center for Educational Statistics (1997), Cochran-Smith et al. (2004) pointed out that while the student population is diverse in race and class, the teaching force is very homogenous, thus representing 86% White European American from middle class backgrounds who speak only English. This experiential gap between teachers and students has led to calls to employ culturally responsive curriculum and pedagogy in schools (Villegas & Lucas, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 2001; Gay, 2002). While overwhelming evidence suggests that high-quality teachers directly improve students’ achievement on tests (Darling-Hammond, 2000), current NCLB sanctions are major disincentives to attracting HQT to the neediest students (Sunderman & Kim, 2005). Thus the imperative to ensure equitable distribution of quality teacher in all schools, particularly in schools serving the neediest students, is lost in the bureaucracy of implementing NCLB mandate. As studies have demonstrated, although teacher quality is one of the most important school variables influencing student achievement, teachers are the most inequitably distributed school resource (Darling-Hammond, 2004a, b; Haycock, 2003; Kozol, 1991). The sad reality of inequitable distribution of school resources, including quality teachers, is copiously documented by Jonathan Kozol in Savage Inequalities. Demanding accountability without equity in public education funding is meaningless. While NCLB spotlights the problem of underachievement along racial and socioeconomic lines, it does not question the logic of school funding inequity based on local property taxes and an antiquated foundation formula (Kozol, 1999), which is at the heart of underachievement. Linda
258
JITE EFERAKORHO
Darling-Hammond (2004b) underscores the school funding disparities and attendant consequences with regards widening the achievement gaps: The first problem-one that NCLB does not acknowledge or effectively address-is the enormous inequality in the provision of education offered in the United States. Unlike most countries that fund schools centrally and equally, the wealthiest U.S. public schools spend at least ten times more than the poorest schools-ranging from over $30,000 per pupil at the wealthiest schools to only $3,000 at the poorest. These disparities contribute to a wider achievement gap in this country than in virtually any other industrialized country in the world. (Darling-Hammond, 2004b, p. 6)
The fact of the matter is that the schools that underachieve are invariably the ones with the high percentages of minority and poor students with greater educational needs, and are grossly under-funded. As Karp (2004) succinctly puts it, to meet the 100% target by 2014 as required by NCLB ‘‘schools must meet separate AYP targets for up to ten different student categories total school population, special education students, Limited English Proficiency students, whites, African-Americans, Asian/Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, Hispanics, other ethnicities, and economically disadvantaged students’’ (Karp, 2004, p. 54). As a result, the more culturally diverse a school is, the more AYP target goals there are to meet (DarlingHammond, 2004). Faced with the onerous task of meeting the accountability goals of NCLB, cash strapped schools serving diverse and large student populations are increasingly being labeled as ‘failing,’ ‘needing improvement,’ at risk of losing more federal funds, and facing further sanctions. Novak and Fuller (2003) referred to the practice of disproportionately labeling diverse schools as a ‘‘diversity penalty.’’ To quote Karp, ‘‘A racially and economically homogenous school in the suburbs has many fewer hurdles to overcome than an urban school with large populations of special education, immigrant, or low-income students’’(Karp, 2004, p. 55).
CONCLUSION In discussing the disproportionate high rate of failure on standardized test among students from certain socioeconomic and minority groups, it is important not to lose sight of the content (what is taught) knowledge of the standardized test and the pedagogy (how the content is being taught). Teacher quality is fundamental to the success of all students, more so in a knowledge society. As Carnoy pointed out ‘‘Teachers will continue to be fundamental to educational delivery and the quality of education will
Public Education in an Era of Neo-Liberal Globalization
259
depend largely on the quality of teaching and teacher effort. Just as in the rest of the global economy, where knowledgeable workers are increasingly the key to the production of value, the knowledge industry (education) logically also will depend increasingly on the quality of its human capital (teachers) (Carnoy, 1999, pp. 83–84).’’ Sadly, the definition of HQT ‘‘focuses almost exclusively on subject matter knowledge and ignores pedagogy and other professional knowledge and skills (Cochran-Smith, 2005, p. 101).’’ While subject matter knowledge is certainly important, a level of critical consciousness must be the core of any sound pedagogy. For instance, Freire (1990) Pedagogy of the oppressed is instructive in this regard because it is based on a sound theory of social justice that deviates from the mechanical or banking model of teaching to a more dialogic approach between the teacher and the students. Knowledge creation and transfer within a critical pedagogy framework transcends the boundaries of any individual subject and does not lend itself to the type of testing and assessment advocated in NCLB. Furthermore, part of the reason students from lower socio economic class and racial/ethnic minority groups tend to perform poorly on standardized tests is because school knowledge closely approximates the cultural capital of the middle to upper class Anglo students. Examples of counter-hegemonic critical (cultural) pedagogies, such as Gloria Ladson-Billings’(2001) culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP) ensures that teachers’ utilize the cultural background of the student as a conduit for learning (Villegas & Lucas, 2002; Gay, 2002). Ladson-Billings argues that CRP rests on the following three tenets: Students must experience academic success Students must develop and/or maintain cultural competence Students must develop sociopolitical consciousness through which they challenge the status quo Together, progressive educators take into account a more holistic conceptualization of pedagogy that consists of subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1987). Building on Shulman’s Theories of Pedagogy, Gloria Ladson-Billings argues that cries for reform in teaching often focus on what and how much teachers need to know. Consequently, decrease in professional education courses and increased in subject matter courses, are seen as panaceas for poor quality teaching. Gloria Ladson-Billings suggests that both pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge, which takes into account
260
JITE EFERAKORHO
strategies of classroom management and organization, appropriate ideas and analogies that appear to transcend subject matter, are equally important in achieving students’ success. In conclusion, this chapter proposes a model of pedagogy that is broadly conceptualized beyond subject knowledge and effectively addresses larger social justice issues. NCLB education reform is narrowly conceived to measure content knowledge, almost to the exclusion of the other equally important aspects of pedagogy. Within the current framework of NCLB, pedagogy tends to adopt more of a banking model, where the teacher’s role is to dole out knowledge and the students are meant to regurgitate the knowledge on standardized tests. Important knowledge, such as higher order critical thinking skills are often ignored. Likewise, culturally relevant pedagogy is not valued within the framework of NCLB. Since teachers are critical to the successful implementation and success of educational reform, it is imperative that reform efforts emphasize equitable distribution of highly qualified teachers capable of developing the critical thinking skills of all students. Teachers’ repertoire of knowledge in an increasingly pluralistic and global world should include an understanding of culturally relevant pedagogy. As the goal of NCLB implies, the vast majority of those who fail in our school systems are students from predominantly poor and racial minority backgrounds. This trend has persisted despite the implementation of standards based neoliberal reform since the 1980s, beginning with Reagan era to the present time (Shumar, 2004). Most of the reform initiatives implemented were driven by the need to give the United States a competitive edge in the emerging global economy. Therefore, it simply makes sense not to implement reform policies that have been proven not to work. It is fitting to conclude this chapter by heeding the warning of Carnoy (1999) who ‘‘asserts that within the context of globalization, nation-states will depend increasingly for their legitimacy on their ability to create the conditions for economic and social developmentybecause knowledge is the most highly valued commodity in the global economy, nations have little choice but to increase their investment in education (p. 82).’’ Any serious commitment to overhauling the education system in the U.S. cannot be done at the expense of leaving many children behind. In conclusion, this chapter contributes to the broader debate surrounding equality of educational opportunity. This chapter also provides a new language for analyzing the NCLB neo-liberal competitiveness-driven globalization reform agenda. It is impossible to enforce an equity-driven reform without first changing the current policy discourse. Merely tinkering with NCLB would perpetuate the inequities that plague our public schools.
Public Education in an Era of Neo-Liberal Globalization
261
REFERENCES Apple, W. A. (2001). Educating the ‘‘right’’ way: Markets, standards, god, and inequality. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer. Carnoy, M. (1999). Globalization and educational reform: What planners need to know. Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning. Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). No child left behind: 3 years and counting. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(2), 99–103. Cochran-Smith, M., Davis, D., & Fries, K. (2004). Multicultural teacher education: Research, practice, and policy. In: J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds), Handbook of research in multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 931–975). Wiley. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, H. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfield, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality in educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Archives, 8(1). Darling-Hammond, L. (2004a). What happened to a dream deferred? The continuity quest for equal educational opportunity. In: J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds), Handbook of research in multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 607–630). San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Darling-Hammond, L. (2004b). From separate but equal to no child left behind: The collision of new standards and old inequalities. In: D. Meier & G. Wood (Eds), Many children left behind: How the no child left behind act is damaging our children and our schools (pp. 3–32). Boston: Beacon Press. Education Trust. (2005). Stalled in secondary: A look at student achievement since the no child left behind act. A report by the Education Trust, pp. 1–14. Retrieved on February 12, 2005, from http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/Press+Room/stalled+in+secondary.htm Education Watch. (2004). Education Watch Missouri: Key education facts and figures. Achievement, attainment and opportunity from elementary school through college. A Report Prepared by the Education Trust, Inc., Spring. Retrieved on February 12, 2005, from http:// www2.edtrust.org/edtrust/summaries2004/Missouri.pdf Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116. Haycock, K. (2002/2003). Toward a fair distribution of teacher talent. Educational Leadership, 60(4), 11–15. Hodgkinson, H. L. (2003). Leaving too many children behind. A demographer’s view of the neglect of America’s youngest children (pp. 1–20), Washington, DC: A publication of the Institute of Educational Leadership. Karp, S. (2004). NCLB’s selective vision of equality: Some gaps count more than others. In: D. Meier & G. Wood (Eds), Many children left behind: How the no child left behind act is damaging our children and our schools (pp. 53–78). Boston: Beacon Press. Knapp, M., & Woolverton, S. (2004). Social class and schooling. In: J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 656–681). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities; Children in America’s schools. New York: Harper Collins. Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teachers in diverse classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
262
JITE EFERAKORHO
Missouri department of elementary and secondary education (2005). Missouri students remain above averages in reading, but math scores slip on latest ‘‘NAEP’’ tests. News release. Vol. 39, No. 37, retrieved from http://www.dese.state.mo.us/news/2005/naep.htm on October 20th, 2005. Morey, A., Bezuk, N., & Chiero, R. (1997). Preservice preparation in the United States. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 4–24. National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). Digest of educational statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Collaborative on diversity in the teaching force. (2004). Assessment of diversity in America’s teaching force: A call for action. A Report published by National Collaborative on diversity in the teaching force. Washington, DC. Retrieved on February 12, 2005, from http://www.nea.org/teacherquality/images/diversityreport.pdf NCLB (2001). No child left behind. Retrieved from http://www.ed.NoChildLeftBehind.gov, on January 12, 20. Novak, J., & Fuller, B. (2003). Penalizing diverse schools? Similar test scores but different students bring federal sanctions. Berkerly, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education. Olson, L. S. (2003). The great divide. Education week, quality counts 2003, 22, 9–16. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22. Shumar, W. (2004). Global pressures, local reactions: Higher education and neo-liberal economic policies. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17(6), 823–839. Sunderman, G. & Kim, J. (2005). Teacher quality: Equalizing educational opportunities and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Retrieved online from http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu on September 19, 2005. Torres, C. A. (2005). No child left behind: A brainchild of neoliberalism and American politics. New Politics, 10(2), 1–13. Retrieved from http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue38/ Torres38.htm on July 14th, 2005. U.S. Congress (2001). No child left behind act of 2001. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Commerce (2000). Statistical abstract of the United States, 2000. Available from www.census.gov Villegas, A., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. The Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20–32.
DEMOCRATIC NOTIONS INFORMING EQUITY IN MATHEMATICS EDUCATION Lecretia A. Buckley ABSTRACT Efforts to promote equity in mathematics education are becoming more widespread. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics elevated its position on equity from one of societal need to one of six guiding principles required to ensure excellence in mathematics education. I investigate how efforts to promote educational equity in mathematics education are informed by democratic views. In particular, I examine the intersection of course taking, equity, mathematics, and democracy in the context of a case study conducted in one high school mathematics department. This case study was conducted over one academic year, and data included a focus survey, interviews, field notes from department meetings and class observations, and school documents. In this study, I investigated the curricular redesign process undertaken by one high school mathematics department addressing high failure rates in low-level courses disproportionately enrolled with students of color designed to increase access to more advanced mathematics courses. I discuss how those changes impacted access, influenced equity, and aligned with democratic aims and their relationship to mathematics education.
No Child Left Behind and other Federal Programs for Urban School Districts Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 9, 263–283 Copyright r 2006 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(06)09014-7
263
264
LECRETIA A. BUCKLEY
INTRODUCTION The pursuit of educational equity in America is a common sought goal. Considerable strides have been made, and we continue efforts to institutionalize educational equity making high quality education more often the rule, and not the exception. We recently commemorated the 50th anniversary of the 1954 decision of Brown v. Board of Education. Yet, access to high-quality education evades many students of color as well as poor students, in urban and rural areas. Knowing the demographics of schools and districts often means that one can reasonably predict levels of funding and achievement. This is especially the case for mathematics where the achievement gap between White, middle class students and students of color persists. Even when gains in achievement are identified, those gains are typically restricted to low-level skills (Lubienski, 2002; Secada, 1992; Tate, 1997) as opposed to measures of conceptual understanding and competency in applying mathematical ideas to world problems. Rod Paige, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, described the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) as one aimed to ‘‘improve the educational opportunities for every American child;’’ with a ‘‘common goal of making every public school in America a place of high expectations and a place of high achievement;’’ with a mission to create within our country an educational system in which ‘‘every child will be educated and no child left behind’’ (U.S. Department of Education (DOE), Office of the Secretary, Office of Public Affairs, 2003, p. iii). These haughty ambitions, notwithstanding one’s political ideologies and position reflect democratic values. In this chapter, I examine a local effort to realize objectives of educational equity and democracy in mathematics education. In the following section, I outline why mathematics education is a rich context for exploring efforts to promote educational equity.
EQUITABLE EDUCATION IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY The ambitions of equal opportunity, high expectations, high achievement, and an educated citizenry speak to issues that undergird research on equity in mathematics education. The aim here is to consider these ambitions both in light of democratic values and through the efforts of a high school mathematics department. From this investigation, we gain insights into the pursuit of educational equity as it is negotiated among practicing teachers.
Democratic Notions Informing Equity in Mathematics Education
265
That mathematics education has, historically, been utilized as a gatekeeper to mathematics- and science-based majors and careers makes it ripe for exploring quests for equity. This is a research report of one department’s quest. The department made some gains; yet, the results are not all favorable and continued, more critical efforts are required. While at times the negative impact of some of the departmental changes was disheartening, I turn to the lessons that can be learned from their efforts. I embrace a mantra I often assert in the courses I teach – wrong answers present an opportunity for learning. Moreover, commitment and determination to learn from attempts to promote educational equity are required and ultimately, informative. This determination must occur at both the micro and marco levels. While such reflection has followed national efforts, this study represents a micro-level reflection and mining for insights. In particular, the Brown decision has been revisited, and scholars examine unanticipated outcomes of this court decision (Ladson-Billings, 2004; Tate, Ladson-Billings, & Grant, 1993). Undoubtedly, systematic and in-depth reflections and examinations of NCLB are forthcoming. Such examinations are essential to ensuring educational equity, in general. The specific case of mathematics education continues to be a hot spot, and this will unlikely change given mathematics’ place in routine assessments that are at the center of the accountability focus of NCLB as well as admissions into mathematics- and science-based majors and careers and professional programs. Mathematics achievement is one of the most assessed areas in education. While general arguments assert that frequent testing will lead to improved student achievement by informing stakeholders of students’ progress in learning, the achievement gap persists, and comparisons among students reign. Skovsmose (1990) describes this context as ‘‘a competitive, testing, attainmentmeasuring context. And mathematics, almost above all other subjects, give license to competition and comparison of failure and success’’ (p. 16). What is perhaps, even more disconcerting is how such comparisons support deficit model assumptions and often situate students of color as variations from the norm without efforts to design less bias exams (Campbell, 1989). One harmful effect of how achievement in mathematics plays out in society is its function as a gatekeeper. Mathematics functions as a pump for some and a filter for others (National Research Council (NRC), 1989) by either propelling students into educational opportunities and economic access, or by limiting their access to myriad careers and professions. Those for whom mathematics has served as a pump are typically White and middle class, while students of color are disproportionately filtered out of mathematics-intensive areas
266
LECRETIA A. BUCKLEY
and professions. Students of color experience significantly lower levels of achievement than their White, middle class counterparts (Lubienski, 2002; Tate, 1997; Secada, 1992), and often have less access to advanced mathematics courses (Oakes, 1990; Kilpatrick & Gieger, 2000). Research in mathematics education suggests that this achievement gap can be partially explained by a lack of access to advanced mathematics courses (Hoffer, Rasinski, & Moore, 1995; Miller & Linn, 1988; Reynolds & Walberg, 1992; Tate, 1997; Winfield, 1993). Thus, students’ of color access to advanced mathematics courses is a critical component in ensuring equitable educational and economic opportunities. Educational equity is multi-faceted and requires an examination of inputs, outcomes, and processes. In other words, one must consider multiple measures when gauging equity in order to avoid an impoverished perspective. Not only is a one-dimensional prospective impoverished, but it is also incomplete belittling the moral mandate for equity. Access to majors, careers, or economic opportunity is insufficient in preparing students to participate in society democratically. Students must not only demonstrate fluency in computation and high achievement on standardized exams, but they must also be able to analyze and construct mathematically based arguments, model and solve real-world problems, and reason and think logically. When students acquire this mathematical power, they are equipped to think critically and to use mathematics as they critique their place in the world.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS The context for this investigation is a case study of one high school mathematics department. In particular, I examine students’ access to advanced mathematics courses as a means to provide a more equitable mathematics education for students enrolled in low-level mathematics courses. I classified algebra, geometry, and courses below them as low level. Geometry is classified as low level since it has the same prerequisites as an algebra course. The department redesigned its low-level course offerings in an effort to provide greater access to mathematics courses. The courses targeted in this study were disproportionately populated by students of color. Background Insights into these questions are gained through an examination of the intersection of course taking, equity, mathematics, and democracy. In the above
Democratic Notions Informing Equity in Mathematics Education
267
sections, I outlined how equity and mathematics are connected given mathematics’ historical function as a ‘‘judge, in order to decide who in society ‘can’ and who ‘cannot’’’ (Volmink, 1994, p. 51). Mathematics’ relationship to democracy is embodied in the capacity that mathematical knowledge offers in understanding and constructing arguments in order to participate in a democratic society (Skovsmose & Valero, 2001). Volmink further argues that mathematics is a gatekeeper to such participation and ‘‘to deny some access to participation in mathematics is then also to determine, a priori, who will move ahead and who will stay behind’’ (pp. 51–52). Skovsmose (1990) also examines the role of mathematics education in facilitating democratic participation asserting that mathematics serves, too, a function of introducing the new labor force to lots of routine work in the technological society y mathematics education, implants an attitude towards technology. The students learn that some people are able to mange technological problems, and that some people are not. And, consequently, the ‘incapable’ students learn to become servile towards technological questions and to become servile towards those who can manage. (p. 115)
While democracy, for the most part, is absent from mainstream discussions in the U.S. (e.g. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2000) on equity in mathematics education (Woodrow, 1997), it is a topic to which some have given attention. For example, Bob Moses’ work with the Algebra Project seeks at preparing students for democratic participation. The Algebra Project is a national mathematics literacy effort aimed at helping low-income students and students of color – particularly African American and Latino/a students – achieve mathematical skills that are a prerequisite for a college preparatory mathematics sequence in high school and full citizenship in today’s technological society. Moses, who worked in Mississippi in the 1960s to get Blacks registered to vote, argues that the role that mathematics plays in this regard is significant referring to mathematics as the new civil rights battleground (Moses & Cobb, 2001). Research in mathematics education that addresses democratic goals may include work whose aim is also characterized as social justice. These researchers (e.g. Gutstein, 2003; Frankenstein, 1995; Beauboeuf-Lafontant, 1999), examine the worlds in which underrepresented students live and work and how their mathematical learning might allow them to critique and ultimately change their place in society. Course taking is a component of this inquiry because access to mathematics is often – dealt out – through students’ participation in advanced mathematics courses. Inaccessibility to these courses is more often the experience of students of color and poor students (Oakes, 1990; Strutchens & Silver, 2000). In
268
LECRETIA A. BUCKLEY
addition to Oakes’ (1990) examination of tracking practices and its negative impact on students’ advancement in mathematics, research from the Second International Mathematics Study (SIMS) (McKnight et al., 1987) found that significant variance in achievement could be attributed to a lack of access to content on the exam although this inquiry did not highlight racial or socioeconomic differences. These studies brought to the forefront what otherwise seems to be an obvious implication – the mathematics achievement of students of color was negatively impacted by a lack of access to advanced mathematics courses. Smaller scale studies suggested that students experience higher achievement in mathematics as they take higher level mathematics courses (Hoffer et al., 1995; Miller & Linn, 1988; Reynolds & Walberg, 1992; Tate, 1997; Winfield, 1993). Additionally, departments that have been successful at getting large numbers of students who traditionally underperform in mathematics to take more advanced level mathematics courses such as calculus (Gutierrez, 1996) have been examined. Research on course taking underscores the importance of access when gauging equitable education.
Perspectives The four areas, course taking, equity, mathematics, and democracy whose intersection will be examined later, are described here to characterize how they are used in this chapter. First, course-taking patterns in mathematics is significant since student achievement is positively correlated with taking advanced mathematics courses (Hoffer et al., 1995; Lee, Croninger, & Smith, 1997; Miller & Linn, 1988; Reynolds & Walberg, 1992; Tate, 1997; Winfield, 1993). High achievement not only positions students to take advanced mathematics courses, but also offers access to mathematics- and science-based careers as well as other professions (NRC, 1989). Thus, taking more advanced mathematics courses has a positive impact on economic access. Research further suggests that students benefit from a narrow (Lee et al., 1997) and rigorous (Gutierrez, 1996) mathematics curriculum. Students tend to take more advanced mathematics courses when their curriculum is narrow and rigorous as opposed to curricula that offer an array of choices, which often lead to lateral movement. Collectively, this research suggests that students benefit from a course offering that has fewer choices, which offer room for advanced course taking. Second, equity, in particular in the field of mathematics education, is receiving more attention as an area of research inquiry. The Research Committee of the NCTM (NCTM Research Committee, 2005) takes up the
Democratic Notions Informing Equity in Mathematics Education
269
various ways to incorporate an equity component into mathematics education research. The increasing prominence of equity in mainstream discourse is due, in large part, to the work of the NCTM which identified equity among six guiding principles required to ensure excellence in mathematics education and publishing a series of yearbooks, entitled Changing the Faces of Mathematics, devoted to research related to underrepresented students (Edwards, 1999; Hankes & Fast, 2002; Jacobs, Becker, & Gilmer, 2001; Strutchens, Johnson, & Tate, 2000; Trentacosta & Kenney, 1997). NCTM’s stance on equity has become firmer moving from arguments that had been primarily economically based (NCTM, 1989). Here, equity is conceptualized as a qualitative and dynamic construct that employs human judgments in order to evaluate students’ learning opportunities and experiences (Secada, 1989). Opportunity to learn is distinguished from actual experiences that students may have since access does not necessarily ensure quality instruction. Therefore, the quality of instruction is also examined since all opportunities are not desirable. Additionally, equity is distinguished from equality in that equity gauges fairness and justice, whereas equality is taken as a quantitative construct that examines parity (Secada, 1989). Moreover, three components are examined in gauging equity – inputs or access to educational treatments, processes such as pedagogical practices, and outcomes such as achievement. An examination of all these components is necessary in order to provide a comprehensive evaluation. Finally, equity ought to be gauged at various time frames and based on groups of students (Gutierrez, 2002) in order to identify patterns and evaluate interventions or programs. School mathematics is the third area examined and includes the various subjects that students take in their K–12 learning experience. Traditionally, mathematics, and school mathematics in particular, is viewed as decontextualized content taught in disconnected subject areas with an emphasis on drill and practice. Mathematics is regarded as a culture-free (Ernest, 1989; Volmink, 1994), fixed body of knowledge (Burton, 1995; Lerman, 1998) that consists of external truths (Volmink, 1994) and validated propositions (Ernest, 1998). Alternative perspectives hold that mathematics is a discipline in flux (Prawat, 1992) resulting from social practices (Nickson, 1989; Restivo, 1994) and human activity (Volmink, 1994) that is also fallible (Lerman, 1998). Mathematics teaching that moves beyond procedural and decontextualized knowledge and promotes understanding is often regarded as more aligned with the latter perspective of the nature of mathematics. Finally, democracy – as it relates to mathematics – involves both the democratization of mathematics as well as the capacity to participate in
270
LECRETIA A. BUCKLEY
society democratically. Although democracy lacks an essential meaning, there are some critical features that I consider. It is a social organization that provides citizens with equal access to leadership (D’Ambrosio, 1990) and a fair distribution of goods and services (Skovsmose, 1994). It is not an ‘‘achieved reality’’ or ‘‘a formal procedure of election or a ‘method of government’’’ (Skovsmose & Valero, 2001, p. 45). Skosvmose provides the following summation of democracy as he discusses its link with education, ‘‘democracy refers to formal conditions concerning the interplay between the institutions of a democracy, material conditions concerning distribution of goods and services, ethical conditions concerning equality, and finally conditions concerning the possibility for participation and re-action’’ (p. 29). The relationship between mathematics education and democracy is largely due to the capacity that mathematics has to prepare citizens to make decisions (Skovsmose, 1994) and to critically analyze arguments (D’Ambrosio, 1990; Tate, 1994). Skovsmose and Valero discuss three perspectives of this relationship. That mathematics is inherently suited to prepare citizens to analyze arguments and make decisions is the intrinsic resonance view. The second view is the intrinsic dissonance view, and it explores how mathematics functions to exclude or filter some students out of opportunities and how its applications support science and technology in ways that harm (e.g. warfare). The third view, the critical view, is characterized as going ‘‘both ways.’’ We do not rely on any claim identifying an intrinsic connection between mathematics thinking and democratic ideals nor do we accept an argument excluding mathematics education from a struggle for democracy’’ (Skovsmose & Valero, 2001, p. 43). The democratization of mathematics involves the process of demystifying mathematics which includes making mathematics accessible to all and engaging ‘‘those who have been marginalized, disinvited and underrepresented’’ in ways that they ‘‘will come to see that they too can share in the creation of mathematics and hence in its ownership, beauty and power’’ (Volmink, 1994, p. 52). The intersection of these four constructs is the thrust of this study. In particular, the research question was how did a high school mathematics department’s redesign of its low-level courses (a) impact students’ access to advanced mathematics courses, (b) influence the level of equitable mathematics education, and (c) relate to democracy. I explore the specific course redesign efforts in light of the three views of the relationship between mathematics education and democracy. This discussion provides insights for researchers and mathematics departments seeking to restructure their own curriculum in order to promote equity and prepare students for democratic participation.
Democratic Notions Informing Equity in Mathematics Education
271
STUDY I conducted a study in one high school mathematics department. The school had an enrollment of approximately 1,500 students, and the average class size was less than 20. About half of the students in the district received free or reduced lunch, and the racial demography for the school was 65% White, 28% African American, 5% Hispanic, and 2% Asian/Pacific Islander. The school offered a tracked curriculum with two primary divisions – the standard and the accelerated curricula. There was an expansive offering of mathematics courses, which included remedial courses below pre-algebra up to a traditional and an Advanced Placement calculus course. Two years of mathematics were required for graduation, and 39% of the students met or exceeded mathematics requirements on the state standardized exam. Students who met or exceeded mathematics requirements among various ethnic groups were: 44% White, 19% African American; 42% Hispanic, and 71% Asian/Pacific Islanders. The graduation rate was 68% for the entire student body, 75% for Whites, 55% for African Americans, 41% for Hispanics, and 67% for Asian/Pacific Islanders. Participants included 12 of the 13 members of the mathematics department, a guidance counselor, and the principal. Each teacher completed a focus survey prior to interviews. From the survey, I collected the data on the teachers’ mathematics and professional background, their expectations of their students, and their beliefs about the nature of mathematics. This data informed questioning during the teacher’s first interview. Each teacher participated in at least one, 45-minute interview, audio-taped interview. Two teachers participated in a second, follow-up interview. Three teachers, who served as key informants (Wolcott, 1988), participated in three interviews and permitted me to observe their classes. I collected field notes from observations of five sections of classes from among the targeted courses twice a week for approximately six months. I also collected field notes at eight department meetings. The guidance counselor and principal participated in one 30 minute interview. School documents including curricula guides and placement polices were also collected. Data collection spanned eight months. Data were analyzed utilizing constant comparison analysis (Strauss, 1987), triangulation of the data, and a search for disconfirming evidence. The data were coded for emergent themes with an initial list of codes informed by research in mathematics education. In particular, categories of themes included educational background/experiences of the teachers, expectations of the students, the nature of mathematics, and democratic values. The list of codes was revised after each iteration of analysis during the
272
LECRETIA A. BUCKLEY
data collection phase and after two iterations of analysis upon the completion of data collection. Findings While this study was being conducted, the department simultaneously implemented four changes in their course offerings. All changes were made in lowlevel courses targeted in this study. First, the department eliminated Extended Algebra, a four-semester sequence of algebra, and replaced it with a twosemester sequence, Modified Algebra. This change required more students to take a geometry course in order to fulfill the four-semester graduation requirement. Second, the department added a Modified Geometry course. Students who had taken Modified Algebra and students who received a C or below in the traditional algebra course were expected to take Modified Geometry as opposed to the traditional geometry course. The primary differences between modified and traditional courses were that Modified Algebra involved less depth in content coverage, and Modified Geometry excluded formal proofs. Third, the department redesigned Math Explorations, a remedial course, for students who entered high school having scored lower than the cut-off score for taking pre-algebra as an incoming freshman. Fourth, the department designed Math Review for students who failed the first semester of a low-level course such as Pre-Algebra or Modified Algebra. Math Review was a one-semester course and was offered in the Spring semester so that students continued to be enrolled in a mathematics course while they awaited the opportunity to reenter the first semester of the course previously failed which would be offered the following Fall semester. Enrollment in Math Review was restricted to students who received a teacher recommendation that was based partially on the student’s history of attendance and submission of assignments. The first two changes to the mathematics course offerings – the replacement of Extended Algebra by Modified Algebra and the addition of Modified Geometry – increased students’ access to more mathematics content. Although more students would take geometry as a result of the switch to Modified Algebra, geometry is not viewed as more advanced than algebra since they have the same prerequisites. Additionally, the latter two changes, which amounted to creating more remedial courses, mitigated these gains and resulted in perpetuated inequities. These inequities countered the stated aims of the department to increase students’ in targeted courses access to more advanced mathematics courses. In this section, I consider the aforementioned changes and how they impacted students’ access to advanced mathematics courses, influenced the
Democratic Notions Informing Equity in Mathematics Education
273
level of equitable mathematics education, and related to notions of democracy. This discussion is framed by the four democratic aims previously enumerated: (1) equal opportunity, (2) high expectations, (3) high achievement, and (4) an educated citizenry. These aims espoused in NCLB documents are examined here as I study a local effort to make mathematics learning more accessible to underrepresented students. Equal Opportunity The department sought to provide additional opportunities to students in targeted courses. Replacing Extended Algebra with the two-semester sequence, Modified Algebra, increased students’ opportunity to encounter content not traditionally taken by students targeted in this study. In particular, more students would need to take a geometry course in order to fulfill the four-credit requirement to graduate. In the past, completing the Extended Algebra sequence fulfilled the graduation requirement, and typically students did not take additional mathematics courses. This increased likelihood to take a geometry course for some students was commendable since there were 12 sections of Modified Algebra. However, these gains were countered by the lack of equal access to content both in the Modified Algebra and Modified Geometry courses. The Modified Algebra course was designed so that the same topics were ‘‘covered with less depth.’’ Subsequently, it was reasonable to anticipate that students’ in targeted courses conceptual understanding of topics would be less developed than their counterparts in the algebra course which covered topics with more depth. The Modified Geometry course differed from the traditional geometry course in that it lacked formal proof, and this content is a critical component in systematic reasoning. Thus, the negative impact of excluding formal proofs may be multiplied since systematic reasoning is regarded as ‘‘a defining feature of mathematics’’ (NCTM, 2000, p. 57), and the high school geometry course is regarded as a ‘‘natural place for the development of students’ reasoning and justification skills’’ (McClure, 2000, p. 41). A lack of opportunity was structured into departmental policies as well. The department created placement policies for Math Review that required a teacher recommendation and a maximum number of missed days and assignments. These strict policies were aimed to increase the department’s control and decrease the Guidance Office’s discretion in placing students in mathematics courses. That opportunity was not to be provided equally was evidenced in teacher interviews and field notes from department meetings. The department had created a privileging system, even for remedial courses. The remedial courses were for students who ‘‘wanted to learn’’ and those
274
LECRETIA A. BUCKLEY
who had not ‘‘created problems’’ especially in terms of behavior. Members of the department began to label these students as ‘‘trying and failing.’’ The specific criteria regarding the number of missed days or assignments addressed two concerns held by members of the department. First, these criteria allowed the teachers to select students who were trying and failing. Second, they prevented them from having a class of students that they were ‘‘unwilling’’ to teach. This term, ‘‘unwilling,’’ was the terminology utilized by the chair in department meetings. Math Review was not to be a course with open enrollment, and the policies created by the department ensured that to be the case. Rather, the teachers went about hand-picking students. Some teachers characterized their selection of students as a function of who deserved the opportunity to participate in a course. Ms. Irons stated, ‘‘those kids were placed in that class because their teachers felt, you know, they deserved (emphasis added) this extra chance’’ (Interview #2, p. 5). Deserving the opportunity to learn mathematics after having been unsuccessful, as was the case for students in Math Review, was viewed as a privilege. Mr. Douglas said, ‘‘but if the kid is just a chronic truant or just a royal pain in class, you know constant discipline problems, I think they should be moved to study hall. Being in class is kind of a privilege (emphasis added)’’ (Interview 2, p. 4). Enrollment in the course further required the students to sign a contract which stipulated the number of days and assignments students could miss during a semester and included an agreement to get help outside of class. The contract stated ‘‘students must be available and willing to come in before and/ or after school for extra help either at their own desire or at the teacher’s discretion.’’ Many teachers indicated that these restrictions allowed them to create an environment conducive to learning. Mr. Benson said, We cannot just put every kid they failed in a class. It would be a complete disaster. I mean, those kids were screwing up our regular class anyway. I mean, now to concentrate them all in one group. You’re just asking for trouble. So, let’s pick the good ones. (Interview #1, p. 19)
Teachers asserted that the students selected had a good chance of being successful. An alternative perspective that the department did not embrace was that they were responsible for students’ learning and that students’ learning is influenced by teaching. Again, the teachers viewed ability as fixed, and the role of teaching is not addressed or valued as a critical component of students’ success in mathematics. The department had increased students’ opportunity to take more mathematics courses, but it had not attempted to provide students with equal access, not generally speaking or in terms of low-level courses. This was the
Democratic Notions Informing Equity in Mathematics Education
275
case as further evidenced by the department’s articulated goals which they referred to frequently in department meetings and written correspondences. Indeed, individual efforts were often evaluated in relation to the three goals that the department identified. The goals were: (1) to get students to take two years of the highest level of mathematics of which the students were capable, (2) to improve standardized test scores, and (3) to avoid decreasing the graduation rate while trying to accomplish the first and second goals. While equal opportunity is viewed as only one component of equitable education (Secada, 1989), the department had not yet even embraced this restricted view of equity. Rather, the first goal indicates unequal access and varied expectations. High Expectations The teachers held varied expectations for students with those expectations being low for students enrolled in the targeted courses. Teachers indicated in the focus survey that students should take an average of three years of mathematics. While this general recommendation is significantly greater than the graduation requirement, it does not take the level of mathematics into consideration. Their low expectations become more apparent when one considers that one-half of the teachers indicated that geometry should be the highest level mathematics course taken. For the teachers, more years of mathematics did not equate to more advanced mathematics. Consequently, the statement of goal one is a more accurate description of the number of mathematics courses that the teachers expected students to take. This perspective is also reflected in the design and creation of additional remedial courses and the department’s goals. The department’s goals also pointed to low expectations for students in the targeted courses. The belief that not all students were capable of learning mathematics permeated the department’s efforts and is evidenced by goals one and three. The first goal which indicates that students should take the highest mathematics course of which they are capable reflects fixed notions of ability (Oakes, Wells, Jones, & Datnow, 1996). The conflict articulated in the department’s goals suggests low expectations as well. The third goal, ‘‘to avoid decreasing the graduation rate while trying to accomplish the first and second goals,’’ suggest that the members of the department saw taking two years of mathematics as being at odds with graduating. Research in mathematics departments that get large numbers of students of color to take advanced mathematics does not align with the department’s views (Gutierrez, 1996). The teachers’ expectations of students in targeted courses influenced the design of courses in addition to the course offerings. The exclusion of formal proofs resulted from their expectation that students could not be successful
276
LECRETIA A. BUCKLEY
in a geometry course that included formal proofs. The teachers viewed formal proofs as the students’ stumbling block, but they did not evaluate how formal proofs were taught as a means for addressing this ‘‘stumbling block.’’ Thus, this study further adds to the research on teachers’ expectations of underrepresented students which suggests that teachers teach what they believe students can learn (Irvine & York, 1993). That the courses involved were mathematics is, perhaps, also influenced by the societal image of mathematics and who can do mathematics as White males (Ernest, 2004). The societal image of mathematics is often incorporated into arguments of why mathematics is an appropriate venue for addressing inequities (Skovsmose & Valero, 2001). Pursuing equity in mathematics education must incorporate an examination of departmental practices and efforts to restructure their curriculum and reevaluate their policies. Yet, efforts to change the face of mathematics as advocated in the NCTM series, Changing the Faces of Mathematics, are extremely difficult given this embedded image of mathematics coupled with fixed notions of ability. Low expectations for students in targeted courses were also evidenced by the goals, content, and structure of Math Explorations, a remedial course which was below Pre-Algebra. Most members of the department supported the addition of this course, and Ms. Jenkins said, Well, I think it’s a good idea to do that [offer Math Explorations, a course below PreAlgebra and offered at the high school] because there are so many kids that are so low. You just can’t imagine how low they are y They cannot understand anything. They just don’t get it. (Interview #1, p. 11)
Mr. Douglas, had some concerns; however, he did not voice them at department meetings. In an interview, Mr. Douglas reveals, I think it’s obscene. I think it’s ridiculous that there are kids in this high school that are going to have a monthly nightmare trying to balance their checkbooks. I think it’s absurd that there are kids that are 16 and 17 years old, and they can’t add up a column of numbers without a calculator. But, it happens. (Interview #2, p. 7)
Mr. Douglas’ statement that ‘‘it happens’’ was a sentiment reflected in the statements of other teachers and indicated a sense of helplessness about how to address students’ low level of achievement. Mr. Owens said, ‘‘I think there is a need for it, but there shouldn’t be’’ (Interview #1, p. 3). In addition to the helplessness that some of the teachers demonstrated, other teachers talked about expanding Math Explorations to include more sections. The department members’ expectations coupled with the restrictive nature of the policies were combined to yield courses that were unlikely to advance students mathematically.
Democratic Notions Informing Equity in Mathematics Education
277
The teachers’ low expectations for students in targeted courses were also influenced by their perception of how much mathematics students needed. Expectations were informed by whether they believed a student would attend college and the role that they perceived mathematics would play in students’ lives beyond high school. The teachers identified thinking logically and solving real-world problems as benefits for taking mathematics. However, real-world applications were typically only associated with students in targeted courses as opposed to students who were taking calculus. Moreover, examples of such applications typically involved purchasing and banking applications and did not include applications in advanced level courses. Such a perspective reflects an education that separates citizens into two groups – one that manages technological problems and one consisting of those who are servile to members of the former group (Skovsmose, 1990). High Achievement The department’s second goal was for students to improve scores on the state standardized test. Only 39% of students met or exceeded the state’s requirements. The department partially attributed this low rate to the fact that many students were not taking any geometry even though such content was included in the exam. The replacement of Extended Algebra by Modified Algebra afforded a significant number of students to take a geometry course. However, since approximately half as many students were taking Pre-Algebra and receiving mathematics credit for it, taking geometry was an increased likelihood for only about half of the population of students enrolled in targeted courses. Additionally, the creation of remedial courses taken prior to Pre-Algebra meant that students were not only unlikely to take geometry, but if they decided to do so it would be completed after taking the state exam. Moreover, remedial courses covered middle and elementary-level mathematical concepts and were unlikely to have a significant impact on students’ achievement on a high school exam. Educated Citizenry The final democratic value examined is an educated citizenry. This value lies at the heart of discussions on the relationship between democracy and mathematics education. Mathematics, as a subject matter, offers students opportunities to critically analyze problems and their place in society. Alternatively, mathematics has been utilized, not for critiquing one’s place in society, but for social stratification. The mathematics learning, and in particular the design of courses in this study, does not prepare students to
278
LECRETIA A. BUCKLEY
critique society or their place in it, a critical characteristic of an educated citizenry. First, the previously discussed notion of privilege and restriction of mathematics learning opportunities to students enrolled in targeted courses counter the democratic aim of an educated citizenry as well. Students’ restricted access to advanced level courses serves to reproduce social stratification by preparing students who are disproportionately students of color for low paying jobs and what Skovsmose (1990) describes as a position of servility. Their mathematics education lacks key geometry content that promotes logical and deductive reasoning and is unlikely to prepare them to take mathematics courses more advanced than algebra or geometry. Yet, in the face of this undesirable position, Secada (1989) requires an even closer look at not only the Modified Geometry course, but also the other courses redesigned in their efforts. Secada asks the question, ‘‘is that which is being distributed worth having?’’ (p. 74). In the context of this department’s efforts and gauging how equitable mathematics education is, one ought to also consider adaptations of Secada’s question. Is it worth having a Modified Geometry course void of content that is deemed a defining feature of mathematics? Is it worth having an algebra course (i.e. Modified Algebra) that does not allow students to examine or learn concepts deeply? And, we must examine our responses to these questions in light of which students are most impacted by the implemented curricular changes. These students have historically been marginalized and filtered out of opportunities. Thus, new efforts, such as those engaged by the department in this study, must be examined in terms of how they perpetuate or put an end to inequities. While this chapter does not concentrate on the instructional methods utilized in the observed courses, procedural and decontextualized knowledge were emphasized. Additionally, having students participate in the same learning experiences in remedial courses (e.g. Math Review) is unlikely to deepen their understanding of concepts. Further work in this department, consequently, must take up instructional strategies or processes in addition to access or inputs as equity is gauged. The current efforts addressed two of the three components of equity – inputs and outcomes. Yet, the resulting course designs were unlikely to advance students in mathematics course taking. The members of the department appeared to accept that mathematics impacts one’s place and level of participation in society. This was evidenced by their responses on why students should take mathematics. The teachers viewed mathematics as a means to develop students’ logical thinking and
Democratic Notions Informing Equity in Mathematics Education
279
problem-solving skills. Teachers asserted that logical thinking was good for all students and would be especially beneficial for students who would take advanced mathematics courses. Yet, their perspectives were limited and did not include applications in advanced-level courses. Rather, real-world applications were restricted to skills employed in completing banking and purchasing transactions. While these skills are required, they are minimal competencies in a highly technological society and do not prepare students for mathematics-, science-, or technology-based majors and careers, subsequently limiting students’ economic and democratic participation. The mathematics education that resulted from the department’s curricular redesign was also unlikely to demystify mathematics or change the face of mathematics. Students were not advancing with respect to the level of mathematics taken and would subsequently not ‘‘come to see that they too can share in the creation of mathematics and hence its ownership, beauty and power’’ (Volmink, 1994, p. 52). Volmink suggests that students might create mathematics. Creating mathematics might make take on two forms. First, students might develop their own understanding of concepts. Second, students might develop new mathematical ideas. While the former is more likely at the high school level, students in the targeted courses were not taking advanced level courses that would prepare them to take advanced studies of mathematics, and eventually create or develop new mathematical ideas since they were being underprepared for college, in general, and advanced mathematics courses, in particular.
CONCLUSION As schools become more diverse and society is becoming more technological, the role of mathematics as a gatekeeper to mathematics- and science-based majors and careers and to economic and democratic participation becomes more critical. Among the efforts to enhance mathematics programs, departments are faced with the persisting achievement gap in mathematics, and must confront the need to reform not only pedagogical practices, but also departmental policies and structures that impact students’ access to advanced mathematics courses. Focusing on department-constructed policies is critical since they impact an entire student body, whereas efforts aimed at pedagogical practices are often geared toward individual teachers. A comprehensive approach that considers policies that govern students’ access, the instruction they receive, and their performance is warranted in order to better understand and reform mathematics education if it is to equip all students to participate
280
LECRETIA A. BUCKLEY
in society. This study reveals insights for departments as they redesign course offerings and provides recommendations for the design and implementation phases of these efforts. The department’s curricular redesign process was plagued by a lack of critical participants. Although the department met often and held discussions on proposed and selected courses, those discussions lacked a voice of critique. Ideas were not challenged and alternative positions were not examined. Rather, members who did not buy into particular changes either sat quietly during meetings or did not persist in their objections. Future efforts would be enhanced by the participation of a critical friend in the process. That critical friend might raise questions that challenge plans and underlying assumptions, encourage the silent contesters to raise their concerns, and facilitate critical debates of the merit of proposed changes. Mathematics education research that advocates empowering students so that they acquire mathematical power and the ability to utilize their mathematical knowledge to understand and change their world is not uncommon. This study suggests that a similar perspective of mathematics teachers might be valuable. How can we empower teachers and collectively, departments, to overcome a sense of helplessness in order to make changes that will create a more equitable learning environment? The teachers in this department clearly demonstrated a sense of helplessness (e.g. in the face of incoming freshmen with mathematics competencies lower than pre-algebra). Yet, their efforts were also influenced by their limited and static view of mathematics. While the teachers were fully aware of the prevailing discourse that champions the utility of mathematics, their own depot of examples was quite limited and often did not extend to examples in upper level mathematics courses. No teacher talked about the usefulness of applications in calculus or trigonometry; rather, balancing a checkbook was the example of choice. Consequently, the teacher’s vision of how mathematics could transform the lives of students through economic access and democratic participation was also limited. Thus, efforts to transform departmental practices are likely to benefit from taking up, in addition to pedagogical practices and policies, teachers’ expectations about students and beliefs about the nature of mathematics. These efforts must move beyond the theoretical and include opportunities for teachers to work with students who have traditionally experienced low achievement on advanced mathematical concepts, engage in mathematical learning opportunities in which mathematics is employed critically to understand and critique society and model real-world situations in interdisciplinary contexts, and ultimately broaden their own view of mathematics from one of a fixed body of knowledge consisting of a set of
Democratic Notions Informing Equity in Mathematics Education
281
procedures employed in routine ways to solve decontextualized problems to a view of mathematics as a discipline that can empower through critical thinking, reasoning, and problem solving. Teachers, as well as students, benefit from mathematical power and a broadened view of mathematics. Continued efforts to increase equity must include empowering activities for teachers if they are to prepare all students to benefit from the pumping function that mathematics has traditionally served for only a select group of society propelling ‘‘those who have been marginalized, disinvited and underrepresented y to come to see that they too can share in the creation of mathematics’’ and the transformation of their world (Volmink, 1994, p. 52).
REFERENCES Beauboeuf-Lafontant, T. (1999). A movement against and beyond boundaries: ‘‘Politically relevant teaching’’ among African American teachers. Teachers College Record, 4, 702–723. Burton, L. (1995). Moving towards a feminist epistemology of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 28, 275–291. Campbell, P. B. (1989). Educational equity and research paradigms. In: W. G. Secada (Ed.), Equity and education (pp. 26–42). New York: Falmer Press. D’Ambrosio, U. (1990). The role of mathematics education in building a democratic and just society. For the Learning of Mathematics, 10(3), 20–23. Edwards, C. A. (1999). Changing the face of mathematics: Perspectives on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. Reston, VA: NCTM. Ernest, P. (1989). The impact of beliefs on the teaching of mathematics. In: P. Ernest (Ed.), Mathematics teaching: The state of the art (pp. 249–254). New York: Falmer Press. Ernest, P. (1998). The culture of the mathematics classroom and the relations between personal and public knowledge: An epistemological perspective. In: F. Seeger, J. Voigt & U. Washcescio (Eds), The culture of the mathematics classroom (pp. 245–268). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ernest, P. (2004). Images of mathematics values and gender: A philosophical perspective. In: B. Allen & S. Johnston-Wilder (Eds), Mathematics education: Exploring the culture of learning (pp. 11–25). London: Routledge Falmer. Frankenstein, M. (1995). Equity in mathematics education: Class in the world outside of class. In: W. G. Secada, E. Fennema & L. B. Adajian (Eds), New directions for equity in mathematics education (pp. 165–190). New York: Cambridge University Press. Gutierrez, R. (1996). Practices, beliefs, and cultures of high school mathematics departments: Understanding their influence on student advancement. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(5), 495–529. Gutierrez, R. (2002). Enabling the practice of mathematics teachers in context: Toward a new equity research agenda. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(2–3), 145–187. Gutstein, E. (2003). Teaching and learning mathematics for social justice in an urban, Latino School. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(1), 37–73. Hankes, J. E., & Fast, G. R. (2002). Changing the face of mathematics: Perspectives on indigenous people of North America. Reston, VA: NCTM.
282
LECRETIA A. BUCKLEY
Hoffer, T. B., Rasinski, K. A., & Moore, W. (1995). Social background and differences in high school mathematics and science course taking and achievement (NCES 95-206). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Irvine, J. J., & York, D. E. (1993). Teacher perspectives: Why do African-American, Hispanic, and Vietnamese students fail? In: S. W. Rothstein (Ed.), Handbook of schooling in urban America (pp. 161–173). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Jacobs, J. E., Becker, J. R., & Gilmer, G. F. (2001). Changing the face of mathematics: Perspectives on gender. Reston, VA: NCTM. Kilpatrick, J., & Gieger, J. L. (2000). The performance of students taking advanced mathematics courses. In: E. A. Silver & P. A. Kenney (Eds), Results from the seventh mathematics assessment of the national assessment of educational progress (pp. 377–409). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Ladson-Billings, G. (2004). Landing on the wrong note: The price we paid for Brown. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 3–13. Lee, V. E., Croninger, R. G., & Smith, J. B. (1997). Course-taking, equity, and mathematics learning: Testing the constrained curriculum hypothesis in U.S. secondary schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 99–121. Lerman, S. (1998). Cultural perspectives on mathematics and mathematics teaching and learning. In: F. Seeger, J. Voigt & U. Waschescio (Eds), The culture of the mathematics classroom (pp. 290–307). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lubienski, S. T. (2002). A closer look at black–white mathematics gaps: Intersections of race and SES in NAEP achievement and instructional practices data. The Journal of Negro Education, 71(4), 269–287. McClure, J. E. (2000). Start where they are: Geometry as an introduction to proof. American Mathematical Monthly, 107(1), 44–52. McKnight, C., Crosswhite, F. J., Dossey, J. A., Kifer, E., Swafford, J. O., Travers, K. J., & Cooney, T. J. (1987). The underachieving curriculum: Assessing U.S. school mathematics from an international perspective. A national report on the Second International Mathematics Study, International Association for the Evaluation of Education Achievement. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company. Miller, M. D., & Linn, R. L. (1988). Invariance of item characteristic functions with variations in instructional change. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25(3), 205–219. Moses, R. P., & Cobb, C. E. (2001). Radical equations: Civil rights from Mississippi to the algebra project (pp. 3–22). Boston: Beacon Press. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Research Committee. (2005). Equity in school mathematics: How can research contribute? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(2), 92–100. National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Nickson, M. (1989). What is multicultural mathematics? In: P. Ernest (Ed.), Mathematics teaching: The state of the art (pp. 236–240). New York: Falmer Press. Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, social class, and tracking on opportunities to learn mathematics and science. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp.
Democratic Notions Informing Equity in Mathematics Education
283
Oakes, J., Wells, A. S., Jones, M., & Datnow, A. (1996). Detracking: The social construction of ability, cultural politics, and resistance to reform. Teachers College Record, 98(3), 482–510. Prawat, R. S. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective. American Journal of Education, 100(3), 354–395. Restivo, S. (1994). The social life of mathematics. In: P. Ernest (Ed.), Mathematics, education, and philosophy: An international perspective (pp. 209–220). Washington, DC: Falmer Press. Reynolds, A. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1992). A structural model of high school mathematics outcomes. Journal of Educational Research, 89(3), 150–158. Secada, W. G. (1989). Educational equity versus equality of education: An alternative conception. In: W. G. Secada (Ed.), Equity in education (pp. 68–88). New York: Falmer Press. Secada, W. G. (1992). Race, ethnicity, social class, language, and achievement in mathematics. In: D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 623–659). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Skovsmose, O. (1990). Mathematical education and democracy. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 109–128. Skovsmose, O. (1994). Towards a philosophy of critical mathematics education. Boston: Kluwer. Skovsmose, O., & Valero, P. (2001). Breaking political neutrality: The critical engagement of mathematics education with democracy. In: B. Atweh, H. Forgasz & B. Nebres (Eds), Sociocultural research on mathematics education: An international perspective (pp. 37–55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Strutchens, M., Johnson, M. L., & Tate, W. F. (Eds) (2000). Changing the faces of mathematics: Perspectives on African Americans. Reston, VA: NCTM. Strutchens, M. E., & Silver, E. A. (2000). NAEP findings regarding race/ethnicity: Students’ performance, school experiences, and attitudes and beliefs. In: E. A. Silver & P. A. Kenney (Eds), Results from the seventh mathematics assessment of the national assessment of educational progress (pp. 45–72). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Tate, W. F. (1994). Race, retrenchment, and the reform of school mathematics. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(6), 477–485. Tate, W. F. (1997). Race-ethnicity, SES, gender, and language proficiency trends in mathematics achievement: An update. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(6), 652–697. Tate, W. F., Ladson-Billings, G., & Grant, C. A. (1993). The Brown decision revisited: Mathematizing social problems. Educational Policy, 7(3), 255–275. Trentacosta, J., & Kenney, M. J. (Eds) (1997). Multicultural and gender equity in the mathematics classroom: The gift of diversity. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. U.S. Department of Education Office of the Secretary, Offiice of Public Affairs. (2003). No child left behind: A parents guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Volmink, J. (1994). Mathematics by all. In: S. Lerman (Ed.), Cultural perspectives on the mathematics classroom (pp. 51–67). The Netherlands: Kluwer. Winfield, L. F. (1993). Investigating test content and curriculum content overlap to assess opportunity to learn. Journal of Negro Education, 62(3), 288–310. Wolcott, H. F. (1988). Ethnographic research in education. In: R. M. Jaeger (Ed.), Complimentary methods for research in education (2nd ed., pp. 187–206). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Woodrow, D. (1997). Democratic education: Does it exist – especially for mathematics education? For the Learning of Mathematics, 17(3), 11–16.
This page intentionally left blank
284
PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE: THE NEW K-12 DESEGREGATION MODEL? Dawn G. Williams ABSTRACT Federal involvement with closing the achievement gap was inspired by the failed local efforts in the 1960s. To aid in closing the achievement gap the federal government has promoted the busing of African American students in sometimes hostile white schools and financially supported educational/social programs such as Head Start. Currently, we are faced with yet another federal effort to close the achievement gap due to the failed attempts by local and state districts. Many school districts across the nation are participating in public school choice programs in response to the choice mandate in No Child Left Behind. The use of school choice, along with testing and accountability measures, is a major mechanism employed by the Bush administration to close the gap. As desegregation has shown, the transfer of students from one facility to a seemingly better facility is not enough. When looking at the majority population served in America’s urban schools, we need to continue to raise the question, how do we best serve the needs of those who are most in need and have been historically and systematically placed in need?
No Child Left Behind and other Federal Programs for Urban School Districts Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 9, 285–298 Copyright r 2006 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(06)09015-9
285
286
DAWN G. WILLIAMS
INTRODUCTION Educational equity has not always been on the American educational policy agenda. Yet, within the past five decades it has been an aggressively growing topic of conversation among policy makers, administrators, educators, concerned citizens, parents and students. Historically, federal involvement to ensure educational equity to the benefit of African Americans has shown to be more promise than progress. With each passing decade the term equity is redefined in accordance with the national political climate. Kirp (1995) describes it best when he writes: The language of equity continues to be deployed by policy makers devising a new national course, state legislators crafting financing formulas, school administrators shaping an institutional mission, teachers designing a classroom environment, parents making decisions about their children’s futures, and even fifth graders judging the fairness of their teacher’s treatment. But so many and so conflicting are the meanings assigned to equity that the concept cannot be used as a yardstick for appraising school reform. (p. 98)
However, the party that has remained in this conversation as the receptor of a disparate unequal education is African Americans. An overarching theme in President George W. Bush’s educational plan, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is one of educational equity, with specific emphasis on closing the achievement gap between minority and white students. Again we are faced with the national equity rhetoric to improve and/ or equalize the education of African American students. The harsh disparities of the achievement gap between African American and white students have plagued the educational system and the larger society since African Americans were permitted to be educated within the public sector. This has been a local and national problem. Federal involvement with closing the gap was inspired by the failed local efforts in the 1960s. To aid in closing the achievement gap, the federal government has promoted the busing of African American students into sometimes hostile white schools and financially supported educational/social programs such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and Head Start. Currently, we are faced with yet another federal effort to close the gap due to the failed attempts by local and state districts. Many school districts across the nation are implementing a public school choice program in response to the choice mandate in NCLB. The use of school choice, along with testing and accountability measures, is a major mechanism employed by the Bush administration to close the achievement gap.
287
Public School Choice
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND On January 8, 2002 President Bush signed into law the most comprehensive legislation addressing educational reform. In the NCLB Act (2001) President George W. Bush states that closing the achievement gap between African American and white students will be a challenge. He admits that even though schools are now desegregated, public education has failed to deliver the promise of a quality education to African Americans. His stated solution is to attack the soft bigotry of low expectations and demand that schools close the achievement gap among African American and white students. The intense focus on testing that the president advocated as governor in Texas has become the model for Title I, the federal program for the education of poor children. President Bush concludes that testing will do much to ‘‘close the achievement gap between the disadvantaged students and their peers’’: Schools must have clear, measurable goals y . Requiring annual state assessments in math and reading in grades 3–8 will ensure that the goals are being met for every child, every year. Annual testing in every grade gives teachers, parents, and policymakers the information they need to ensure that children will reach academic success.
To expose failure and success, test data will be reported by economic background, race and ethnicity, English proficiency, and disability. This is in an effort to hold schools accountable for the academic achievement of all subgroups. Schools that meet or exceed adequate yearly progress (AYP) objectives or close the achievement gap between minority and white students will be eligible for State Academic Achievement Awards. Those who fail to do so, will over time (after two consecutive years), be subject to school improvement, corrective action and restructuring measures aimed at getting them back on course to meet state standards. This component of the law offers parents educational choices for their children. This legislation believes that, ‘‘When all students y are provided high-quality educational options, and when all parents receive enough information to make intelligent choices among these options, public school choice can increase both equity and excellence in education.’’ There are two provisions designed to provide immediate assistance for children in Title I schools that are identified in the school improvement stage. The most controversial and perhaps underutilized component is the choice mandate. Students in a school that fails to meet AYP for two consecutive years can choose to attend another public school in the district that is meeting state standards. If the school does not meet AYP for a third consecutive year, the next
288
DAWN G. WILLIAMS
provision allows for children to receive free tutoring as a supplemental service from a public or private provider that appears on a state approved list. The choice option in NCLB was designed to be an escape from chronically low performing schools for parents and their children. In many instances, these low performing schools are homogenous in ethnic and socio-economic status (SES) background. The choice option is not only viewed as an academic escape, but also a tool for diversifying the student body. Kantor (1996) admits that there is no simple solution to equalizing educational opportunities at the federal level. He contends that the federal programs that began in the 1960s and 1970s coupled with the civil rights movement, has gone a long way toward expanding educational services for economically disadvantaged students. However, the experience of the last three decades has also taught us to temper our expectations about the potential effects of large-scale federal interventions and programs on classroom learning.
THE BROWN DECISION AND ITS PROGENY In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. The Board of Education that racial segregation in public elementary and high schools are unconstitutional in that it violates Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Motley (1996) expresses that the single most enduring effect of the Brown decision and its progeny has been to reverse the public policy of racial segregation that received Supreme Court approval in Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896. The effect of Brown was to re-establish, as a constitutional mandate, the right of every African American to enjoy the same rights, privileges, and immunities, the white persons enjoy under the same conditions. This reversal of national policy has an immediate, convulsive, and permanent effect on our society. This is because race has been the single most divisive issue in our country since its formation. After the Brown ruling, black students, previously prevented from entering white schools in the south, began attending these schools in increasing numbers. The Supreme Court’s opinion in Brown produced significant and positive changes in American society. y The criteria on which the decision was based also broke new ground. The testimony heard by the Court y established that segregated schools attended by blacks were inferior in their facilities and resources to schools attended by white students. In ruling that segregated schools were unequal because they were inferior schools, therefore, the Court opened the way to a much broader conception of equality of educational opportunity, one that stressed the communities’ or the school’s responsibility to make some opportunities available y. The Courts increasingly began to rule the equality of educational opportunity required that black and other minority students should have real rather than merely formal opportunities to attend the same schools as white students. (Hurn, 1993, p. 105)
289
Public School Choice
However, these changes were not sudden and did not come without a struggle. The Brown decision can be thought of as a catalyst for change towards equality of education for African Americans. Brown v. Board of education was supposed to be the beginning of the end of racial segregation. More than 50 years later, most people would argue that desegregation efforts have largely failed (Bennett & LeCompte, 1990; Kozol, 1991; Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Lagemann & Miller, 1996). The gap between the test scores of white and black students, while not as pronounced as before, remains. Black students, along with other ethnic minorities from low-income families, often attend schools that have unpardonable amounts of deferred maintenance and a shortage of both educational materials and teaching staff (Jossey Bass, 2001). Additionally, ‘‘many white Americans believe that legal school integration has ‘solved’ the problem of discrimination in American education. Alas, this is not true. Covert discrimination is now practiced in many American schools’’ (Berliner & Biddle, 1995, p. 230). Even more visible and obvious are the increased amounts of segregated black and white students, particularly in the North. Wells et al. (1996) state that ‘‘many Americans refer to school desegregation as a ‘failed social experiment’ – one that resulted in massive white flight, resegregation within desegregated schools, loss of jobs for African American educators, and a greater sense of alienation among African American youth’’ (p. 91). Kantor (1996) describes that prior to 1960, education was a relatively minor federal policy area. Decision-making by the federal government for local and state districts was modest. However, since 1960, federal policymaking has intensified, federal funding has grown, and federal intervention in local decision-making has become much more frequent. Cumulatively over the past 50 years the federal government’s authority in education has expanded. Now more than ever, the federal government defines the nation’s educational priorities. Currently, the big question is how can the federal government best help equalize educational opportunities for those who have been denied the same. The promoted cure-all response that is being heralded by the federal government and many others is in the form of school choice.
PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE School choice is one such program/educational reform that is being mandated by the federal government in an attempt to provide equal educational services for students. Smith (1995) affirms that choice in and of itself, is not
290
DAWN G. WILLIAMS
an educational reform. Instead, it is an American value, which may explain why it has garnered so much support from so many different people. The debate over choice in American education has a longer history than most would imagine. In America, choice has always been seen as a personal advantage. The amount of money dictates the amount and latitude of choice, both in the public and private sector of education, employment, residence, health, recreation, and even entertainment. Kozol (1991) writes about how this lack of choice automatically creates inequities: But government, of course, does not assign us to our homes, our summer camps, our doctors – or to Exeter. It does assign us to our public schools. Indeed it forces us to go to them. Unless we have the wealth to pay for private education, we are compelled by law to go to public school – and to the public school in our district. Thus the state, by requiring attendance but refusing to require equity, effectively requires inequality. Compulsory inequity, perpetuated by state law, too frequently condemns our children to unequal lives. (p. 56)
School choice attempts to reverse that ideology, by providing choice to all, particularly to low-income families. However, for about 150 years, public schooling looked a lot like what Kozol describes above. In many districts nationwide dual systems of education exist. There are schools serving white students and schools serving black students, within the same district. The schools serving black students, in many cases are operating under fewer and outdated resources. Many of the white schools are just the opposite. The Supreme Court’s decision of Brown v. The Board of Education began the national awareness of inequity in education and led to the development of choice programs. After the Brown ruling, the process to end segregation was extremely slow. In many cases, it took pressure in the form of monetary threats from the federal government to coerce local school districts to comply with the ruling. One year after the Brown ruling, economist Milton Friedman (1962) responded to the new bureaucratic federal rule that came as a result of the Brown decision. Friedman’s universal voucher plan of 1955 sought to minimize the role of government by advocating a market-based school choice approach that would replace public schools with privately run institutions supported by public tax dollars. His plan was the first voucher plan that would transfer public monies to private schools. Friedman supported privatized education and thought that it held superiority over publicly funded schools, in which he viewed as mediocre. He felt that public schools should not be the only schools privy to public funds. He thought that competition worked well in the private sector and would also benefit private schools if they were included as an option for all students to attend. Friedman was
Public School Choice
291
supportive of vouchers for all, not just low-income students. Most present day school choice programs put low-income students in the nucleus of their policies. Viteritti (1999) distinguishes that ‘‘free market economists liked choice for promoting competition in a system of education that was monopolistic in character. Liberals liked it because it provided an escape hatch for impoverished children who had been trapped in failing public schools’’ (p. 56). In the 1970s, liberals such as John Coons and Stephen Sugarman (1978) believed that choice would empower parents, particularly those of low-income, to select schools that would reflect the families’ educational values. Themba (2001) ironically points out that choice was once used to support segregation and white flight and now it is allegedly designed to help black children. She further makes the connection that the conservative support of vouchers is a mechanism to increase funding to private schools. She makes this assertion under interest convergence theory when she proffers that it is not the first time that conservatives have changed their tune in order to advance their interests. The NCLB proposal was first introduced and campaigned to the public with a voucher component. Families would be allowed to choose a public or private school for their child if they were attending a chronically failing school. The part of that proposal was not passed by Congress. Currently Title I money can only be diverted to other public schools or for educational services, such as tutoring. In light of the extensive history of the achievement gap and the disparate educational opportunities offered to African Americans, school choice has been heralded as a viable option, sometimes referred to as a panacea or equalizer. This growing level of support has come from various stakeholders. ‘‘African American and Latino/a parents’ support of choice, at present, is a response to patterns of institutional racism that have denied many of their children meaningful opportunities within the public schools’’ (Margonis and Parker, 1999, p. 205).
CHOICE AND DESEGREGATION In the 1960s freedom of choice plans were used as a desegregation policy in the South. In this plan, a small percentage of blacks were transferred to white schools, while almost no whites were transferred at all (Wells, 1993). This became known as one way busing, a practice that still operates in many choice plans. Wells (1993) candidly describes the realistic existence of past and current day school choice programs.
292
DAWN G. WILLIAMS
School choice programs have been used to desegregate schools, accommodate students’ individual needs, provide parents with greater control over their children’s education, and produce a more competitive educational system. Today, some school choice plans offer parents choices within the boundaries of a single school district; others encompass an entire state and let parents choose among more than 400 districts. Some choice plans ensure an equal chance to choose for all families, whereas others simply offer the promise of choice without any guarantee that quality schools will accept or educate students with limited money or without prior school success. Some school choice plans have broad social goals; others are defined narrowly as cost-saving devices. (pp. 28–29)
The concept of school choice comes in many varieties depending on the state or local school district. However, one variety that the majority of school districts with failing schools have in common, because of NCLB, is public school choice. It is superficial to believe that families, white or black, that live outside of the school’s proximity zone will voluntarily choose for their child to attend a school that is perceived as chronically failing for the sake of diversity. Therefore some schools will experience abandonment. Diversity has not been a desired goal in the affluent white neighborhoods. It is usually something that is slowly forced upon. This has been witnessed in several settings: private industries (Corporate America), country clubs, government, university admissions, and public elementary and secondary schools. The word integration is barely used in current day text on school reform. Rhetorically there have been transformations made with the terminology used to describe the sometimes forced mixing of black and white students in educational settings. Desegregation was the legal term that introduced this concept. Desegregation can be seen as the redistribution or transfer of African American students into settings that are majority white. This is a physical process that does not usually involve efforts to unite students and the faculty. However, integration, which is often confused with desegregation, can be seen as a method of equalizing opportunities and outcomes through the exchange of different cultural ideas, traditions, and values. The new buzz word is diversity. Diversity can be described as different human qualities that from our own and outside the groups to which we belong, but are present in other individuals and groups. With diversity comes varied backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences that helps to create a more global outlook. In just about every district and school’s mission and/ or vision statement, will be the word diversity. Most profess that they are educating students, to prepare them for a diverse society. Although integration was a sought after goal for African Americans it was primarily to have access to the resources that were associated with
Public School Choice
293
success, not to be seated next to white students. However, being seated next to white students would provide a stronger guarantee that African American students would have access to the same. y when black children entered integrated schools, they were met generally by white administrators and teachers who were unprepared to deal with their cognitive styles, social values, beliefs, customs, and traditions. Because of the discontinuity that developed overnight between home and school cultures, these personnel began teaching black children with preconceived notions and stereotypical views about how they functioned. (Edwards, 1996, p. 142)
It is not surprising that today’s school districts are faced with a second generation of desegregation problems. Many of these problems have surfaced because trying to attack racism within the school system was never part of the desegregation package. Simply put, desegregation put African American children in a racist context, hoping that they would learn anyway because, at least, they then could share in the same material benefits of an integrated school.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF SCHOOL CHOICE Overall, choice, regardless of the type, promotes market-based values. Smith (1995) explains the market theory of choice, which is based upon the assumption that market pressures will cause individual schools to improve or close; the end result in either case being a better school system. Persons of color and/or low socioeconomic status have been disadvantaged in the capitalist economy. Undoubtedly, their disadvantages will carry over into a free market system of education. In a true market, competition between winners and losers or at least one product (school) will make one better than the other. Goldhaber (1999) points out that it is important to remember that under certain conditions the free market guarantees efficiency, not equity. Smith ironically states, ‘‘Unfortunately, the students who attend these deteriorating schools receive a less-than equal education during the time in which the market ‘naturally’ works and takes its toll’’ (p. 170). With this theory in place it is difficult to remain true to the often-stated goal of equity. House (1998) reports that in a case study of four schools, the lowest income schools with more minorities lost most students to the point where numbers of classes and teachers were reduced. The lowest SES students remained. To maintain this, the school tried various marketing schemes. Overall, the school struggled to change its image unsuccessfully. The adjacent school, in House’s study, into which numbers of minorities transferred to suffered white flight to yet other schools, thus increasing racial
294
DAWN G. WILLIAMS
segregation. In trying to keep its white population, the school considered ability grouping, which they thought would appeal to white middle class parents. They struggled to restore their old racial balance. The local school with the best reputation quickly filled up, partly as a result of the trends at the other two schools. It became overcrowded. This allowed the school to choose students the school wanted. This school’s main objective was to be competitive with the wealthy suburban schools. The wealthy, high status suburban school saw no advantage in increasing its size. It was over subscribed already by those wanting to attend. It responded by giving preference to local (high SES) students, thus maintaining its old zoning. It offered the same academic program it always had and felt no competitive pressure. This case study brings to light the possible effects of implementing choice across a large district. It shows the underlying values of a market approach and what competition can actually do in this sector. The current trend of the choice mandate in NCLB is showing a very low participation rate. Families are not choosing to transfer their children from low performing schools to higher performing schools at anticipated rates. Those who do choose to transfer are experiencing difficulties in doing so. Enrollment issues are the primary obstacles. It is reported that there is lack of space at the eligible schools in which students can transfer into. The number of transfer requests is significantly higher than the number of acceptances (Brown, 2004). Some scholars (Margonis & Parker, 1995) strongly believe that choice proposals should be considered in light of white economic, political, and social strategies that amount to a policy of containing inner-city people of color, especially African Americans. White middle and upper class have adopted housing, job and schooling mobility strategies that limit large number of inner city people of color to the least desirable housing, job, and school networks. This process/strategy has diminished the educational opportunities of African Americans. Wells (1993) argues that the intelligent evaluation of any school choice program or policy will depend on a clear understanding of the underlying educational goals that it is meant to serve. According to Wells, those various goals seen spanfrom education for the common good, individual fulfillment, a better-trained work force and/or for private profits. As in many districts, neighborhoods are divided among racial and social class lines. Margonis and Parker (1999) report that in choice programs, African American and Latino/a students were more likely than white students to be bused outside of their neighborhoods to achieve integration. Once students of color are in integrated settings they experience second-generation discrimination.
295
Public School Choice
One of the unwritten rules that are sometimes transpired in African American social networks is the treatment of African American students in the potential receiving school. This is not an indicator that is found on the school brochure, on district enrollment software, or even obviously visible during a school tour. However, if a parent is not familiar with the climate of a school building as it relates to the treatment of African American students, there are ways that they can decipher this information. A parent can look at or ask how African American females or males at a given grade-level score on the standardized tests. They can also ask about the suspension rate in that building for African American girls or boys in a given grade level. These inquiries would not only give the parent a synopsis of the racial climate in the building, but it would also make that building principal aware that these are real concerns for the parent and child and it helps to determine the overall academic and social success rate for the child. The choice debate can be summed up into one major concept or school of thought – freedom. For advocates of choice, freedom of choice is the primary value. For opponents of choice, freedom for everyone to be educated in a democratic institution and society is valued. A balance or compromise of these freedom, will seem as a lost battle for both sides. As John Witte (1991) concludes: Proponents of choice stress the primary value of liberty, a more equitable dispersion of that liberty, and pluralistic diversity. Opponents of choice stress equality, an integrated society, and common school traditions. Philosophers have been debating these value differences for thousands of years. It is no wonder that these arguments divide wellintentioned parents, education providers, and policy experts. (p. 9)
CONCLUSION A word of caution is needed for those thinking that the public school choice mandate as depicted in NCLB will potentially serve as the new model for desegregating public schools by race. Families may exercise their choice option at the start of the school year. School personnel may not be prepared to effectively educate the new student body. Instead of hoping for the best, a more proactive approach is needed. This may include professional development workshops to aid administrators, faculty and staff in establishing a positive relationship with students upon their arrival. These types of workshops are usually popular in August and September of the school year. However, while this revival type of in-service may permeate for that first week of school, refreshers are normally necessary once teachers get to meet
296
DAWN G. WILLIAMS
and become familiar with their new students after the school year starts. Therefore another workshop within the school year will add more contextual support to the teachers’ daily contacts with their students. Teachers will often say that they are tired of diversity workshops and that they already know their students. Or the response may be that these workshops are not for us, we are not racist (the preaching to the choir ideology). Diversity workshops are not to alleviate racism (although they sometimes do), they are to educate faculty on the diverse experiences of their student population (which can be race, language and SES). From that knowledge, teachers and administrators can devise ways to best meet the needs of the population that they serve. This includes outreach to community resources and family. Professional development/workshops need to include all building staff, including the principal. If change is going to be effective and stimulating everyone in the building needs to hear the same thing at the same time. It may be even be helpful to have a similar workshop first for principals only to help them provide motivation to their respective building staff in effectively educating students of color. More thought needs to be put in to what kind of people we create through the educational process that we set up. More specifically, what kind of people do we want to create? What are the long-term effects of the actions of adults on children? The educational system has a great impact of the life chances on the consumers (students). These questions go far beyond direct instruction by teachers. It also applies to educational leadership and policy makers. In order for it to be successful, closing the achievement gap has to be a goal that society endorses. It is not just a school issue. The ills of racism are encountered daily in society. As a consequence, it filters into the schools, which is our most public institution. We need to continue to raise the question, how do we best serve the needs of those whom are most in need and have been historically and systematically placed in a position of need? There may be no simple solution to eliminating these disparities. Many of the factors that perpetuate these disparities are outside of the control of any one governmental agency and cannot be addressed solely through strategies directed at, or undertaken by, the public schools, state education agencies, or the federal government. Wells, Holme, Revilla, and Atunda (2004) remind us of the ongoing ambivalence of the responsibility we place on our public schools to solve problems that the schools themselves did not create, even when the school themselves have done their part to perpetuate the problem. In the spirit of Brown, again we are seeing schools assigned the task of solving the problems of poor children with the belief that given
297
Public School Choice
the right incentives or sanctions, educators can close the achievement gap between privileged and disadvantaged students. If there was a collaboration of polices addressing health, economic, social and educational needs to improve the whole child it would create a much greater impact in advancing the welfare of the African American child. But until then, the schools are faced with a great expectation of creating well-rounded productive citizens. It has actually been accomplished in great numbers for white children for centuries. A more extensive outreach will benefit all Americans.
REFERENCES Bennett de, M. K., & LeCompte, M. (1990). The way schools work: A sociological analysis of education. New York: Longman. Berliner, D., & Biddle, B. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud and the attack on America’s public schools. Reading: Perseus Books. Coons, J., & Sugarman, S. (1978). Education by choice. Berkeley: University of California Press. Edwards, P. (1996). Before and after school desegregation African American parents’ involvement in schools. In: M. Shujaa (Ed.), Beyond desegregation: The politics of quality in African American schooling (pp. 138–161). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Goldhaber, D. (1999). School choice: An examination of the empirical evidence on achievement, parental decision making, and equity. Educational Researcher, 28(9), 16–25. House, E. (1998). Schools for sale: Why free market policies won’t improve America’s schools, and what will. New York: Teachers College Press. Hurn, C. (1993). The limits and possibilities of schooling: An introduction to the sociology of education (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Jossey Bass (2001). The Jossey Bass reader on school reform. San Francisco: Wiley. Kantor, H. (1996). Equal opportunity and the federal role in education. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on October 3, 2002. Rethinking Schools online. Available at http://www. rethinkingschools.org/archive/11_02/Kantor.shtml Kirp, D. (1995). Changing conceptions of educational equality. In: D. Ravitch & M. Vinovskis (Eds), Learning from the past: What history teaches us about school reform (pp. 97–112). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York: Harper Perennial. Lagemann, E., & Miller, L. (Eds) (1996). Brown v. Board of Education: The challenges for today’s schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Margonis, F., & Parker, L. (1995). Choice, privatization, and unspoken strategies of containment. Educational Policy, 9(4), 375–403. Margonis, F., & Parker, L. (1999). Choice: The route to community control? Theory Into Practice, 38(4), 203–208. Motley, C. (1996). The legacy of Brown v. the Board of Education. In: E. Lageman & L. Miller (Eds), Brown v. The Board of Education: The challenge of today’s schools (pp. 37–43). New York: Teachers College Press.
298
DAWN G. WILLIAMS
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (2001). The no child left behind act of 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Plessy v. Ferguson. (1896). 163 U.S. 537. Smith, A. (1995). Public school choice and open enrollment: Implications for education, desegregation and equity. Journal of Law and Education, 24(2), 147–194. Themba, M. (2001). ‘Choice’ and other white lies. Rethinking Schools Online. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on October 3, 2002. Available at http://www.rethinkingschools.org/ archive/16_01/Lies161.shtml Viteritti, J. (1999). Choosing equality: School choice, the constitution, and civil society. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Wells, A. (1993). Time to choose: America at the crossroads of school choice policy. New York: Hill and Wang. Wells, A., Holme, J., Revilla, A., & Atunda, A. (2004). How society failed school desegregation policy: Looking past the schools to understand them. Review of Research in Education, 28, 47–100. Wells, A., Winston, J., & Neuborne, B. (1996). Reexamining social science research on school desegregation: Long-versus-short-term effects. In: E. Lageman & L. Miller (Eds), Brown v. The Board of Education: The challenge for today’s schools (pp. 91–106). New York: Teachers College Press. Witte, J. (1991). Educational issues: Public subsidies for private schools – implications for Wisconsin’s reform efforts. Madison: University of Wisconsin Department of Political science and the Robert M. La Follette Institute of Public Affairs.
THE ROLE OF PARENTS UNDER NCLB Richard C. Hunter ABSTRACT Parent involvement is a major component of several school reform initiatives, including the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 commonly referred to as Title I. Parent involvement is also an important provision in the latest reauthorization of the Leave No Child Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, PL 107-110. Important research on parent involvement is presented in this chapter. Also, a brief discussion of the role parent involvement has played in several important school reform initiatives, such as decentralization, community control, and compensatory education are discussed. Finally, specific recommendations are given for school leaders, superintendents, and principals, on how to use parent involvement to help schools and students make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), a requirement of NCLB.
INTRODUCTION Parent involvement has been an important feature of American public education for many years. Norton, Webb, Dlugosh, and Sybouts (1996, p. 108) reminds us that during the Colonial period school administrators No Child Left Behind and other Federal Programs for Urban School Districts Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 9, 299–308 Copyright r 2006 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(06)09016-0
299
300
RICHARD C. HUNTER
were governed by a committee of lay citizens. This provision of parental involvement is now ensconced in legislation creating local and state boards of education, which have made our structure of education different from most industrialized nations (p. 144). Lipham and Fruth (1976, pp. 165–168) indicate that teachers and other school personnel must work very closely with parents. Parents not only visit schools, but also serve as volunteers and participate in decision making and policy making. As a former school principal, I worked with the Parent and Teachers Association (PTA) to improve communication between parents and teachers and to improve a large intermediate school in California. With the assistance of the PTA, we increased the number of parents who volunteered in classrooms and developed a strategic plan for the school. Epstein (2000, p. 1) presents a continuum for parent involvement ranging from low to high levels of involvement, which include: parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision making, and collaborating with community. Parenting is designed to assist families to improve parenting skills and to help them support their children’s educational development. Communicating lets parents know what programs schools offer and how to communicate with teachers about their children’s progress. Volunteering is about recruiting, training, and supporting parents who tutor or give special presentations to students. Learning at home provides opportunities for parents to guide their children’s learning with homework and other learning activities. Decision making is where parents participate on school PTA boards, and serve on school advisory councils and other governance groups. Collaborating with community is where parents coordinate services for families with businesses, agencies, and other groups in the larger community. Tillman (2003a, p. 298) indicates parents want a voice in their children’s education.
DECENTRALIZATION AND COMMUNITY CONTROL There were several models of school administrative decentralization created to increase the voice of parents in their children’s education. Most models were created by boards of education, after receiving pressure from minority parent groups who were concerned about the quality of education their children were receiving. These parents wanted to increase their role in the operations of their schools. Large public school districts, such as Baltimore, Maryland; Detroit, Michigan; Richmond, Virginia, and Washington, DC, decentralized their administrative structures in the late 1960s and early 1970s. They did this by clustering schools into administrative subdistricts. These
The Role of Parents Under NCLB
301
models were created to increase communication and to give parents a greater voice in their children’s education. In the early 1970s, I worked as a regional assistant superintendent in the public schools of Seattle, Washington. In this role, I was responsible for administering schools in Regional One, a decentralized district within Seattle Public School District #1. This subdistrict was created by a legal agreement between the Seattle Public School Board of Education and minority community groups. There was an elected citizen school council called the Central Area School Council (CASC), who met monthly with my administration to improve communication between schools and parents. Because of the CASC, it was necessary to keep up with what was going on in these schools. The CASC was also involved in providing policy guidance to the Seattle Board of Education on Central Area school operations. The most comprehensive example of decentralization was in New York City, the largest public school system in the nation, when the state legislature passed the Decentralization Act of 1969. This legislation created 31 school districts and 31 elected school boards, who were given authority to appoint superintendents and principals. This was more authority than other decentralized school districts enjoyed. Nevertheless, public school administrative decentralization represented a high level of parent involvement and dramatically increased the voice of parents in schools (Murphy & Beck, 1995, p. 127). The most dramatic and controversial system of school administrative decentralization was in the New York Cities’ subdistrict, Ocean HillBrownville, where the community board of parents was dissatisfied with powers given by the New York legislature. They wanted greater involvement and in the spring and fall of 1968 issued dismissal notices to six administrators and 13 teachers. The dismissal of teachers caused the United Federal of Teachers (UFT) to conduct three employee strikes during 1968. Minority parents did not feel that some predominately White principals and teachers of Ocean Hill-Brownsville were concerned with their children’s education (Fantini, Gittell, & Magat, 1970, p. 160; Campbell, Cunningham, Nystrand, & Usdan, 1985, pp. 132–134).
THE CHICAGO EXPERIMENT The Chicago Public School District was faced with dissatisfied minority parents, who now represented the majority of students in the district. They had knowledge of the impact that community control had on New York City. In 1988, the Illinois legislature passed the Chicago School Reform Act.
302
RICHARD C. HUNTER
This legislation included goals for schools and provisions to reallocate financial resources in the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) to local schools. This legislation also created Local School Councils (LRC) in over 400 schools. LRCs were viewed as the primary mechanism to achieve school goals identified in the legislation. The composition of each LRC was: six parents, two community representatives, two teachers, and the principal. Employees of the CPS were ineligible to serve as community representatives on LRCs. Chicago’s Mayor Harold Washington believed giving parents the majority of seats on LRCs would give them a greater voice in their children’s education. Mayor Washington also saw provisions governing the composition of the LRC, as avoiding problems experienced in New York’s decentralized districts, where the teachers union controlled elections of parents for community boards. The LRC was given sweeping responsibilities for schools, including rights to hire and fire principals and approve operating budgets. In the initial years, LRCs dismissed several school principals (Hess, 1991, pp. 106–111). The effort to increase parent voices in their children’s education through elected LRC is still going on today in CPS.
EARLY FEDERAL POLICY AND PARENT INVOLVEMENT President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society initiative included the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which was passed during the ‘‘massive resistance movement’’ to public school desegregation occurring in the southern region of the country. This compensatory education legislation was designed to address deep educational deficits existing in this country for many poor African-American students. This legislation also included requirements for parent involvement (Wirt & Kirst, 1982, p. 200). During the late 1960s, I was the compensatory education consultant in a large California school district with responsibility to operate the Chapter 1 program. In this position, I prepared the district’s application for the Title I program for submission to the State of California. I also coordinated the Advisory Committee, consisting of parents from district Title I schools. Parents were required to approve the Title I application, before it was submitted to the Department of Compensatory Education in the California State Department of Education. Parents also served as Parent Advisory Specialists in Title I schools, where they worked to increase communication between home and school. Later, as principal of a Title I school in the same district, I worked with another program of President Johnson’s ‘‘Great
The Role of Parents Under NCLB
303
Society,’’ the New Careers Program. This program helped train unemployed and underemployed workers with poor backgrounds for new careers as teachers, librarians, and school nurses. The program was administered by the local Model Cities Program, required community participation, and dramatically increased parent involvement in our school.
NCLB REQUIREMENTS FOR PARENT INVOLVEMENT Congress reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which is now referred to the Leave No Child Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, PL 107–110. There are many provisions in this legislation that provide greater control for parents over their children’s education. States are required to present report cards on the status of school district and state student achievement. Parents must also be informed if their child is being taught by teachers who are not ‘‘highly qualified’’ under state-teacher licensing requirements. Schools are also required to involve parents in the school improvement planning process. There are choice options in the law for parents, who can now remove their children from a school labeled as failing or is unsafe (USDOE, 2005, pp. 3–6). These requirements give parents considerable say in what happens with their children’s education.
RESEARCH ON PARENT INVOLVEMENT Why is the government requiring parent involvement in public education under NCLB? According to Tillman (2003b, p. 295), there is a direct link between active participation of parents in their children’s education and educational success, particularly for children in urban school districts. Henderson and Mapp (2002, pp. 7–8) indicate that parent involvement has a profound impact on individual student performance in schools, regardless of family income and background. Research tells us that because of parent involvement students will
score higher on tests and receive higher grades; earn more credits, pass their classes, and be promoted to the next grade; adapt to school, have better social skills, and attendance; and attend post-secondary education after graduating from high school.
Regarding impacts of parent involvement on increasing the ability of schools to offer better education to their children, research indicate parents
304
RICHARD C. HUNTER
have contributed to the following changes in schools:
Upgrading of school facilities Improved school leadership and staffing Higher quality of instructional programs New resources to improve teaching Funding for after-school programs and other parent supports.
Marzano (2000, p. 26) indicates parent involvement is one of eight critical factors contributing to student achievement.
LIMITED PARENT INVOLVEMENT Since, research is so positive on parent involvement in public education, why are parents not directly involved with their children’s schools. There are several reasons: First, many teachers are not committed to including parents in the types of involvements Epstein recommended in this paper. Again, these involvements include: parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision making, and collaborating with community. I was superintendent of the Baltimore (Maryland) Public schools and engaged parents in establishing goals for my administration. This was unpopular with many community educational lobbyists who referred to parents as the ‘‘little people.’’ These groups wanted me to rely on them for advice and direction for the school district. This is why the NCLB legislation, cited in this document, is so specific about how parents must be involved in schools. Also, having worked for several years as a school principal, I can tell you that not every teacher values parent involvement. The lack of interest in parent involvement creates the second reason why parent involvement in public education is not as widespread as the research indicates it should be. Many parents do not feel they are welcome in schools. Some feel teachers talk down to them and do not accept them for who they are. Many parents come from poor family backgrounds and are unable to speak to teachers and other school officials in the manner they would like to (Purkey & Siegal, 2002, p. 32). Third, today many parents work and are unavailable to devote as much time to their children’s education as previous generations were. Schools, particularly those who serve children of the poor, are having difficulty getting parents to volunteer in classrooms or to serve on advisory boards. Also, teachers and other educators indicate parents are just not interested in their children’s education. Parents are being impacted by stresses of a highly industrialized society, witnessing terrorism, and
The Role of Parents Under NCLB
305
experiencing great financial problems in meeting their obligations. Parents are among the working poor and even the middle class and some are working two jobs to meet rapidly escalating costs of housing and energy.
SUPERINTENDENT AND PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP There are several additional requirements of NCLB; one is the annual testing of students on state accountability measures, such as the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT). Student scores on these examinations are disaggregated by subgroups, English proficiency status, race and ethnic group, gender, disabled students, and poor and non-poor students. Results from student assessments for each subgroup are reported to the public in school, district, and state report cards. Parents are also given information regarding their child’s achievement on state annual assessments. Each subgroup, for which test scores have been disaggregated, must meet yearly specific targets or benchmarks. For schools, if all student subgroups meet established benchmarks on state assessments, they have made Adequate Yearly Progress or AYP. If scores, for any subgroup, do not meet expected levels of achievement, schools do not make AYP. There are serious consequences for schools that do not make AYP. They are placed by state departments of education on lists of schools whose student achievement has fallen below expectations. Also, if a school continues not to make AYP, parents have the option of transferring their children to another school. Unfortunately, many schools do not make AYP and are being placed on state lists for poor-performing schools. It is not just schools in urban school districts that are not making AYP, but schools in affluent suburban communities are also not making AYP. This is usually occurring in affluent schools because their minority or disabled students are not making AYP. This condition is proving to be embarrassing for these schools and is forcing them to look at how they are teaching minority and disabled students. You should know that before NCLB required test scores to be disaggregated, mean test scores on students in high achieving suburban schools masked low test scores for many minority and disabled students. NCLB has changed this. Also, students, who are not making AYP, can access tutorial services funded by their school districts. Finally, if schools do not make AYP for a specific number of years, they can be reconstituted by state government. In this case, principals and teachers will be reassigned to other schools within districts (McClure, 2002, pp. 1–2). If we believe the research on parent involvement, then school superintendents and principals should exercise more leadership to get parents
306
RICHARD C. HUNTER
involved in their schools. This is particularly true for parents of students who are not making AYP. There are several leadership strategies school superintendents and principals should use to increase the involvement of parents in schools. They should hire teachers who are interested in community and are willing to engage parents in the educational process. This is important because many teachers do not value parent involvement; in addition to conducting professional development to increase the capacity of teachers and principals on how to use data to improve student achievement, they should also train teachers on how to engage parents in the educational process; provide parent education classes and enhanced communication with schools about programs and services; create programs for parent volunteers and provide learning activities for them to use at home with their children; include parents on district and school committees and facilitate provisions for services with community health authorities to provide, as an example health care for students in schools; provide full-time paid parent involvement coordinators for every school. These persons would be primary advocates for parents and would arrange meetings between schools and parents; provide funds to purchase food for parent meetings, which will increase participation. Also, parents should be encouraged to bring special dishes to potlucks, as part of meetings; reach out to parents of minority and disabled students. Special programs should be created to get parents into schools and to facilitate their being engaged in their children’s education; become advocates for parents in the larger community. This should be done in cooperation with parent involvement coordinators. School districts and schools should identify problems preventing parents from fully participating in their child’s education; acquire funds to increase the number of paid teacher aides and other school and district workers, who are parents of minority and disabled students; conduct meetings, including parent conferences at times to maximize parent participation. Schools should have meetings where students perform or play a central role. Because of this, parents will attend and become more comfortable with schools. Some of these meetings might be held in neighborhood facilities, such as churches and recreation centers;
The Role of Parents Under NCLB
307
create mini-grants to provide funds for teachers to support getting parents involved in their classrooms; establish goals for parent involvement that go beyond traditional parent/ teachers conferences; create special recognition programs for parents to increase participation at meetings, such as picnics, etc.; encourage teachers to make home visitations to meet parents of their students; conduct raffles with donated prizes from local businesses to increase parent participation at school meetings. The businesses will provide televisions and other interesting gifts for school raffles; work with business and industry to provide paid leaves for parents to work with schools on their children’s education; conduct annual customer satisfaction surveys to seek information about the opinions of parents, especially from those who have minority and disabled children in schools, regarding how schools could involve them in their children’s education; take leadership to raise funds when parents are engaged in emergency situations, such as home fires that may destroy the belongings of families of children attending schools; create a list of activities parents can do to assist schools and district with such things as painting school facilities; work with local community colleges and other educational institutions to provide credit for parent education courses and other activities to encourage parents to improve their education; and conduct intergenerational classes involving parents and students on such things as how to use computers to enhance learning and knowledge.
CONCLUSION Parent involvement is very important to schools, particularly for those that are high achieving, except for a small number of minority and disabled students. Today, these schools are experiencing difficulty in making AYP, because of students mentioned above. In the past, these schools have produced high-mean scores on student assessments and did not give minority and disabled students and their parents much consideration. Also, parent involvement is important to urban schools with large numbers of minority students. According to research on parent involvement both types of schools can improve the academic performance of their students and have a better
308
RICHARD C. HUNTER
chance of making AYP. Parents are crucial to their children’s education. Schools and districts should develop comprehensive parent involvement programs to increase their participation not only to make AYP, but more importantly to give parents and their children a greater opportunity to be successful in school and later in life. Finally, N.A.K. Production Associates (1993), which represents the work of James Comer, suggests that good schools do not place all of burden on parents for aligning their values with schools; rather they seek to align schools with the values of the home.
REFERENCES Campbell, R. F., Cunningham, L. L., Nystrand, R. O., & Usdan, M. D. (1985). The organization and control of American schools (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company. Epstein, J. (2000). The six types of involvement. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, The National Network of Partnership School, and The Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships, http://www.csos.jhu.edu/p2000/sixtypes.htm Fantini, M., Gittell, M., & Magat, R. (1970). Community control and the urban school. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers. Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement, an annual synthesis. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Hess, G. A. (1991). School restructuring, Chicago style. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Lipham, J., & Fruth, M. (1976). The principal and individually guided education. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Marzano, R. J. (2000). A new era of school reform: Going where the research takes us. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent for Educational Learning. McClure, P. (2002). The public’s right to know. Baltimore, MD: Education Trust, National Network of Partnership Schools at Johns Hopkins University, http://www.partnershipschools.org Murphy, J., & Beck, L. C. (1995). School-based management as school reform: Taking stock. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. N.A.K. Production Associates and Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (1993). Creating learning communities: The Comer process. Teleconference Coordinators Handbook. N.A.K. Production Associates, Bethesda, MD. Norton, M. S., Webb, L. D., Dlugosh, L. L., & Sybouts, W. (1996). The school superintendency: New responsibilities, new leadership. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Purkey, W. W., & Siegal, B. L. (2002). Becoming an invitational leader. New York, NY: Lighting Source, Inc. Tillman, L. C. (2003). African American parental involvement in urban school reform: Implications for leadership. In: R. Hunter & F. Brown (Eds), Challenges of urban education and efficacy of school reform (pp. 295–312). Oxford, England: Elservier. United States Department of Education (2005). No child left behind act of 2001. Washington, DC, http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act#Provisions Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. (1982). The politics of education: Schools in conflict. Berkeley, CA: McCuthan Publishing Corporation.
EDUCATIONAL EQUITY, GLOBALIZATION AND THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT Frank Brown ABSTRACT This chapter explores the impact of economic globalization on the country, the reduction of tax revenues, and a decline of our education system. The concept of globalization is explained and a concept is explored as how America can become more competitive with a superior public education system. I discuss prior options to improve public education No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act and the 1957 Education Defense Act as ways to improve education for a more diverse society. I provide evidence that the 40 year effort of using an under funded NCLB Project produced less than the Education Defense Act of 1957 because it attracted more and better qualified individuals to the profession. Globalization forces governments to reduce taxes on industries to help retain them in their states or just held home companies remain competitive. Finally, quality education is viewed as not an option but a must if this country wishes to remain competitive in the global economy and retain political stability that may result from social unrest due to a lack of good employment and educational opportunities.
No Child Left Behind and other Federal Programs for Urban School Districts Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 9, 309–319 Copyright r 2006 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(06)09017-2
309
310
FRANK BROWN
How will economic globalization impact the education system in America which requires the reduction of local, federal, and federal taxes to competition globally? Local governments are reducing taxes upon demand by residents who are losing their jobs or having their incomes reduced. The states are reducing their tax base to attract new industries and retain established industries from leaving the states for other states or foreign countries. The Federal government has reduced taxes to simulate the economy. The final result is that there is less money for education and other local services; yet the competition for highly skilled label is increasing. For example, federal tax cuts are squeezing state revenues in tuition rates and interest rates on student loans will increase while Pell Grant funds and federal student-aid programs are rolled back (Byrd, 2004, p. 264). The federal government’s Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA) of 1965 attempted to equalize educational opportunities for at-risk or educationaldisadvantaged students with compensatory education programs through its Title I/Chapter I programs; and continues that progress under the revised ESEA statute now called NCLB. NCLB continues the original Title I program without the fiscal equity component but added required standardized testing of Title I students by subgroups. The tests and subgroups are to be determined by each state for Title I students in public and non-public schools only, but several states test Title I and non-Title I students. It should be noted that 90 percent of all elementary and secondary school children in America attend public funded schools and 10 percent attend private schools. But, because public schools are financed with local and state funds, generally, rich children attend wealthy schools, middle-class parents send their children to moderately funded schools and poor parents send their children to less well-funded schools. It should be noted that Title I funds have always been used in public and private schools, including religious schools. Title I educational programs are conducted in private religious schools by public school employees since 1965. The American Constitution stress equality of education as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) but resources are scare; and will the latest version of ESEA, know as NCLB move the country closer to its goal of equality of educational opportunity and at the same time remain competitive with economic globalization. Under NCLB each state is also allowed to construct its own assessment tests and determine the kind and number of subgroups. The ability of each state to determine the number of Title I schools covered under NCLB; to determine the number of subgroups for comparisons; establish their own assessment instruments make it almost impossible to make national comparisons
Educational Equity, Globalization and the No Child Left Behind Act
311
between states; and therefore, national standards are impossible under these rules established and allowed by NCLB. NCLB requires that low-performing school be provided technical assistance based upon scientific-based research principles and most states provide technical assistance to low-performing schools. It appears unlikely that NCLB is a replacement for Brown in reducing the achievement gap and the rules that allow each state to set its own standards and determine what subgroups will be involved makes it unlikely that national standards will evolve from NCLB; nor is it likely that funding will be available to significantly help the states with declining revenues from taxes. Economic globalization raises the notion that anywhere on earth someone can do your job, more cheaply (Friedman, 2005). Lenin in 1916 reviewed the role of multinational corporations before returning from exile to become the President of Russia (Lenin, 1987). Lenin (1987, pp. 187, 205–213) concluded that with the rise of multinational corporations and banking, workers became subject to financial manipulation through elite control over corporate board of directors and budgets (pp. 205–213). Years later two American sociologists drew similar conclusions (Domhoff, 1983, 2003; Mills, 1956). Corporate profits (surplus capital) are not likely to be used to raise the standards of living of workers because multi-national corporations seek profits not help for employees (Lenin, 1987, 216, 234). With corporate elites in control of the media, universities and politics employees are rarely spoken off; but employees are informed that universal suffrage alone is capable of protecting their welfare, but democracy produces formal equality not real equality (Lenin, 1987, pp. 251, 279, 347). Multinational corporations which use their capital to make a profit anywhere on the globe without regard for their employees who may lose their jobs, or keep their jobs with reduced wages and benefits. Globalization (Friedman, 2005) is more advanced today compared to markets in 1916 and is more crucial today for the average American and funds for education in this new economic battle ground. The U.S. power structure is dominated by corporate elites rooted in the control of multi-national corporations who band together with directors, corporate lawyers, and management consultants/lobbyists to control public opinion and politicians (Domhoff, 2003, pp. 9–10). The non-corporate coalitions have less power and less money to spend on political campaigns than the corporate coalition (Domhoff, 2003, p. 10). Today, American corporate elites appeal to ‘‘patriotism and white pride’’ (Domhoff, 2003, p. 64). Domhoff revisited this ruling corporate elite researched by Lenin in 1917 and drew similar conclusion that the corporate leadership group is the power structure whose members generally do not
312
FRANK BROWN
become politicians but seek to control public officials; but they often get involved in banking, finance, and law. Young members of the elite attend elite private schools from elementary through college (Domhoff, 1983, p. 24). Students are taught a certain mentality and life style. School primarily teaches vocabulary and inflection, styles of dress, aesthetic taste, values and manners for the leadership class (Domhoff, 1983, p. 24). These future leaders of power structure often concentrate in business, finance and law; and later control corporations, board of directors and family investment companies (Domhoff, 1983, pp. 37, 59–60). These corporate leaders shape the opinion processes and politicians (Domhoff, 1983, pp. 83, 126). Economic globalization has raised the ante for quality education around the world for those countries that wish to compete in the modern economy. Economic and political power goes to those countries that can compete in this arena, and not to those who currently control the most arms, wealth, or that hold political dominance over most countries of the world but those who can compete more effectively in the new economy. The concept of globalization is not new; it was induced in 1916 by Lenin (1987). Levin saw globalization as a means by which wealthy western countries could take advantage of poor countries with their capital. For Lenin foreign investments by wealthy western countries was capital imperialism (now referred to as globalization) where developed countries take advantage of their superior capital assets to buy cheap raw material and labor in underdeveloped countries, and the transfer of jobs in developed countries to underdeveloped countries would cause suffering among workers in developed countries. Further, the established media and scholars will not challenge globalization supported by multi-national corporations (Domhoff, 1983, 2003; Fishman, 2005; Lenin, 1987; Mills, 1956). Trade between countries has existed form its earliest form, but in the past improvements in one country mostly help the country making the improvements. For example, the national railroad system and the national highway system benefited American only. But basic technology and the Internet technology developed in America helped countries beyond our borders without the cost of developing these products (Friedman, 2005). Many countries are now in a position to take advantage of this technology such as China and India. For example, China and India plan to move from made in China and India to designed in China and India to dream up in China and India (Friedman, 2005). Globalization has its own language and phases (Friedman, 2005, pp. 35–36). ‘‘Outsourcing’’ is where my software could connect with your software where information could be disaggregated and moved to any place
Educational Equity, Globalization and the No Child Left Behind Act
313
in the world where the work can be done better and cheaper. ‘‘Off-shoring’’ is when I send my whole factory from a city in America to a city in another country. ‘‘Open-sourcing’’ is when the next computer operating system such as Linux is free. Countries outside the United States not only take advantage of technology developed in this country but they come in at the advanced where the cost is low and some is free. ‘‘In-sourcing’’ is where I let a company such as UPS go to another country and take over the entire logistics operation such as filling orders online to delivering goods to repairing products. There is ‘‘supply chaining’’ when an American company such as Wal-Mart sells an item and its replacement is produced in another country. Finally, there is ‘‘informing’’ through the internet search engines such as Google, Yahoo and MSN Search for unlimited data for any country in the world. Where does public education fit in this globalization scheme? We need more financial and political support for education at all levels to compete more effectively in the new world economy. What is the solution for a more competitive America? America needs to think of how to become more competitive in the global economy and the one way sure is to improve education, especially in the mathematics and sciences. The National Science Foundation was established in the late 1950s to produce more scientists and support basic science research, but in the last three decades the country had drifted away from these goals. Bill Gates of Microsoft has established a research center in Beijing, China with all Chinese engineers and scientists; and it is the most productive research team at Microsoft. In most instances, companies outsource because they get cheaper, better-skilled and more productive workers than in America (Friedman, 2005, p. 37). Bill Gates informs us that our schools, in science and mathematics, are near the bottom of all industrialized nations. In 2001, India graduated a million more college students than America; and China graduated twice as many from college as Americans who graduated from college; and China graduated six times more engineers than America. It takes 15 years to produce a quality college graduate if we started today before we may expect to reap the benefits; but we have no choice but to provide more support for our schools and colleges and universities if we are to become more competitive in the global economy. Louis V. Gerstner, Jr. Chair of the Carlyle Group and former chairman of IBM informs us that in the global economy we need to improve our schools; and we are not producing enough quality graduates (Gerstner, 2004). He feels that the education profession is undervalued and under paid. We are losing the skill war and our schools are the true battle ground in the global economy.
314
FRANK BROWN
Economists feel that the developed world, North America and Western Europe, can at best increase productivity to 3–3.5 percent annually while under developed countries with existing technology can achieve at least twice this economic growth rate (Siegel, 2005). America is a fully developed country with an aging population. China, is expected to have 1.5 billion people by the year 2050; and will need to increase its productivity half of that for America and will still double its economic productivity. This situation makes it more important that America invest more in education. Globalization is no time to retreat and reduce funding for education because the new skills needed to operate in this environment requires knowledge and understanding of different cultures and languages (Berger & Huntington, 2002). Current and future business people need skills to communicate across different cultures if they wish to sell their products to other countries. Indeed, being educated for this environment means acquiring the skills to operae effectively across nations, states, and cultures. The new economic world is more diverse in every way – language, cultures, and racialism. Now that good jobs are moving out of the country, we need to produce more good-paying jobs in America to prevent our college graduates from moving out of the country to find employment.
OUTSOURCING OR CONTRACTING OUT? The United States needs to become more productive in education but if we started that process today it would be a decade to see the results. We need more funds for education and more support for families (Kornbluh, 2004). Working American parents have fewer hours to spend with their children than just three decades ago; more families have both parents in the work force. Many families need high-quality child care, quality health care and after-school programs free of charge. These services cost money and may not be forthcoming in the immediate future because of the increased economic competition due to globalization that produces lower-paying jobs; and governments collect less taxes. But, long-range planning is necessary to raise the bar for public education. In the meantime, state and local governments will continue to cut back on funding for education, as jobs are outsourced to other countries; and the new jobs pay less resulting in less tax revenues for state and local governments. School districts may reduce their budgets by outsourcing administrative functions such as accounting and budgeting. Believe it or not there are firms in India that will do your American taxes for a fee and keep your
Educational Equity, Globalization and the No Child Left Behind Act
315
books, and tutor your children via the Internet. If there are companies that can do my taxes and read my X-rays, then they have the talent pool to do school budgets. Many insurance companies outsource their paperwork to firms in other countries and as do American cities. For example, New York City outsource its parking bookkeeping division to a company in central Africa. New York Life Insurance outsource their paperwork to a firm in Scotland. Many government units outsource work to firms in foreign countries; and is generally called contracting out if the work is assigned to an American firm. In education, many foreign firms are tutoring American students and American college students are now more than ever attending colleges in foreign countries where the quality is high and cheaper; and foreign students studying in American colleges and universities have declined over the past five years. Of the five types of globalization techniques, two of these techniques may be coming to our schools. ‘‘Off-shoring’’ may not have an immediate impact on public education where parents send their children abroad to be educated because its cheaper, more efficient, and effective; and technology has not been able to replace teachers and administrators. There has been ‘‘off-shoring’’ of sick patients who go aboard to get expensive medical treatment at a fraction of the cost in America and with great care. ‘‘In-sourcing’’ where we hire outside firms to perform in-house work for the school district. This could include bookkeeping and accounting; and if the firm is in Scotland, face-to-face communication may take place via a video screen and the electronic sharing and transferring of data.
SUMMARY As a result of globalization, we lose jobs which results in less tax revenues for government services, including schools which diminish our capacity to compete as effectively in the global economy (Byrd, 2004, p. 264). Also, federal tax cuts are squeezing state revenues resulting in increased tuition rates; and interest rates on student loans will increase while Pell Grant funds and federal student-aid programs are rolled back (Byrd, 2004, p. 264). This situation may produce a snowball effect by reducing the quality of education; and further eroding our economic base. This situation calls for a national movement to push the United States at all level of government to fund education at a higher level needed to make this country more competitive in the global economy. To do less may result in a greater distance between the haves and the have nots, and produce social unrest. Therefore,
316
FRANK BROWN
the only productive route for all Americans is to work together to provide greater support for public education. First, we need to educate the public that globalization will not disappear and Congress cannot make it go away with another statute due to world agreement through the World Trade Organization and other trade agreements. It is true that India and China send only half as many students to college as the United States, but they still graduate twice as many college graduates as America because each has more than a billion inhabitants. Lenin (1987) wrote in 1916 that because profits can be made through globalization, educating the public about this process will have to be accomplished by those outside of the corporate leadership. We can start this public education process about the impact of globalization on the American economy and public education with educators. Second, we must educate political leaders that education is the new national economic infrastructure. Modern globalization is the new engine that drives other national issues, including the role of education; and educators have a critical role to play in explaining to public about the crucial role of public education in this new environment. Information about globalization and public education is important for the public because 90 years after Lenin wrote his treatise on globalization (which he called capital imperialism) using data on multinational corporations in his time, there has never been a study of this quality on globalization since that 1916 study making his research on multinational corporations a must read for business school officials. America can no longer depend upon securing brain power of students from underdeveloped countries who come to this country to be educated; many are choosing to remain at home. This is particularly true of students from India and China; many students from these countries now attend college at home or go to other countries for their college education. After 9/11 many foreign students consider America to be an unfriendly place and not very democratic. Today, instead of coming to America to attend college and remain here after graduation, many who might have attend our colleges in the past remain at home, leaving this country with a brain drain; and without the billions of dollars foreign students pump into the American economy. Republican Senator Richard Lugar, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee stated recently that since 9/11 ‘‘thousands of legitimate foreign science and engineering students and research scholars who fill U.S. universities and often remain in the country to work are now discouraged from coming to the United States’’ (Lochhead, 2005, p. A3). And ‘‘a lot of students from China, for example, are choosing to remain in China; we are talking about our security (Lochhead, 2005, p. 3).’’ Other countries are recruiting foreign students, particularly China, India, Australia, and
Educational Equity, Globalization and the No Child Left Behind Act
317
Canada. Republican Senator Lamar Alexander and former Secretary of Education suggests that one answer is to ‘‘in-source brain power’’ (Lochhead, 2005). Recruiting brain power from abroad is one possible option for the protection of America’s economic future or it may not be a viable option as other countries become more powerful and more hospitable to foreign students. Thus, the only sure option is to grow our own brainpower by investing more resources in education, and educators should be in the forefront in telling this story. As Senator Lugar stated, we are not talking about how to accommodate foreign students we are talking about a threat to education, the economy, and our security (Lochhead, 2005, p. 5). Globalization forces governments to cut taxes to make American Corporations more competitive abroad, including reducing spending for education; and getting rid of pension programs (Levy, 2006, pp. 1, 3). Most developed countries placed more controls on public corporations such as General Motors and Microsoft by forcing these companies to be more accountable to their shareholders compared to America (Mickletwait & Wooldridge, 2004, p. 306). More than 90% of all corporations in America are public corporations regulated by the federal government through the Securities and Exchange Commission, but their rules are less forceful as in other developed country. For example, France and Germany would not allow Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to earn $50 million per year and receive a $3 million retirement bonus per year. The recent federal Sarbanes–Oxley Act merely improves accounting practices to be supervised by the Securities and Exchange Commission (Mickletwait & Wooldridge, 2004, p. 306). Americans seems to tolerate more inequality, so politicians who call for more taxes on the rich get little support from the rich or the poor, and economic neo-liberalism or ‘‘Freakonomics’’ as popularized by Steven D. Levitt is becoming the mainstream economics in our colleges and universities nationwide (Uchitelle, 2006). To make public education more productive and efficient, Americans must accept the fact that most of the students are racial and ethic minorities and are not likely to come from well-to-do families; and also accept the fact that this is the America of the future. There is no evidence that Title I of NCLB will make the country more competitive in high-skill professions, but may help children near the bottom of the educational system to remain in school and become productive citizens. But to compete at the highest level we may have to return to late 1950s and the 1960s when the country established the National Science Foundation and funded the preparation of mathematics and science teachers of public schools. This is a start that America should give serious consideration and increase the equity component of Title I of
318
FRANK BROWN
NCLB as I recommended earlier (Brown, 1976). Likewise, the country labeled the mathematics and science preparation program as the National Education Defense Act in 1957 but now we need a newer version of this program with increased funding. The National Education Defense Act in 1957 also forgave government education loans to college graduates who taught school in disadvantaged neighbors. The country applied the free-market concept to public education over the past two decades without much success. The most comprehensive and the most recent study of school choice funded by the U.S. Department of Education and conducted by independent investigators concluded that in math students of traditional public schools do significantly better than students in private schools when we control for demographic variables such as social class, race, and ethnicity (Lubienski & Lubienski, 2006; Schemo, 2006). For example, while the raw scores of Catholic schools were higher than those in public schools but lower when control for demographic variables were considered. Among the private, the 5,400 conservative Christian schools performed the worst and the private Lutheran schools performed the best (Schemo, 2006). The researchers used math scores instead of reading scores because math was considered a better measure of schooling effectiveness on students’ academic achievement. We as a country can no longer tolerate average or below-average innovations, we must aim higher if the country is to remain competitive and retain social stability among the people. We can and do ‘‘in-source’’ public school teachers from foreign countries but I am convinced that this will not be a viable option on a large scale. Finally, the federal government should fully fund the NCLB program, recreate the 1957 National Defense Education Act to prepare mathematics and science teachers and provide extra financial support for college graduates who teach in disadvantaged communities. The federal government should provide greater supervision of public corporations and save education from further budget cuts, because our future is in the hands of our young generation; and public education is the single-best avenue to influence the young generation in a positive direction to protect America’s future.
REFERENCES Berger, P. L., & Huntington, S. P. (2002). Many glaciations: Cultural diversity in the contemporary world. New York: Oxford University Press. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Byrd, R. C. (2004). Losing America: Confronting a reckless and arrogant presidency. New York: W. W. Norton.
Educational Equity, Globalization and the No Child Left Behind Act
319
Domhoff, G. W. (1983). Who rules America now? How the ‘‘power elite’’ dominates business, government, and society. New York: A Touch Stone Book/Simon & Schuster. Domhoff, G. W. (2003). Changing the powers that be: How the left can stop losing and win. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Fishman, T. C. (2005). China*INC: How the rise of the next superpower challenges America and the world. NY: Scribner. Friedman, T. L. (2005). It’s a flat world, after all. The New Times Magazine, April 3, pp. 33–37. Gerstner, L. V. Jr. (2004). Bad schools+shackled principals+out. The Wall Street Journal, October 12, p. A20. Lenin, V. I. (1987). Imperialism: The highest form of capitalism. In: H. M. Christman (Ed.), The essential works of Lenin (pp. 178–270). New York: Dover Publications. Levy, C. J. (2006). The new corporate outsourcing. The New York Times, January 29, Section 4, pp. 1, 3. Lochhead, C. (2005). Drop in U.S. student visas by foreigners/decline after 9/11 curbs called threat to education, economy and security. San Francisco Chronicle, April 5, p. A3. Lubienski, C., & Lubienski, S. T. (2006), Charter, private, public schools and academic achievement: New evidence from NAEP mathematics data. National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, and Columbia University. Mickletwait, J., & Wooldridge, A. (2004). The right nation: Conservative power in America. New York: Penguin Books. Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. London: Oxford University Press. Schemo, D. J. (2006). Public-school students score well in math in large scale government study. The New York Times, January 28, p. A10. Siegel, J. J. (2005). The next great wave of growth. The Wall Street Journal, March 23, p. A14. Uchitelle, L. (2006). Students are leaving the politics out of economics. The New York Times, January 27, p. C3.
This page intentionally left blank
320
IMMIGRATION, URBAN SCHOOLS, AND ACCOUNTABILITY Xue Lan Rong ABSTRACT This paper examines the effects of immigration, urban residency, poverty, and race/ethnicity on the education of students in K-12 school. Findings of this study critiques the gaps between NCLB policy and its implementations as well as the outcomes, and makes several recommendations. This chapter recommends multiple standards and assessment approaches for accountability. The author believes that accountability must be addressed along with, equality, and fiscal adequacy. Accountability can work in a pluralistic nation only when diversity is taken into serious consideration. Recognizing this diversity is critical in developing successful strategies and effective approaches for working with immigrant families and students. Education policy for disadvantaged families and communities should not be limited to conventional education policy alone. Socioeconomic policies that benefit lower-income families and communities also should be recognized as educational policies on behalf of children.
INTRODUCTION The unprecedented large number of immigrants with their vast diversity entering the United States during the last two decades has brought a rapid
No Child Left Behind and other Federal Programs for Urban School Districts Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 9, 321–339 Copyright r 2006 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(06)09018-4
321
322
XUE LAN RONG
increase in the enrollment of immigrant students in U.S. schools. Immigrant student subpopulations impose upon district schools many needs that are either similar to or different from the needs of native-born children. Meeting these needs is a severe challenge to schools that also have to comply with the NCLB Act. Heated debates have taken place among educators regarding the outcomes of the NCLB Act and the possible consequences of its implementation. Proponents believe that this law helps U.S. schools improve the overall quality of education. They claim that the achievement gap between white and minority students has been narrowed and that this law has made schooling more equitable. However, its opponents believe that under the NCLB system, the general quality of education is declining and a significant number of students, who are likely to be Latino and African-American, have been driven out of school without graduating (McNeil, 2005). Scholars (Valenzuela, 2005; Velasco, 2005) argue that NCLB relies on a decontexualization model that ignores variations in student population and the complex realities in schools. Enormous initial and persistent inequalities are embodied in the gaps in school resources. As a result, NCLB works against the stated goals of the law, and poor inner-city children are left behind in the educational system.
ACCOUNTABILITY AND ITS IMPACTS ON CHILDREN WITH DISADVANTAGED BACKGROUNDS Proponents claim that the NCLB law promotes equity by holding all public schools accountable, especially those schools that teach poor and neglected minority children (Skrla, Scheurich, & Johnson, 2000). Opponents (Valenzuela, 2005) argue that the Texas-style accountability, exacerbating historic inequities has failed to accommodate the needs and abilities of children with multiple disadvantages, such as Latino English-language learners (ELL). Standardized educational practice with a one-test-fits-all assessment actually creates a new system that disregards children’s personal, social, cultural, and community-based needs. In addition to criticizing the NCLB’s non-responsive nature to immigrant students’ needs, critics have emphasized multiple inequities persistent in high-poverty schools. They have pointed out that high-poverty schools need to teach content knowledge to provide health, nutritional, social, and
Immigration, Urban Schools, and Accountability
323
psychological services to their students. These schools need strong financial support and experienced educators. However, on the contrary, high-poverty schools lack resources (low per-student expenditures as compared to needs) and have high turnover rates, and a larger portion of teachers are novices (Valenzuela, 2005). The NCLB law promised to provide additional resources to these schools, but the law has been unable to deliver its promises. NCLB has not provided the financial resources it promised to the states. Cavanna (2004) points out that, due to lack of financial resources, many district schools have to switch money from other resources to cope with the implementation of NCLB. Velasco (2005) articulates how the NCLB system presents contradictory versions across the nation regarding the administration of the high-stakes test to students with disadvantaged backgrounds and why it poses an assessment dilemma in its implementation. Velasco (2005) states for testing every child regardless of his or her special needs blame the lack of implementation of NCLB on many states. In creating a structure of dual performance systems for advantaged and disadvantaged students, many states or local educational agencies pay inadequate attention and allocate fewer resources to Title I-type schools. Black, Latino, and ELL students are disproportionately and adversely affected by enforcing the state test requirements (Velasco, 2005). This assessment system places the burden of accountability on students themselves and blames the family and community for the adverse effects of poverty and other disadvantages on children’s education. Many ELL students are taught in a uniform way of learning and with a test-driven curriculum. In sum, NCLB performance-based school reform brings about a subtractive approach to the education of students with disadvantaged backgrounds. The reality is (McNeil & Valenzuela, 2000) students fare best under current accountability programs and are those whose homes and communities most closely adhere to the underlying assumptions of the prevailing social construction of accountability (Padilla, 2005). Although the assumptions of the one-test-fits-all assessment system turn a blind eye to numbers-based accountability, it is a social construct of schooling. Since it decontextualizes students and schools in designing assessments and interpreting test results, NCLB has produced further social demotion for those most disadvantaged (Padilla, 2005). If this accountability system continues, without a serious effort to address the underlying causes of school failure (Noguera, 2005), even extreme measures will not produce the higher achievements and better schools that policy makers and the general public seek.
324
XUE LAN RONG
Researchers need to provide updated and upgraded information to educational policy/decision-makers regarding who the students with special needs are and what they really need in order to succeed in school. Educational researchers need to conduct research to explore the interconnectedness of the various factors contributing to students’ success or failure (Debtler & Hafner, 1997). This chapter discusses immigrants and NCLB. Findings from this study should help educators understand the depth and breadth of the social and economic crisis affecting immigrant students’ education.
IMMIGRATION AND URBAN SCHOOLS Increasing Demographic Diversity among ELL Students Immigrant students present two major challenges to educators. One is the schools’ lack of general knowledge about immigrant students, such as their English proficiency, and home language environment (August & Hakuta, 1997). The other challenge is the substantial variation in immigrant student population with respect to certain disadvantaged background. Although these factors are identified as having adverse effects on student classroom learning in general, some educators have speculated that the level of the disadvantages found among immigrant students in high-poverty populations make this student population even more vulnerable in the current performance-based accountability system.
Educational Attainments Most teachers agree that a student whose language background differs from the language of the test and who lacks English fluency will be disadvantaged in taking such a test. Test scores for these students need to be carefully interpreted to avoid inappropriate retention of students in a particular grade level (Ovando & Collier, 1998). These tests may result in mislabeling and excessive grade-level retention among students with limited English proficiency. The culture of measurement sidetracks the thinking part of accountability and brings the full force of the state apparatus to bear on individual students and their school performance (Padilla, 2005). Swanson’s study (2004) finds a strong association between district poverty and graduation rates for the disadvantaged racial/ethnic groups such as black and
Immigration, Urban Schools, and Accountability
325
Latino. Students in these two groups finished high school at rates far lower than their white peers, with the racial gap being about 24 percent nationally. Noguera (2005) reports that the consequences of raising standards and increasing accountability before any serious effort was made to improve. Struggling schools became painfully evident after Massachusetts implemented its first high-stakes exam in 2002. Over 5,000 students who met all requirements but failed the Massachusetts comprehensive assessment of students (MCAS) could not receive high school diplomas. One-third of the students who failed the exam were identified as learning disabled and in need of special education. Another set were students whom the state identified as ELL learners because they had not yet mastered academic English. Finally, the remaining third were students who came from schools with unqualified teachers. These schools were likely located in high-poverty neighborhoods and served large number of students with disadvantaged backgrounds. LaraCinisomo et al. (2004) found that the most critical factors associated with the educational achievement of children appear to be socioeconomic status, including parental education levels (particularly mother’s education), neighborhood, poverty, parental occupational status, and family income. Children in poor neighborhoods are significantly more likely to exhibit both anxious and aggressive behavior, even regardless of parenting behavior (Taylor & Wang, 2002). Zhou (2003) also found that educating social and culturally diverse children is a main issue for urban schools since racial and ethnic minorities as well as immigrants are highly concentrated in metropolitan areas, especially in the central-city areas. The twin goals of high-stakes testing and accountability programs will determine children’s ‘‘decontextualized’’ social construct of education (Alamillo, Palmer, Viramontes, & Garcia, 2005; Padilla, 2005). There is evidence that NCLB accountability system will increase the dropout rates among black and brown immigrant students (Valenzuela, 2005).
THE STUDY Data and Methods This chapter began with a review of research literatures that framed a theoretical construct – a critique of the NCLB policy, and its implementation and ramifications for inner city schools that serve a sizable immigrant and economically disadvantaged children. This study selected related variables available in the 2000 census data for data analyses. Since this chapter is a
326
XUE LAN RONG
segment of a larger study, it focuses on variables identified as statistically significant contributors to immigrant students’ educational attainment using multiple regression models (Rong & Brown, 2006). Approximately, 2.7 million children aged 5–18 were extracted from about 14 million people in the Public Use Microdata – PUMS 5 percent (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2003). This database contains socioeconomic and demographic characteristic records collected from 5 percent of the total population in the United States and approximately 16 percent of all housing units that received the long-form census questionnaires in 2000.
Central City Residency, Race/Ethnicity, Immigration, and Poverty A quick review of the immigrant population in terms of poverty situation, central-city residency, and race/ethnicity will be conducted in this section. The poverty problem has aggravated since 2000 and a higher percentage of the U.S. population has been living at or under the poverty level in 2004 than in 2000 (13.1 vs. 11.3 percent). About 37.2 million people were poor in 2004, 5.6 million more than in 2000. However, there is a much higher percentage of American children who live under the poverty level than the general population. The 2000 census indicates that about 11.3 percent of the entire U.S. population lives in poverty, but about 15 percent of U.S children aged five through eighteen live in poverty and 17.6 percent of children under 18 years old live in poverty (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2005). Being an immigrant, one is more likely to live in poverty than the others. More than one of four immigrant children (27 percent) lived in poverty in 2000, as compared to one of 10 native-born children (10.7 percent), whose families had no recent immigration history. Immigrants more than the nonimmigrants were likely to live in central cities and economically disadvantaged immigrants were more likely to live in central-city areas than the better-off immigrants. While 13 percent of all American children lived in central-city areas, immigrant children were twice as likely to live in centralcity areas than non-immigrants (26 vs. 10.7 percent). Central-city residency also plays a critical role in poverty status; while natives who lived in centralcity areas were more likely to be poor than their richer counterparts who lived in other areas (19.3 vs. 8.5 percent), immigrants who lived in centralcity areas were also more likely to be poor than the immigrants who lived elsewhere (31.8 vs. 16.4 percent). Race and ethnicity also play roles in poverty status and central-city residency locations. Regardless of the immigration status, while 8.8 percent of white children aged five through eighteen
Immigration, Urban Schools, and Accountability
327
lived in poverty, the percentages for other children in the same age range were much higher; 14 percent for Asian children, 26.2 percent for Black children and 30.5 percent for Latino children. Furthermore, the minority children were more likely to live in central-city areas than White children (31 percent for Asian, 32 percent for Latino and 32 percent for Blacks and 18 percent for White children). Table 1 shows a clear pattern of the interplay of central-city residency, immigration and race/ethnicity with poverty status. Table 1 shows the compounding effects of poverty, race/ethnicity, and immigration on central-city residency. There is a clear pattern that children who live in the central city, regardless of being immigrants or not, were likely to be poor moreover, immigrant minority children who lived in central-city areas were more likely to be poorer than immigrant children who lived elsewhere. There are also discrepancies in this general pattern of poverty and central-city residency derived from race and ethnicity. By far, more Latino immigrant children lived in poverty than other children, regardless of the types of residency. Latino immigrant children who lived in central cities had a 50 percent greater chance to live in poverty than White children. The largest gap in poverty rates by types of residency that we found was among Asian immigrants. Asian children who lived in central-city areas were twice as likely to live in poverty than Asian children who lived in the other areas (30.3 vs. 15.8 percent). The poverty gaps by central city residency for White and Latino children were substantial but smaller (25.8 vs. 16.7 percent for White children and 38.3 vs. 31.7 percent for Latino children). Among the immigrant Black children the gap is minimum (27 vs. 25.9 percent). Inner-city areas not only host the largest proportion of the poorest immigrant children, they also host the largest proportion of the poorest nativeborn children. Table 1 also shows the poverty gaps by central city residency for native children whose families have no recent immigration history; however, variations exist among the racial/ethnic groups. White and Asian children who lived in areas other than central cities were less likely to live in poverty than Black and Latino children. Although the pattern of poverty related to central-city residency is clear and persistent, this pattern is more substantial for Latino children than for other children. One of three Latino children who lived in central-city areas lived in poverty, as compared to one of five Latino children who lived in other areas living in poverty. The gaps of poverty rates by central-city residency are smaller and vary for Asian children (13.7 vs. 10.9 percent) and White children (9.3 vs. 8.7 percent). For Black children, although the poverty rate is high in general, the gap between children who lived in central cities and children who lived elsewhere is moderate (35.9 vs. 29.9 percent).
328
Table 1.
U.S. Children’s Poverty Statusa (in Percentage) by Race/Ethnicity/Country of Origin, Immigration Status, and Residency in Central City in 2000. At or Below Poverty Levela
All
More Affluent than 75% of the Population
Nativesb
Immigrants
Nativesb
Immigrants
Central City Other Areas Central City Other Areas Central City Other Areas Central City Other Areas All White Black Hispanicc Asian
14.8 8.8 26.2 30.5 14.0
33.1 25.8 27.0 38.3 30.3
25.0 16.7 25.9 31.7 15.8
24.5 9.3 35.9 33.3 13.7
12.2 8.7 29.9 20.9 10.9
6.8 14.5 7.1 3.1 8.9
12.0 25.9 8.9 4.3 20.6
15.0 27.6 5.8 7.2 25.4
19.6 22.0 8.2 11.3 27.0
35.3 30.0
2.1 30.6
2.2 21.0
25.2 2.1
20.2 4.1
9.0 22.2
11.3 8.8
Poverty status for selected groups Mexican 26.9 Southeast Asian 26.7
41.2 49.3
XUE LAN RONG
Note: Percentage is not rounded as 100 percent due to the exclusion of the other racial/ethnic groups without major immigration history. The number for third- and higher-generation Cambodian, Laotian, and Hmong is too small to generate any meaningful description. a Census poverty index from 1 to 500 with people at 100 or lower defined at or below poverty level. People at 500 of the poverty index are better off economically than 75 percent of the U.S. population. Since the poverty index takes the number of family members into consideration and focuses its attention on the lower economic stratum of the population, the author decided to use the poverty index instead of the total family income. For details of the definition and the formula for the calculation, see Census publication (2003). b Native children are defined as U.S.-born children with two U.S.-born parents. These are third- or higher- generation children whose families do not have a recent immigration history. c The term ‘‘Hispanic’’ is used to adopt the Census definition, can also be called Latina/o.
Immigration, Urban Schools, and Accountability
329
In summary, the combined effects of immigration status, race/ethnicity, and central-city residency on the poverty rates varied greatly among children. Immigrant latino children who lived in a central-city area had 350 percent greater chance to live in poverty than white immigrant children who lived elsewhere. Using data from another demographic project that analyzed data by nationality groups, I found the variable poverty rates by race/ethnicity to be even more striking; One of two Southeast Asian immigrant children who lived in central cities lived in poverty, including 52 percent of Laotian children, 54 percent of Cambodian children, and 65.4 percent of Hmong children. These are among the highest inner city poverty rates of nationality groups and also among the most recently arrived immigrant groups.
Central City Residency, Poverty, and Children’s Lives Next, I will explore how inner-city locations and poverty have adversely affected many aspects of children’s lives. Table 2 shows that inner-city immigrant children who are in poverty are less likely than other children to live in a household with two parents (66.8 vs. 72.8 percent) and they are more likely to live without a father (26.1 vs. 21.1 percent). They are less likely to have parent(s) with a college education (8.6 vs. 10 percent). Inner city immigrant children are twice as likely to report physical disability than other children (6.1 vs. 3 percent). With regard to immigration-related variables such as the percentage of children who live in linguistically isolated households, the percentage of children who do not speak English very well or the percentage of children who speak a language other than English, etc., central-city residency does not make a substantial difference. There is no noticeable self-reported gap in English proficiency between the immigrants who live in the inner city or immigrants who live elsewhere. Instead, poverty leaves deeper marks on all aspects of children’s lives than the residential location. Inner-city immigrant children whose family economic status is in the top income box (family income at the poverty index 500 level, i.e., family income is higher than the rest of the 75 percent of American families) are more likely to live with two parents than immigrant children in poverty (86.1 vs. 66.8 percent), and much less likely to live without a father (4 vs. 20.4 percent), and much more likely to have parent(s) with a college education (57.5 vs. 8.6 percent). Race and ethnicity also play roles. Black immigrant children, regardless of their residency, are much less likely to live with two parents than are other
330
XUE LAN RONG
Table 2. Selected Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Population 5–18 Year Old by Race/Ethnicity, Poverty Level, Central City Residency and Immigration Status, 2000. At or Below Poverty Levela Immigrants Central City
Other Areas
More Affluent than 75% of the Population
Natives Central City
b
Immigrants
Other Areas
Nativesb
Central City
Other Areas
Central City
Other Areas
86.1 92.2 82.6 67.1 88.6
91.9 93.8 86.9 83.5 93.4
85.2 89.6 80.2 67.9 85.6
91.9 92.9 86.8 78.8 87.5
% of children who live with two parents in each subcategory All White Hispanic Black Asian
66.8 78.1 62.7 43.3 79.9
72.5 78.6 73.4 43.3 75.4
17.1 32.9 20.6 11.9 21.7
34.0 43.6 29.2 16.6 30.7
% of children who live with parent (household head) without completion of eight-year education All White Hispanic Black Asian
20.4 6.6 21.7 11.4 28.6
21.3 6.3 25.9 9.0 17.5
2.2 1.2 5.4 2.4 1.0
1.6 0.9 3.9 3.0 1.8
4.0 1.3 11.8 1.7 2.3
2.1 0.4 8.8 0.4 0.9
0.2 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.0
0.1 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.2
% of children in sample in each U.S. residential generation reported physical disabilities (one or multiple limitations(s) in mobility and personal care, also including hearing, vision, and speech impairment, etc.) All White Hispanic Black Asian
6.1 5.2 6.7 5.6 5.4
5.4 3.6 5.8 6.3 4.9
6.3 5.9 7.5 6.1 3.4
5.0 4.7 5.3 5.6 4.8
5.3 4.9 8.1 6.1 4.8
2.9 2.0 5.4 4.0 2.5
2.0 1.6 2.7 3.4 1.3
1.7 2.6 2.1 3.0 1.8
% of children who live in linguistically isolated households (households in which language(s) other than english were spoken and no person 14 or older who can speak english ‘‘very well’’) All White Hispanic Black Asian
47.3 51.0 50.4 20.7 47.3
48.0 46.3 51.4 24.9 43.6
3.2 0.9 14.0 0.2 6.4
1.5 0.7 8.8 0.2 1.9
17.0 13.6 29.4 4.3 16.6
12.7 7.8 19.9 3.4 15.0
0.3 0.1 2.9 0.2 0.4
0.1 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.3
20.7 15.7 31.6 8.2 22.6
14.9 9.4 23.5 8.2 16.9
1.8 1.0 8.7 2.1 2.2
1.1 0.9 5.1 1.5 1.2
% of children who reported cannot speaking english ‘‘very well’’ All White Hispanic Black Asian a
46.8 43.3 47.9 23.7 54.7
See Table 1. See Table 1.
b
46.6 42.6 48.4 30.1 48.2
5.2 3.2 19.4 1.0 5.1
2.8 1.6 13.1 0.8 4.2
Immigration, Urban Schools, and Accountability
331
immigrant children. Hispanic and Asian immigrant children in poverty and living in inner-city areas are more likely to have parents who did not complete 8 years of schooling (21.7 and 28.6 percent) than the white and black children (6.6 and 11.4 percent). Inner-city, white, immigrant children who live in poverty reported the highest percentage of living in linguistically isolated households (51 percent) than other children, and Asian inner-city immigrant children reported the highest percentage (50.4%) of children who did not speak English very well. Table 2 reveals a bleak picture – a lack of resources affecting many aspects of poor children’s lives. However, until the potential impact of the concentration of poverty on the native-born population is taken into consideration, we might not realize the severity of the lack of resources in inner city areas. As reported earlier, central-city areas not only host the poorer immigrant population, they also host the largest proportion of the poorest native residents. When looking at the extent of the disintegration of the family for the poorest, 72.8 percent of all American children lived in families with two children, but only 17 percent of inner-city native children in poverty lived with two parents, as compared to 34 percent of the poor native children who lived elsewhere and 92.9 percent of affluent children who lived elsewhere. The numbers are even more striking when you take race/ethnicity/ nationality into consideration; only 12 percent of economically disadvantaged Black native children who live in the inner city live with two parents; the percentage of those living with two parents among affluent Black children who live in the areas other than the inner city is about 79 percent, and for White children, that rate is about 92 percent. There is also the joint effect of poverty and immigration. Native-born Hispanic children who live in inner cities and in poverty are more than 10 times as likely to have parents without 8 years of education than native-born Hispanic children who lived in areas other than the inner city (5.4 vs. 0.4 percent). However, the immigrant, inner-city, poor Asian and Hispanic children have the highest percentage of parents without 8 years of education; more than one out of four Asian children and one out of five Hispanic children who live in poverty with parents who had less than 8-year schooling. This percentage is four times greater for the inner city, Hispanic children who were not immigrants, regardless of their residency location (21.7 vs. 5.4 and 3.9 percent, respectively). However, for almost 26 percent of Hispanic immigrant children who were poor and lived in areas other than inner cities have parents with less than eight years of education. Table 2 also indicates that these more affluent central-city immigrant children are three times less likely to have physical disabilities than their counterparts.
332
XUE LAN RONG
With regard to their immigration-related attributes, inner-city immigrant children who live in poverty are almost three times as likely to live in a linguistically isolated household than affluent, central-city immigrant children, and four times more likely than the affluent immigrant children who live elsewhere. The same pattern persists for the percentage of children who do not speak English very well: 47 percent of the inner-city poor, immigrant children, including 55 percent of Asian children, 48 percent of Hispanic children, and 43 percent of White children, who reported do not possess English proficiency, but only 21 percent reported the same problem from the affluent, inner-city children. Furthermore, only 15 percent of the affluent, immigrant children who live in areas other than a central city reported the same problem.
Inner City Residency, Poverty, and Education of Immigrant Children The study reveals the joint effect of inner city residency, immigration status, race/ethnicity, and poverty on children’s education. Three indicators – types of school in which enrolled, percentage of children ages 5–16 who were not enrolled in schools, and dropout rates for youths aged sixteen through eighteen, were used to measure the resources for education as well as educational attainments. Table 3 indicates the relationship between inner city residency, poverty, immigration status, and types of schools children attended. Inner-city children were more likely than other children to enroll in public schools. While almost 11 percent of all children were enrolled in private schools, less than 4 percent of inner-city immigrant children in poverty were enrolled in private schools. Approximately 18 percent of children who were affluent and lived in locations other than the inner city enrolled in private schools. However, the affluent children who lived in inner cities (26 percent) were more likely to attend private schools than children lived in other areas. Furthermore, Table 3 also indicates that the affluent inner city native-born children were many times likely to attend private schools than their counterparts who were in poverty. White native children had the highest percentage attending private school – 40 percent, three times the percentage of economically disadvantaged inner city white immigrant children. The gaps of private school attendance between poor inner city immigrant children and their more affluent inner city counterparts are astonishing within each of the race/ethnicity/nationality groups. These findings, in a way, is an evidence that inner-city schools are more likely to serve poor children.
333
Immigration, Urban Schools, and Accountability
Table 3. Educational Characteristics and Attainment of U.S. Population 5–18 Year Old by Race/Ethnicity, Poverty Level, Central City Residency and Immigration Status, 2000. All Children
Immigrant Living in Central
Nativesa Living in Central
City and in Poverty
City and Affluenta
% of children (5–16 years old) who attended private schools All White Asian Caribbean Mexican Southeast Asian
11.2 13.3 13.5 11.0 4.7
4.2 13.0 5.6 4.2 1.6
36.7 40.0 32.6 38.2 25.1
All Children
Immigrant Living in Central
Nativesa Living in Non-Central
City and in Poverty
City Areas and Affluenta
% of children (5–16 years old) who did not attend any school All White Asian Caribbean Mexican Southeast Asian
2.4 2.3 2.2 2.0 3.2 2.7
4.2 3.6 2.9 5.0 5.0 1.4
1.4 1.4 1.1 0.0 1.8 NAb
All Children
Immigrant Living in Central
Nativesb Lliving in Non-Central
City and in Poverty
City Areas and Affluenta
% of children (16–18 years old) who were not high school graduates but did not attend school All White Asian Caribbean Mexican Southeast Asian
7.1 6.2 3.3 4.9 12.3 6.0
11.7 6.4 7.3 6.3 19.5 4.4
2.2 2.2 1.5 3.9 3.6 NAb
a
See description in Table 1. Number is too small for the third plus generation Southeast Asians to generate reliable descriptive statistics.
b
With regard to school enrollment for children aged five through sixteen, a mandatory school enrollment age for children in most states in the United States, immigrant children who live in inner city areas and in poverty were more likely not to enroll in school than children in general across all
334
XUE LAN RONG
race/ethnic groups, and they are several times more likely not to enroll in school than more affluent children who live in places other than inner cities (4.2 vs. 1.4 percent, respectively). Mexican children who live in the inner city by far have the highest rate (5 percent) of non-enrollment in school. Finally, we can discuss the school dropout rates among youths aged 16–18. While 7.1 percent of all children who were not high school graduates but did not enroll in school in 2000, the percentage for immigrant children who lived in the inner city and in poverty were almost 12 percent, compared to 2.2 percent of dropout rates among affluent children who did not live in the inner city. However, the compounding effects of inner city residency, poverty, and immigration status on school dropout rates vary with race/ ethnicity. Almost 20 percent of inner-city Mexican immigrant children between the ages of 16 and 18 who lived in poverty were school dropouts, but only 4.4 percent of Southeast Asian children in the same subcategory were school dropouts. The dropout rate for inner-city Hispanic male youths who lived in poverty was almost one in four. However, we need to be aware of the fact that census data have been challenged for its undercounting some subpopulations, such as minority, immigrants, and inner city residents. The dropout rates used here are based on census data and these rates may be lower than the rates from many other national databases.
CONCLUSION In summary, from the data presented so far, it is clear that the challenges for inner city schools are multi-dimensional and multifarious due to the fact of insufficient resources in inner-city students, families and communities, as compared to the student population living in other places. The census data clearly show that immigrant and minority populations are more likely to live in the inner city than the native-born and White population. Immigrants and minorities in general are poorer than the native-born White population without a current immigration history. Furthermore, while the inner-city areas host the largest proportion of poor immigrants, they also host the largest proportion of the poorest native population. Due to the combination of these three factors, the majority of children served by the inner-city schools are likely to live under the poverty level, to be less healthy, and to live in families with fewer resources (oneparent families, low parental education, etc.). Furthermore, the immigrant children in poverty, regardless of where they live, are much more likely to live in linguistically isolated households and are more likely to have
Immigration, Urban Schools, and Accountability
335
difficulties in speaking English. As a result of these less desirable conditions, inner-city immigrant children in poverty are more likely not to enroll in school and to drop out from school than are children in the general population, especially affluent children who live in places other than innercity areas. Therefore, schools located in areas with a high population concentration of minorities and/or immigrants who live in poverty not only need to teach their students knowledge and academic skills, but also need to provide services other than academics, such as service in the health, psychological, social, and crime prevention, and personal safety awareness areas. With many additional demands on these schools and very limited resources, the federal and state governments need to take extreme measures to support these urban schools and make specific and different assessment systems for evaluating them and their students. Based upon the findings of this study I make three recommendations. First, policy makers must recognize the differences among children in the context of their lives and the school environment and understand that children’s educational difficulties are largely a result of this context. Meaningful, workable, and fair assessment policies should accommodate children’s needs and their learning approaches; and not by attributing societal problems to children and blaming them for factors over which they have little control. The diverse traits of immigrant groups should be identified and taken into consideration when developing assessment instruments. Second, since highpoverty schools provide many services unrelated to academic activities, teaching a child as a ‘‘whole person’’ is as important as teaching him or her content subjects. An additive model is more effective and than a reductionist model to help children in high-poverty schools succeed (Valenzuela, 1999). Educators and policy makers should be children’s advocates, finding ways to generate more resources and promoting progressive social and educational policies. Finally, in order to identify immigrant students’ problems and the government should make necessary changes; and also allocate resources to support data collection and accountability-related researches.
Rethinking the Assessment Instrument Since the standardized test has a lasting and overwhelming impact on immigrant children’s schooling and their future, using several criteria to assess children’s cognitive abilities and potential. Schools should use alternative approach of assessment based on both authentic assessment and multiple compensatory criteria. The assessment system should take into account
336
XUE LAN RONG
local factors, the context of the children and the school (Padilla, 2005). Considering immigrant students’ diversity does not mean abandoning standards but the acceptance of the notion that all learning is not reducible to a single one-size-fits-all package. Accountability with localism should provide a more constructive basis for the assessment of student progress, effectiveness schools, and the identification of community goals and priorities.
Adopting an Additive Whole-Child Approach Education assessment policy should provide variable responses to various traits of the student subpopulation. The additive whole-child assessment approach recognizes the strengths in children and their families and communities. Incorporating ELL children’s strengths, including their transnational/transcultural knowledge, linguistic abilities, and life experience, into the development of school curriculum and teaching strategies can better help children’s learning in a constructivist approach and meanwhile provide children with an empowering sense of how their lives can connect productively to the world that they inhabit (Rong, 2006; Valenzuela, 2005). Immigrant communities in inner cities have their strengths. Immigrant families who live in poverty are more likely to be disintegrated than their counterparts who are affluent; the extent of the family disintegration is much lower than that of the native poor. In regard to teaching, whole-child educators should consider all aspects a child’s life into consideration. Education policies for high-poverty schools, from kindergarten to university, must be coordinated with family and welfare policies – a complex but critical interplay that is often ignored by policy makers. Programs that improve the home literacy environment as well as parenting skills are likely to improve children’s school behaviors and their achievements (Lara-Cinisomo et al., 2004). Accountability should support school reform, teacher retraining, health, psychological, and social services (Phillion, 1999).
Being Children’s Advocates to Ensure Resources in Reciprocal Accountabilities Educators should act as children’s advocates to promote social and educational policies responding to the structural inequality and require
Immigration, Urban Schools, and Accountability
337
government at all levels to act affirmatively to promote social changes and provide opportunities, especially the disadvantaged minorities (Nieto, 1995). Improving children’s living conditions, health and educating families, should be part of the districts’ educational policy. Allocating resources for high-poverty schools and their students should always be a priority for government, especially in the current climate of the NCLB act. Educational accountability should be reciprocal (Velasco, 2005). An effective accountability in public schools requires more than a sole set of high standards for students and teachers. Federal, state and district leaders – and by extension, the communities they represent – must be held accountable for providing students with adequate resources as well as learning conditions and opportunities to meet high standards for learning. Schools should be provided adequate resources to meet new standards, including appropriately trained teachers for all classrooms, and campus administrators who have the knowledge and skills to promote teaching and learning of the highest quality. However, because resources are limited, it is important to provide more resources for children who need them the most (Lara-Cinisomo et al., 2004). Considering improvement in children’s learning in high-poverty schools in terms of the NCLB, educators may need to borrow ideas from other solutions that are claimed to be workable. Rumberger (2004) recommends systemic solutions that respond effectively to student needs by improving certain environmental factors: Families, schools, and communities high dropout behavior. This system involves other primary institutional services such as health, crime prevention, employment, and vocational training. This approach helps schools to develop beneficial relationships with parents and the community. School leaders have also formed a number of partnerships with community agencies. This solution requires a commitment of resources sufficient to substantially improve the lives of children and families. There should be federal efforts to help state and local educators improve ELL students’ learning over the long term by providing funding for state and local school districts to collect critical data and to support emerging research. Data-driven reform may be the linchpin of a sound accountability system (Velasco, 2005). There is a growing need for data collection on specific traits of students in ELL student subpopulations that help schools identify the subgroups and their different needs, such as national origins and the home language, the prior schooling literacy and previous education in the home country, the years in the United States and age at immigration.
338
XUE LAN RONG
REFERENCES Alamillo, L., Palmer, Viramontes, C., & Garcia, E. E. (2005). California’s English-only policies: An analysis of initial effects. In: A. Valenzuela (Ed.), Leaving children behind: How ‘‘Texas-style’’ accountability fails Latino youth (pp. 201–224). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds) (1997). Improving schooling for language minority children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Cavanna, A. P. (2004). Book review on many children left behind: How the no child left behind act is damaging our children and our schools. Teachers College Record, 107(7), 1522–1526, 2005. http://www.tcrecord.org, ID number: 11805. Debtler, R., & Hafner, A. (1997). Hosting newcomers: Structuring educational opportunities for immigrant children. New York: Teachers College Press. Lara-Cinisomo, S., Pebley, A. R., Variana, M. E., Maggio, E., Berends, M., & Lucas, S. R. (2004). A matter of class. Rand Review, 28(3), 10–15. McNeil, L. M. (2005). Faking equity: High-states testing and the education of Latino youth. In: A. Valenzuela (Ed.), Leaving children behind: How ‘‘Texas-style’’ accountability fails Latino youth (pp. 57–111). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. McNeil, L. M., & Valenzuela, A. (2000). The harmful impact of the TAAS system of testing in Texas: Beneath the accountability rhetoric. In: M. Kornhaber & G. Orfield (Eds), Raising standards or raising barriers; Inequality and high-states testing in public education (pp. 127–150). New York City: The Century Foundation. Nieto, S. (1995). From brown heroes and holidays to assimilationist agendas: Reconsidering the critiques of multicultural education. In: C. E. Sleeter & P. L. Mclaren (Eds), Multicultural education, critical pedagogy, and politics of difference (pp. 191–220). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Noguera, P. (2005). It takes more than pressure to help struggling schools. Teachers College Record. Date Published: May 16, 2005. http://www.tcrecord.org, ID number: 11872. Ovando, J., & Collier, V. P. (1998). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in multicultural contexts (2nd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Padilla, R. V. (2005). High-stakes testing and educational accountability as social constructions across cultures. In: A. Valenzuela (Ed.), Leaving children behind: How ‘‘Texas-style’’ accountability fails Latino youth (pp. 249–262). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Phillion, J. (1999). Hosting newcomers: Structuring educational opportunities for immigrant children. Teachers College Record, 100(4), 898–899. http://www.tcrecord.org, ID number: 10349. Rong, X. L. (2006). History of immigration and education. In: E. Fenwick (Ed.), Sage encyclopedia of educational leadership and administration (pp. 295–501). Sage Publishing. Rong, X. L., & Brown, F. (2006). Educational attainment of immigrant and non-immigrant young Blacks. In: S. Paik & H. Walberg (Eds), Minority children and youth: Schools, families, communities, and learning. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Rumberger, R. W. (2004). What can be done to reduce the dropout rate? In: G. Orfield (Ed.), Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis (pp. 243–268). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Immigration, Urban Schools, and Accountability
339
Skrla, L., Scheurich, J., & Johnson, J. (2000). Equity-driven achievement-focused school districts: A report on systemic school success in four Texas school districts serving diverse student populations. Austin, TX: Charles A. Dana Center. Swanson, C. B. (2004). Sketching a portrait of public high school graduation: Who graduates? Who does not? In: G. Orfield (Ed.), Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis (pp. 13–40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Taylor, R. D., & Wang, M. C. (Eds) (2002). Resilience across contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2003). 2000 Census of population and housing–Public use microdata samples 5%. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2005). Income, earnings, and poverty from the 2004 community survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S. – Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany: State University of New York Press. Valenzuela, A. (Ed.) (2005). Introduction: The accountability debate in Texas: Continuing the conversation. Leaving children behind: How ‘‘Texas-style’’ accountability fails Latino youth (pp. 1–32). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Velasco, J. R. (2005). Performance-based school reforms and the federal role in helping schools that serve language-minority students. In: A. Valenzuela (Ed.), Leaving children behind: How ‘‘Texas-style’’ accountability fails Latino youth (pp. 33–55). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Zhou, M. (2003). Urban Education: Challenges in educating culturally diverse children. Teachers College Record, 105(2), 208–225.
This page intentionally left blank
340
A NATION STILL AT RISK: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND AND THE SALVATION OF DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS M. Christopher Brown II, T. E. Dancy II and Nicole Norfles ABSTRACT The authors interrogated the contextual spectra of educational and sociological literature to highlight the failings of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Historical and contemporary perspectives on the state of urban schooling, school choice, and community identify fundamental areas in which disadvantaged students are affected disproportionately. Additionally, treatment of the TRIO programs (Upward Bound and Talent Search) and their positive impact on disadvantaged students is presented. The TRIO programs consider issues germane to the academic achievement of lowincome, disadvantaged, and marginalized students in ways that the No Child Left Behind framework fails to consider. Policymakers, K-12 teachers/leaders, and parents are admonished to pay careful attention to how No Child Left Behind continues to leave underprivileged children behind through ignorance of their communities and disparate accountability measures. Implications for policy are discussed. No Child Left Behind and other Federal Programs for Urban School Districts Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 9, 341–364 Copyright r 2006 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1016/S1479-3660(06)09019-6
341
342
M. CHRISTOPHER BROWN II ET AL.
INTRODUCTION It is common parlance to assert that K-12 educational systems in the United States form the foundation of our civilized society. Teachers shape ideas in the classroom and provide value-added contributions to develop students into productive citizens. However, reports issued in the past 100 years suggest that American students are ill equipped to meet the changes of an ever-evolving society. For example, the landmark 1966 Coleman Report was instrumental in promoting racial balance between schools and affected change in government education policy. The report found that poor African American students performed academically better in integrated, middle-class schools. Additionally, the report suggested that minority children and white children performed at disparate levels and that this achievement gap only increased in high school. Other reports suggested that American students are unprepared to negotiate an increasingly competitive global market in following years. For example, A Nation at Risk was published in 1983 to address ‘‘the widespread public perception that something [was] seriously remiss in our educational system’’ (U.S. Department of Education, 1983). The manuscript revealed that other countries threatened to exceed American industrial, commercial, and intellectual performance as evidenced by the increasing efficiency of Japanese automobiles, South Korean steel mills, and German machine tools. States and districts throughout the United States increasingly consider rigorous testing as a best practice to determine performance and potential educational qualification (Gamoran, 2004). Evidence from other nations suggests that high-stakes testing is associated with greater productivity – that is, higher levels of learning – but may also yield higher levels of inequality than the absence of such testing. However, evidence about testing and inequality in the United States is misleading. In Chicago, for example, it appears that the policy of retaining students who failed tests has led to the disproportionate retention of students from minority backgrounds (Gamoran, 2004; Moore, 1999). This is not a new discovery, however. In 1960, W. E. B. DuBois spoke prophetically about postsegregated schooling in America. He warned educators that several ominous trends would result. He said, ‘‘[African American] teachers will become rarer and in many cases will disappear. [African American] children will be instructed in public schools and taught under unpleasant if not discouraging circumstances. Even more largely than today they will fall out of school, cease to enter high school, and fewer and fewer will go to college’’ (Aptheker, 1973, p. 151). His premonition has come true. There are meaningful differences in the school experiences of African American students in primary, secondary, and collegiate settings.
A Nation Still at Risk
343
The state of schooling in America is in danger. American government is failing to ensure that equitable and comparable education is provided to all of its children. Instead, school and student performance are correlated to socioeconomic class and continue to mislead American society about its true international standing. Many states are abandoning tests for promotion and graduation because they recognize that tests impact disadvantaged students negatively and disproportionately (Steinberg, 2000). The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB Act) is the latest initiative purported to address deficiencies in achievement of all students and in accountability measures. In this work, we discuss the limitation in implementation of the NCLB Act relative to its impact on disadvantaged students that need the support of intervention programs, such as TRIO Upward Bound and Talent Search programs. At the time of this publication, as President Bush releases his 2007 budget request, again seeking to eliminate the TRIO Upward Bound and Talent Search programs, as we recognize this is still a nation at risk.
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: HISTORY AND PURPOSE The U.S. Department of Education’s National Commission on Excellence in Education advanced the following recommendations in 1983 per the A Nation At Risk report: (1) Graduation requirements should be strengthened so that all students establish a foundation in five new basics: English, mathematics, science, social studies, and computer science; (2) schools and colleges should adopt higher and measurable standards for academic performance; (3) the amount of time students spend engaged in learning should be significantly increased; (4) the teaching profession should be strengthened through higher standards for preparation and professional growth. The A Nation At Risk recommendations and the intentions of NCLB are quite similar in scope. George W. Bush announced NCLB, the cornerstone of his administration, three days after he took office as the 43rd President of the United States and 20 years after A Nation at Risk posited the necessary changes to improve the nation’s international academic standing. President Bush touted NCLB as an educational reform framework that would supply underachieving American children with a quality education. The NCLB Act of 2001 (NCLB Act) describes the ways in which America’s elementary and secondary schools are held accountable for their underachieving students as well as the ways in which they might improve. The NCLB Act reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education
344
M. CHRISTOPHER BROWN II ET AL.
Act (ESEA) and incorporates the following principles and strategies (U.S. Department of Education, 2004a): (1) Increased accountability for states, school districts, and schools. States are required to implement statewide accountability systems that challenge state standards for reading and mathematics in public schools. Additionally, these systems require annual testing for all students in grades 3–8 and annual statewide goals to ensure all groups of students reach a designated proficiency level within 12 years. States are required to report assessment results and relative state objectives by poverty, race, ethnicity, disability, and limited English proficiency to ensure that no group is underachieving or ‘‘left behind.’’ School districts and schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward statewide proficiency goals will be subject to improvement, corrective action, and restructuring measures aimed at restoring them to state compliance. Schools that meet or exceed AYP objectives or close achievement gaps will be eligible for state academic achievement awards. (2) Greater choice for parents and students, particularly those attending lowperforming schools. The NCLB Act increases the schooling options for students attending Title I schools that fail to meet state standards. Local educational agencies (LEAs) are required to give students the opportunity to attend a better public or public charter school given that the school in which the student is enrolled is identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. The district is required to provide transportation to the new school and designate 5 percent of Title I funding for this purpose (if needed). Title I funds may also be used to supplement educational services from selected public-or private-sector providers for students attending persistently failing schools1. Providers must meet state standards and offer services tailored to help participating students meet challenging state academic standards. School districts are also required to earmark 20 percent of their Title I allocations for school choice and supplemental educational services that assist LEAs to offer meaningful choices to eligible students. Low-performing schools will receive a substantial incentive to improve. Schools that underperform will be restructured if they do not meet AYP for 5 years. (3) More flexibility for states and local educational agencies in the use of Federal education dollars. States and LEAs are authorized to transfer up to 50 percent between state grant programs or to Title I. Such programs include: Teacher Quality State Grants, Educational Technology, Innovative Programs, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools. The State Flexibility
A Nation Still at Risk
345
Demonstration Program permits as many as seven states to consolidate funding from the state share and nearly all federal state grants.1 Additional flexibility is provided in the spending of Title V (Innovation funds). Participating states enter 5-year performance agreements with the Secretary of Education that consolidated funds may be used for any educational purpose authorized under the ESEA. States also enter 10 local performance agreements with LEAs. LEAs receive flexibility under the separate Local Flexibility Demonstration Program. The Local Flexibility Demonstration Program adds 80 LEAs to the existing 70 under the State Flexibility Demonstration Program. The following funds may be consolidated under this program: Teacher Quality State Grants, Educational Technology State Grants, Innovative Programs, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs. Participating LEAs would enter into performance agreements with the Secretary of Education and may use the consolidated funds for any ESEA-authorized purpose. (4) A stronger emphasis on reading, especially for the nation’s youngest children. The NCLB Act fully implements the President’s Reading First initiative. The initiative was established to significantly increase the federal investment in scientifically based reading instruction programs in primary grades. The major rationale of this initiative is to avoid the misidentification of children as special education students given that these students may have received inappropriate reading instruction during their early schooling. The new Reading First State Grant program provides 6-year grants to states to create competitive subgrants in local communities. Local recipients will administer screening and diagnostic assessments to determine at-risk or reading-deficient students in grades K-3. Professional development is provided for K-3 teachers in the essential components of reading instruction. The new Early Reading First program is required to provide LEAs with 6-year awards to support early language, literacy, and pre-reading development of preschool-age children, particularly those from low-income families. Recipients will use research-based instructional strategies and professional development to help young students attain fundamental knowledge and skills for optimal reading development.
URBAN AND SUBURBAN SCHOOL DIFFERENCES The challenges of urban school districts are many. Urban schools, unlike their suburban counterparts, encounter many economic and demographic changes
346
M. CHRISTOPHER BROWN II ET AL.
defined by concentrations of poor, minority, linguistically, and ethnically diverse students (Legters, Balfanz, Jordan, & McPartland, 2004). Since 1940, middle-class individuals have been attracted to suburban development from urban centers. The closing of manufacturing plants only exacerbated this trend. In fact, the proportion of residents living in central cities within a standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA) dropped more than 22% from 1940 to 1980 (Legters et al., 2004). In the 1980s, urban students, unlike their nonurban counterparts, were more than twice as likely to attend high-poverty schools (schools in which more than half the students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch) given doubling poverty rates in many large cities (Legters et al., 2004). Poor and minority students are overrepresented in urban schools. Urban school districts enroll half of American minority students, one-third of poor students, and only one-quarter of all American public school students (Legters et al., 2004). Urban centers, among other challenges, are charged to serve needy populations amid increasing poverty rates and eroding tax bases. Legters and colleagues (2004) describe other challenges that urban high schools face: (1) fewer resources (2) poor prior preparation (3) school climate (4) diversity and segregation, and (5) politics. Fewer resources. Central city schools serve an educationally needier population of students and face the challenges of aging facilities that often require expensive maintenance and renovation, competition with wealthier districts for teachers, and a tax base that has dwindled in recent decades as residents have moved out of the city. These conditions arguably make urban education costlier than in other more advantaged settings (Legters et al., 2004). Data are scant that show updated findings in the past 10 years although data show that urban districts spent $500 less per pupil than their suburban counterparts from 1993 to 1994 (Legters et al., 2004). Disparate spending implies that urban students become predisposed to academically deficient outcomes in school. Poor prior preparation. Most students are entering urban high schools with extremely poor prior preparation. Urban students consistently score below nonurban students in math, science, and reading according to national data obtained from various achievement tests (Legters et al., 2004). In Baltimore for example, in the 1999–2000 school year, 60% of ninth graders passed the basic Maryland functional test in math and 76% passed the functional writing test, compared with statewide averages of 85% and 92%, respectively (Legters et al., 2004) . Even worst performance was reported across eight nonselective urban high schools vis-a`-vis suburban selective magnet high schools. Less than half (47%) of ninth graders passed the math test and two-thirds
A Nation Still at Risk
347
(67%) passed the writing test in the eight urban schools (Maryland State Department of Education, 2001 as cited in Legters et al., 2004). School climate. High concentrations of poverty among students in urban schools and surrounding neighborhoods have implications for their health, safety, and early transitions into adulthood as well as for the daily operation of urban high schools (Legters et al., 2004). Physical conflicts are also viable concerns in urban schooling environments. Nearly half of the teachers in urban districts characterize physical conflicts among students as moderate or serious problems versus less than a third in nonurban districts (Legters et al., 2004). Diversity and segregation. Students enrolled in urban high schools are exposed to higher levels of academic, linguistic, and cultural diversity than those enrolled in nonurban high schools (Legters et al., 2004). Increased diversity among urban learners is often attributed to larger numbers of students who require special or individualized services. The typical nonselective high school in Baltimore that Legters and colleagues (2004) discuss, for example, must provide special education services to 20% of its students versus 12% statewide and less than 1% in the suburban magnet high schools. Diversity within minority-stratified student populations is also a consideration. The predominance of students of color in urban high schools (in some cases reaching over 90%) has led scholars to argue that increasing racial segregation has completely supplanted the democratizing ideal of comprehensive high schools (Legters et al., 2004; Orfield & Eaton, 1996). Politics. Lastly, many urban city school systems become susceptible to bureaucratic inertia, complicated politics, and short-term leadership as side effects to their large size (Legters et al., 2004). High schools are left both unsupported and ignored in the aggregate. The average urban superintendent serves fewer than 3 years (Legters et al., 2004). In the majority (51) urban districts, superintendents have served between one and 5 years, and nearly a third are led by superintendents who have served for one year or less. New superintendents feel compelled to introduce new reforms to show their constituents that they are effective and can make a difference. Policy rarely is changed during the short tenure of the superintendent (Legters et al., 2004). At the surface, these reforms appear to mostly benefit the image of the leader, while urban school system troubles persist. In fact, continually unfulfilled expectations for improvement leave teachers disillusioned and resistant to further change (Legters et al., 2004). Students at urban high schools are performing significantly worse than students in nonurban schools on most measures including achievement and
348
M. CHRISTOPHER BROWN II ET AL.
graduation rates. One-third to less than one-half of students in urban districts score at the basic level or higher in reading, mathematics, and science versus over two-thirds of students in nonurban districts (Legters et al., 2004). Attrition is also an outcome of urban high school experiences. High schools in urban districts, on average, lose over half of their students between freshman and senior year, compared to a nationwide average of less than a third (Legters et al., 2004). The single-year dropout rate for urban districts is nearly twice the national average while some urban districts report annual dropout rates as high as 20% (Legters et al., 2004). Cohort analyses studying the same group of students over 4 years of high school suggest that urban dropout rates in some schools may exceed 50% (Legters et al., 2004).
SOCIOECONOMIC INEQUALITY IN EDUCATION The discussion that follows supports the assertion that persons from privileged backgrounds are more successful in schooling. Advantages of privilege persist over time and become evident across school contexts. Resources available to children whose families have greater income and wealth – supplies, books, computers, a place to study, tutors, and so on – contribute to educational success (Alexander, 2004; Coleman et al., 1966). Economic, cultural, and social differences combine to preserve privilege across generations (Alexander, 2004). Families with higher socioeconomic status have the option of choosing neighborhoods with high-quality schools in the interest of their children’s educational outcomes. Economic advantages continue to confer benefits by supporting variation among individual students within schools. However, the goal of using school resources to enhance their children’s opportunities may be thwarted by small differences among public schools (Alexander, 2004). Additionally, high-income parents can choose private schools that charge tuition. These schools often purport to positively impact short-term outcomes (i.e. test scores) and long-term outcomes (i.e. entry into elite and competitive colleges). According to Alexander (2004), signs of change in economic inequalities affecting schooling are modest at best. States are increasingly recognizing that unequal school financing across school districts is unfair. The steps taken, however, are reticent to close the advantage gap between high socioeconomic status families and low socioeconomic families. Children whose parents have lower levels of education also find themselves at a disadvantage in the school system (Alexander, 2004; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977). Differences in habits, tastes, attitudes, preferences, and
A Nation Still at Risk
349
linguistics are among the many cultural conditions that make it more difficult for students from disadvantaged families to succeed in school (Alexander, 2004; Bernstein, 1974; Bourdieu, 1987). Schools are predisposed to middleclass values (Alexander, 2004). As such, the values of middle-class students are congruent with the values of the school. Students respond to the requirements of schooling more easily than those who are not from middle-class families (Alexander, 2004). Furthermore, cultural resources in the home are also linked to educational success. Students whose families own more books, subscribe to newspapers and magazines, visit libraries, and engage in other compatible enrichment opportunities perform better on cognitive tests, receive higher grades, and stay in school longer than do students from families who lack these resources (Alexander, 2004; DiMaggio, 1982; DiMaggio & Mohr, 1985). Differential access to social networks that support educational success contributes to inequality in educational outcomes (Coleman, 1988; Coleman & Hoffer, 1987). Schools with distinctive missions (i.e. Catholic schools) allege to provide social resources for students who lack them in their homes and neighborhoods (Coleman & Hoffer, 1987 as cited in Alexander, 2004). However, empirical studies do not confirm a relation between Catholic schools and various, beneficial social connections (Anderson, 2004; Carbonaro, 1998). Social resources are empirically linked to socioeconomic background. Middle-class parents’ social networks provide them with insights and information that help them to manage their children’s educational careers successfully (Alexander, 2004; Lareau, 2000). Middle-class parents also have the cultural resources to navigate the complexities of educational opportunities more effectively than do working-class parents (Lareau, 2000, Useem, 1992). Economic, social, and cultural resources therefore become a potent combination in privileged students trajectory to educational attainment and achievement. The ideology that privileged students matter in school is consistent with reproduction theories which maintain that dominant social groups use educational credentials to preserve their positions of privilege (Alexander, 2004; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; Collins, 1971). Reproduction theorists recognize that subordinate groups often strive for greater educational opportunities. In tandem, a society that expands mass education benefits concomitant groups by broadening the socialization of persons from lower-status origins into a common value system and prepares them for the workforce (Alexander, 2004). Further, society perpetuates maximally maintained inequality in schools (Raftery & Hout, 1993 as cited in Alexander, 2004). Maximally maintained inequality suggests that students from lower socioeconomic families can stay in school longer, but their relative position compared to their higher-status peers
350
M. CHRISTOPHER BROWN II ET AL.
remains constant albeit educational opportunities have improved for all members of society. For example, little social inequality exists in relation to the completion of lower secondary education in this country. When saturation is reached, however, inequality shifts upward to preserve relative differences (Alexander, 2004). School is the great sorting device. According to Alexander (2004), society can expect inequality in educational achievement and attainment by social background to persist throughout the 21st century. Persons in positions for power and advantage will use schooling to preserve the vantage points of themselves and their progeny. Privileged parents will continually investigate ways to pass on their advantages to their children because American society is predisposed to privilege. Alexander also notes, it is likely that by 2125 the postsecondary schooling in the United States will be as universal as secondary schooling is today. In this vein, new distinctions in a persistently unequal society are inevitable.
COMMUNITY CONTEXT Concentrated poverty is quickly spreading across the large cities of America. Poverty not only has far-reaching ramifications for low-income neighborhoods but also the outcomes of students who attend school within them. Schools therefore are charged to consider how these environments impact student development. Between 1970 and 1990, the population living in census tracts with poverty rates of 40% or greater increased from 5.2% to 10.7% in the country’s 100 largest cities (Alexander, 2004). The experience has been even worse for African Americans and Hispanics (Alexander, 2004). In 1990, a fourth of all African Americans (versus 15.5% in 1970) and 41.6% of low-income African Americans (up from 28.1% in 1970) resided in extreme-poverty tracts in these 100 cities, while over 80% of low-income African Americans resided in high-poverty tracts (Alexander, 2004). Increasing concentration of poverty among blacks implies a simultaneous concentration of crime, violence, welfare, dependency, family disruption, and educational failure (Alexander, 2004). These trends disadvantage African American cultural and social environments and destabilize and reshape their well-being in society. In 1990, just over 30% of the total U.S. population lived in central cities, down less than 1% since 1970 (Alexander, 2004). Over half of African Americans lived in central cities in 1990, down just 1.5% since 1970 (Alexander, 2004). The considerations, according to Alexander (2004) for
A Nation Still at Risk
351
students who attend schools in the conditions include: (1) the odds of dropping out and of having a teenage birth increase with the percentage of low-status workers in the neighborhood; (2) the likelihood of pregnancy among African American adolescent girls increases and the age of first sexual intercourse decreases with residence in a poor neighborhood; (3) joblessness among men and single motherhood among women rise as neighborhood poverty increases; (4) neighborhood poverty decreases childhood IQ, increases high school dropout, and increases teen births; and (5) the neighborhood conditions experienced by poor African American males depress their years of schooling and their earnings relative to the neighborhood conditions experienced by low-income whites.
SCHOOL CHOICE AND CLIMATE Issues concerning school choice and context are missing from the conversations about the NCLB Act. Fallacies become evident in the policy apropos to minority students in schooling contexts. Public education is in a state of resegregation. Resegregation denies equitable racial accommodation and resource distribution within the post-Brown era to students of color and others similarly situated. Stakeholders must adequately contend with the lurking vestiges of institutionalized discrimination that disproportionately placate African-American and other minority students within lower academically tracked classes, behavior disorder classes, single-raced schools, and inadequately funded schools (Bartee, Beckham, Gill et al., 2000; Kozol, 1991; Lagemann & Miller, 1996; Lomotey & Teddlie, 1996; Orfield & Eaton, 1996). These marginalized effects have limited the availability of opportunities and access for traditionally underrepresented groups that largely comprise our nation’s public schools. Matriculation into collegiate or higher education becomes a dream deferred, while the American educational dilemma continues. One proposed remedy for the K-12 dilemma is the school choice. Harry Brighouse (2000) identifies two types of school choice: (1) public-private and (2) public. Academic complexities and social consequences undergird both perspectives of ‘‘choice’’ as a mechanism for educational reform. Milton Freidman, during the 1950s and 1960s, proposes the use of educational vouchers to avert government monopolization of the educational institute. His 1962 book, Capitalism and Freedom posits that public schools, as governmentally funded entities, cannot be restricted from other interested parties or entities who may provide financial services for educational
352
M. CHRISTOPHER BROWN II ET AL.
instruction. John Chubb and Terry Moe (1989) and Chester Finn (1991) further argue that educational voucher approach creates competition for today’s failing, public schools. Choice offers parental autonomy as they are afforded the opportunity to ‘choose’ enrollment into private schools that presumably offer better, quality education. Diane Ravitch (1997) considers parents, and in effect, students, as the primary beneficiaries of choice. This perspective posits choice as the source for ‘‘empowered consumers rather than hapless clients ignored by an unresponsive bureaucracy’’ (pp. 254–255). The conservative arguments of public–private choice, nonetheless, are well respected and even applauded in their sincere efforts to remedy public schools in the educational dilemma. These marketing perspectives of public–private school choice, nonetheless, are problematic for compulsory-based education and its impact upon African American and other minority groups. Frank Margonis and Larry Parker (1999) argue that privatized notions of school choice actually contradict outcomes of equity and equality for educational reform. In effect, the majority of economically challenged and racially marginalized individuals will not reap the ‘‘choices’’ and ‘‘benefits’’ of better resourced and quality schools. However, in 1954, when Brown v. Board of Education did mandate school desegregation to revolutionize the racial apartheid and economic divide in public education and America, the issue is clearly about resource distribution. The issue is not about government monopolization, but governmental obligation to American citizens. The issue is not about autonomy, but accountability to American citizens. The issue is not about bureaucracy, but democracy to American citizens. Therefore, it is imperative that privatized marketing of schools not interfere with the affairs of public education. The thematic implications of public school choice, however, offer the opportunity for access and equity to attain quality education. Magnet schools, as a public school choice, are accepted as a mechanism for school desegregation in Morgan v. Kerrigan (1976). This case argues that magnet schools assume a significant role in generating school desegregation and voluntary student transportation. Today, some 24 years later, magnet schools are widely accepted agents of school reform (Metz, 1991; Smrekar & Goldring, 1999; Waldrip, Marks, & Estes, 1993). Magnet schools use tax dollars to fund specialized curriculum to attract diverse populations. Racial balance is forged within the heavily populated, single-race schools and the benefits of desegregation, integration and ultimately diversity are presumed more attainable. Charles Willie (1991) however argues that magnet schools should operate under this notion of ‘‘controlled choice.’’ This position
A Nation Still at Risk
353
identifies a fundamental need for a centralized body to ensure that the goals and objectives of magnet programs are achieved. Claire Smrekar and Ellen Goldring (1999) synthesize different perspectives of rational choice, institutional, and free market theories as analytical frameworks for examining magnet schools as instruments of public choice. Their analysis, which particularly focuses on rational choice theory, identifies those processes affecting parental and school decisions to partake in public choice programs. Their analysis further demonstrates how the social class of constituents influences the quality of magnet programs within particular areas. Boyd, Crowson, and van Geel (1994) posit that rational choice theory operates from the basis of ‘‘preferences, strategies, action, and outcomes’’ (p. 129). Any given social phenomena first proceed from an individualized paradigm that may or may not coincide with externalized objectives. The outcomes become highly contingent upon constituent inputs. Archbald (2000) would consider such relationship to have implications of class stratification, thereby systemically reproducing inequalities. One underpinning policy implication of ‘‘school choice’’ however remains constant – choice provides greater autonomy and options in educational processes for both parents and students (Goldhaber, 2000). Therefore, when juxtaposing the rational choice theory viewpoints of Smrekar and Goldring (1999) and Boyd, Crowson, and van Geel (1994) with the arguments of West (1994) and Limits of Choice (1996) that pinpoints magnet schools as utilizing a two-tiered curriculum prompting classroom segregation, several questions emerge: (1) Is ‘public choice’ a comparable option under compulsory-based policies and practices in public education? (2) Can magnet schools, in their present state as ‘voluntary’ reform mechanisms, achieve racial and socioeconomic diversity? and (3) What processes do ‘public choice’ use to coalesce the individualized notion of parental and school autonomy with the collective goal of magnet schools to forge desegregation? These questions provide a critical framework for interrogating the ability of magnet schools to maximize the benefits of school desegregation to alter resegregation in public education. Moving toward Higher Education: The TRIO Programs The purpose of K-12 education is to provide the support and opportunity for an educated polity, one that contributes to the economic and social development of the nation. However, as previously discussed, there are the limitations to implementation of NCLB, differences in urban and suburban schools, socioeconomic inequality in education, concentrated poverty, and
354
M. CHRISTOPHER BROWN II ET AL.
issues concerning school choice. There is still a need for pre-college after school intervention programs as well as federal support and accountability to sustain them. President Johnson delivered speeches that framed the federal response to educational accountability and intervention. His statements resonate in contradictory ways to the intentions of NCLB. He contended, ‘‘The federal government, as long as I am President, intends to be a partner and not a boss in meeting our responsibilities to all the people. The federal government has neither the wish nor the power to dictate education’’ (Johnson, 1965a). ‘‘However,’’ he continued, ‘‘the federal government must realize that until we banish ignorance, until we drive disease from our midst, until we win the war on poverty, we cannot expect to continue to be the leaders not only of a great people but the leaders of all civilization’’ (Johnson, 1965b). The federal government in the Johnson era also demonstrated its understanding of the need for greater education of all citizens vis-a`-vis those who could afford a college education. However, the Bush administration has assumed a stance that misinterprets the ways in which disadvantaged students are affected by NCLB. NCLB is presented as a program that places more talented teachers in schools to increase educational outcomes for all students and address the needs of disadvantaged students with the goal of increasing student performance measures overall. Unfortunately, many disadvantaged students will remain in poor learning environments given the large number of poor schools. To assume that ‘‘instituting national standards and testing for every American high school will be an adequate substitute for one-on-one academic support and counseling for our most disadvantaged students’’ is far-reaching albeit the desire to improve education for all is good (Mitchem, 2005). For that reason, intervention programs remain a critical link to educational opportunity and college access. The TRIO programs are such intervention programs. The original TRIO programs include Upward Bound, Talent Search and Special Services. The proliferation of the TRIO programs is rooted in President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty statute. These programs were created in 1968, following the transfer of the Upward Bound program from the Office of Economic Opportunity into the Higher Education Act (HEA). The HEA was formed by President Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1964 War on Poverty statute with the rationale that greater educational attainment would break the cycle of poverty for low-income students and their families. The HEA of 1965 was created to enable access to postsecondary education for all Americans, regardless of their income or family background (Public Law No. 89-329, 1965). President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the HEA of 1965
A Nation Still at Risk
355
into effect and noted during his commemorative address, ‘‘that a high school senior anywhere in this great land of ours can apply to any college or any university in any of the 50 States and not be turned away because his family is poor y This bill, which we will shortly make into law, will provide scholarships and loans and work’’ (Johnson, 1965a). The HEA sought to (1) award scholarships up to $1,000 a year to students from disadvantaged backgrounds, (2) provide part-time jobs for students, and (3) provide interest-free, payment-free loans until graduation to ‘‘worthy, deserving, capable students’’ (Johnson, 1965a). The passage of the HEA represents the most important piece of federal legislation addressing access to postsecondary education. Today, TRIO includes five federally funded programs authorized under the HEA of 1965 (U.S. Department of Education, 1965). The TRIO program is a discretionary grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Education in which colleges and agencies compete for funding once every 4 years. Applications are read by three outside reviewers and funded – in rank order – contingent on scores of the reviewers and the prior success of the institution in meeting outcome objectives established by the U.S. Department of Education. Presently over 1,200 colleges and 120 community agencies sponsor TRIO programs. In many instances, TRIO collaborates with schools to ensure that students receive the supplementary services needed to attain high achievement levels mandated by NCLB. The continuity of TRIO services is particularly important given the mobility of students in many school districts. TRIO ensures that the much greater federal investment in financial aid will be used most efficiently since low-income and disabled students face both financial and nonfinancial obstacles to success in college. The cost of TRIO services is less than $1,000 annually per student with a FY 2004 appropriation of $832.5 million. Each year, TRIO serves nearly 900,000 youth and adults. Two-thirds of the students served in TRIO must come from families with incomes below 150% of the poverty level in which neither parent graduated from college. TRIO services begin in the sixth grade and continue through college graduation. Thirty-seven percent of TRIO students are White, 35% are African American, 19% are Hispanic, 4% are Native American, 4% are Asian, and 1% are classified as other (National TRIO Clearinghouse, 2003). Over 22,000 students with disabilities and over 5,000 veterans are served by TRIO programs each year. Each year TRIO programs work with over 455,000 middle and high school students and their parents – ensuring that students take demanding courses and have the support they need to succeed in these courses. In 2005, more than 1,400 Upward Bound and Talent Search
356
M. CHRISTOPHER BROWN II ET AL.
programs alone helped about 455,000 middle and high school students from low-income families set their sights on higher education (Council for Opportunity in Education, 2005; U.S. Department of Education, 2002, 2004b; U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). Since the passage of the HEA, Congress has recognized the TRIO programs as a vital part of its student financial aid strategy. The TRIO programs acknowledge that higher education is voluntary, whereas elementary and secondary education is compulsory. Low-income students have less opportunity for education beyond the high school level. Opportunity for postsecondary education advances incrementally as income rises, with over 20 percentage points separating each income level. According to the Census Bureau (2001), of the 18–24 years olds in college or that have attended college, only 31% were low-income students compared to 79% that were high income students. Among those students in the lowest income group, only 7% attain a bachelor’s degree by the age of 24, compared to 39 percent from the middle-income group, and 52% of those from the highest income group. TRIO services are offered in school, after-school, on Saturdays, and in rigorous summer sessions. Last year TRIO programs placed 72,000 youth and 37,000 adults in college, and assisted 20,000 students who had dropped out of college to re-enroll. Low-income and disabled students who receive TRIO services while in college have a 22% greater chance of continuing their undergraduate programs than similar students who do not receive such services (Congressional Briefing on TRIO Programs, 2005; Simpson, 2005). About 2,700 TRIO Programs serve nearly 873,000 low-income Americans. Sixteen thousand students with disabilities and more than 25,000 U.S. veterans are currently enrolled. Talent Search and Upward Bound In a broad sense, Upward Bound and Talent Search aid high school students in their preparations for and applications to college. Additionally, the programs identify sources of financial aid (i.e. Pell Grant Program, the Federal Student Loan programs and the Federal College Work-Study) for college tuition and other expenses. The HEA of 1965 intended for students to learn about college opportunities and prepare for postsecondary education. Therefore, Upward Bound and Talent Search pre-college TRIO programs were placed in the Higher Education Act to aid this preparation. The Upward Bound program was created in supplement to the Educational Opportunity Act. The original HEA of 1965 soon followed and gave rise to
A Nation Still at Risk
357
the Talent Search program. Special Services (now known as the Student Support Services program) was created with the first reauthorization of the HEA in 1965. Today, these programs continue to help low-income and disabled students to successfully enter and graduate from college. Students served by these programs are predominantly from low-income, first-generation and generally disadvantaged backgrounds. These students usually engage three challenges: (1) they are less academically well prepared for college; (2) they come from families that have little prior experience with college; and (3) their families cannot afford college. The Upward Bound and Talent Search programs address all three strikes by assisting students to overcome educational, social, and cultural barriers. In contradistinction, student financial aid programs only assist students to overcome the financial barriers to higher education. TRIO Upward Bound and Talent Search program participants are generally termed disadvantaged, that is, their likelihood of progressing to, enrolling in, and persisting in postsecondary education is low considering that these programs serve low-income, first-generation-to-college, and disabled students as well as high school dropouts (U.S. Department of Education, 2006). TRIO programs measure their effectiveness by comparing the numbers and percentages of high school student participants who enroll in college to low-income students who are not enrolled in the programs (Census, 2000; Department of Education, 2002, 2004). The data presented in Table 1 display student collegiate enrollment after Upward Bound or Talent Search involvement versus low-income students who were not enrolled in either program.1 Talent Search programs serve students whose parents did not attend college and earn a household income under $28,000. Talent Search assists students enrolled in grades 6–12 and high school drop outs to better understand their educational opportunities and options. Participants receive information about college admissions requirements, scholarships, and various student financial-aid programs in addition to counseling. Over 382,500 American students were enrolled in 469 Talent Search TRIO programs in 2005. There are three types of Upward Bound programs: Regular Upward Bound, Upward Bound Math and Science, and Veterans Upward Bound. All Upward Bound programs provide students with instruction in literature, composition, mathematics, and science on college campuses after school, on Saturdays and during the summer to prepare them for college work. Upward Bound is a more intensive program than Talent Search, and therefore has a greater cost per student. The Upward Bound Math and Science program
358
M. CHRISTOPHER BROWN II ET AL.
Table 1. Comparison of Upward Bound, Talent Search and Other Low-Income Student High School Graduation and College Enrollment. Program
Year
High School Graduates (Spring)
College Enrollees (Fall)
College Enrollment Rate (%)
Upward bound Talent search All lowincome
2000
13,100
11,900
91
2000 2000
75,900 515,000
55,400 212,000
73 41
Note: Table 1 reveals that nearly one-third (32%) of all low-income high school graduates who enroll in college have been served by a pre-college TRIO program. This is the most recent available data from the Department of Education.
components of the Upward Bound program strengthen students’ math and science skills. Additionally, students learn computer technology as well as English, foreign language, and study skills. The Veterans Upward Bound program, established in 1972 during the Vietnam War, aims to provide educational and support services to enable veterans to transition to postsecondary education. In 2005, there were 763 regular Upward Bound programs in operation throughout the United States serving more than 56,600 Upward Bound students. There are over 127 Upward Bound Math and Science programs serving 6,800 students throughout the country in 2005, and 39 Veterans Upward Bound programs serving 4,900 military veterans. The number and percentage of students that participate in Upward Bound and Talent Search by race-ethnicity is displayed in Table 2. TRIO programs were subjected to the Office of Budget and Management (OMB) assessment of effectiveness through the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) (Office of Management and Budget, 2004). PART is an assessment rating system developed by OMB to assess the effectiveness of federal agencies and federally funded programs. The PART system had two functions: (1) to rate the administration of a government agency program and (2) to rate the program itself. The PART system has four components: Program Purpose & Design, Strategic Planning, Program Management, and Results. The latter component is most heavily weighted. As a result, federal programs with unfavorable outcomes and failure to meet OMB standards received lower PART scores. The Bush administration used PART score evaluations of Talent Search and Upward Bound to declare a ‘‘lack of data on key performance measures’’ for the two TRIO programs. However, the Department of Education
359
A Nation Still at Risk
Table 2. Race/Ethnicity
Asian American Indian/ Alaskan Native African American Hispanic Hawaiian/Pacific Island White Other Total
Talent Search and Upward Bound Participants by Race/Ethnicity. TS Number
Ts (%)
UB/UBMS Number
UB/ UBMS (%)
TS and UB Number
TS & UB (%)
13,123 13,123
4 4
3,443 2,615
5 4
16,566 15,738
4 4
114,825
35
29,056
44
143,881
37
75,456 3,281
23 1
12,505 1,219
19 2
87,961 4,500
22 1
104,982 3,281
32 1
16,338 742
25 1
121,320 4,023
31 1
328,070
100
65,352
100
393,422
100
Source: National TRIO Program Reports, http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/index.html
was reticent to develop and gather outcome targets for TRIO and other programs in a timely fashion (U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 2005). Additionally, congressional staffers, GAO and analyst refute the validity of PART with one stating, ‘‘OMB substituted its judgment for a wide range of stakeholder interests’’ (Education Daily, 2005). Even though the Government Accounting Office (GAO) found the PART to be problematic, the Bush Administration based its finding of ineffectiveness on the PART rating. Therefore, the Bush administration reported overreaching TRIO program assessments largely due to OMB fallacies. Arnold Mitchem, president of the Council for Opportunity in Education, asserted the following about the eliminations of the TRIO Programs: ‘‘Efforts to measure value [of the TRIO programs] have been highly flawed. ..These programs help at-risk participants become productive members of society. After all, education is the ticket to economic success in this country. Upward Bound and Talent Search alumni include members of Congress, judges, doctors, corporate leaders and college administrators. We measure our success student by student, taxpayer by taxpayer.’’1
President George Bush included PART assessments in the draft budget submitted to the 109th Congress that eliminated the TRIO Talent Search and TRIO Upward Bound appropriations on February 7, 2005. The TRIO
360
M. CHRISTOPHER BROWN II ET AL.
programs were only two of 48 education programs that President Bush labeled ineffective or without accountability measures. The elimination of these programs would mean that at least 455,000 disadvantaged students in Talent Search and Upward Bound programs would lose the myriad educational opportunities provided to them. Education programs labeled effective by the OMB proved problematic. OMB found no programs purported to enhance the learning of students to be effective including NCLB. Programs ranked as effective by OMB are administered by the Department of Education are the National Center for Education Statistics and the National Assessment of Educational Progress. TRIO Talent Search and Upward Bound programs were saved from budget elimination though all TRIO programs were again challenged in the 2005 House HEA Reauthorization process.
IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE AND CONCLUSION An educated populace increases the productivity of the nation. College graduates experience lower rates of unemployment, healthier lifestyles, lower rates of smoking, increased rates of exercise, higher frequency of volunteer work, increased voting frequency, and greater contributions to government revenues and income tax. TRIO pre-college programs help to prepare and provide opportunities for those low-income students who may not be prepared or have knowledge of these opportunities to go to college. It is important to remember five obstacles or barriers to college for lowincome students. First, academic preparation of low-income students is limited (Census Bureau, 1999). Only 31% of academically prepared low-income students enter college compared to 75% of the higher income students. Anxiety about college preparedness deters low-income students into 2-year colleges so that they can better prepare for the rigors of college coursework. The deterrence and limitation of college choice is the second obstacle. Research has shown that the chances for completing a bachelor’s degree are greatest when the student begins his or her work in a 4-year institution (U.S. Department of Education, 2003). However, at public 4-year universities, students from the lowest income groups comprise only 11% compared to 41% of students from the highest income group (Sax et al., 1999). Additionally, low-income students comprise only 8% of population of students at private 4-year universities compared to students from the highest income group that comprise 57% of the population (Pell Institute, 2005a; Sax et al., 1999).
A Nation Still at Risk
361
Income issues are a third obstacle to college for low-income students. Lowincome students rely on the federal, state, and institutional programs and are more likely to be influenced by price changes, meaning when prices increase low-income students are more likely to change their attendance patterns or not attend at all (Advisory Committee, 2002; Heller, 1997). Therefore, their opportunities have been diminished by the inadequate levels of financial aid. The next obstacle to college is simply college costs. Low-income students, due to high college costs and the large amount of unmet need, are increasingly attending 2-year and nondegree granting institutions, rather than 4-year colleges as previously mentioned (Institute, 2002; King, 2002). In an attempt to cut costs, low-income students also reduce their attendance from full-time to part-time, live off campus rather than on campus, and work for longer hours. All of these behaviors significantly reduce the probability that they will persist to completion of a 4-year degree (Pell Institute, 2004). The final obstacle is limited financial aid. While low-income students may be ‘‘paying’’ lower prices to attend college, college costs represent approximately 60% of the relative share of family income in a low-income family, 17% of total income in a middle income in a middle income family, and 5 percent of income in a high income family (Pell Institute, 2005b). TRIO Talent Search and Upward Bound programs seek to address all five obstacles to college for low-income students. As a result, TRIO helps to create successful, productive (and tax-paying) citizens. Education is the key to economic success in our country. If the United States is going to be competitive on the global market, we need an educated, well-trained workforce. In this way, TRIO is helping the country as whole – not just the students participating in TRIO programs. While much has changed in the 40 years since 1965, Talent Search and Upward bound programs have sustained their purpose to aid underrepresented students’ successful entry and opportunity to go to college. The need for opportunity programs to address the ‘‘War on Poverty’’ was what Johnson considered the keystone of the 89th Congress, coupled with the establishment of the HEA with its companion, the ESEA of 1965. HEA became Johnson’s proudest moment. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson did much more for education than any other president who followed with the creation of the HEA. Above all, this act ‘‘did more to uplift education, more to attack disease in this country and around the world, and more to conquer poverty than any other session in all American history, and what more worthy achievements could any person want to have?’’ (Johnson, 1965a). In Race and Education, Watkins, Lewis, and Chou (2001) declare ‘‘equitably shared, advanced technology and the creation of great wealth can
362
M. CHRISTOPHER BROWN II ET AL.
reconfigure the world, improving the lives of all. If not, the continuation of racism, ignorance, privilege, and greed will condemn us all’’ (p. xii). The future of disadvantaged students in America are fundamentally linked to the egalitarian concept of equity through education. Ponder the simple, sad, and foreboding statement tucked away in the Torah and/or Old Testament book of Jeremiah. The prophet offers a solemn message to the people of his day – ‘‘The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved’’ (Jeremiah 8:20—KJV). NCLB and recent education trends confirm this lamentation – disadvantaged students in our nation are still at risk.
REFERENCES Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance (ACSFA). (2002). Empty promises: The myth of college access in America. Washington, DC: ACSFA, June. Alexander, K. L. (2004). Public schools and the public good. In: J. H. Ballantine & J. Z. Spade (Eds), Schools and society: A sociological approach to education (2nd ed., pp. 234–249). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Bernstein, B. (1974). Class, codes, and control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Bourdieu, P. (1987). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1977). Reproduction in education, society, and culture. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Carbonaro, W. J. (1998). A little help from my friends’ parents: Intergenerational closure and educational outcomes. Sociology of Education, 71, 295–313. Census Bureau (1999). October current population survey 1999, Table 14, ‘‘Enrollment status of dependent primary family members 18-24 years old, by family income, level of enrollment, type of school, attendance status, sex, race, and Hispanic origin. Washington, DC. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. F., McPartland, J. M., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Coleman, J. S., & Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and private high school: The impact of communities. New York: Basic Books. Collins, R. (1971). Functional and conflict theories of educational stratification. American Sociological Review, 36, 1000–1019. Congressional Briefing on TRIO Programs. (2005). TRIO at a Glance. Rayburn House Office Building, February 28, 2005. Washington, DC: Council for Opportunity in Education. Council for Opportunity in Education (2005). College enrollment results (Data sources were tabulated by the Pell Institute from the following sources: U.S. Department of Education, 2002, 2004; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). DiMaggio, P. (1982). Cultural capital and school success: The impact of status culture participation on the grades of united states high school students. American Sociological Review, 47, 189–201. DiMaggio, P., & Mohr, J. (1985). Cultural capital, educational attainment, and marital selection. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 1231–1261.
A Nation Still at Risk
363
Education Daily. (2005). GAO critical of administration’s tool for program evaluations: Program Assessment Rating Tool ineffective for prioritizing allocations, officials say, page 3. Palm Beach Garden, FL: LRP Publications, Inc. Gamoran, A. (2004). American schooling and educational inequality: A forecast for the 21st century. In: J. H. Ballantine & J. Z. Spade (Eds), Schools and society: A sociological approach to education (2nd ed., pp. 249–265). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Heller, D. (1997). Student price: Response in higher education: An update to Leslie and Brinkman. The Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 624–659. Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2002). The policy of choice: Expanding student options in higher education. Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher Education Policy. Johnson, L. B. (1965a). Remarks at Southwest Texas State College upon signing the higher education act of 1965. Austin, TX: LBJ Library and Museum. www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/ johnson/lbjforkids/edu_quotes.shtm Johnson, L. B. (1965b). A Speech at Strahan Gymnasium at Southwest Texas State College. As enacted, the Higher Education Act of 1965 is Public Law 89-329 (79 Stat. 1219). San Marcos, Texas (A summary of the major provisions of the act is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (Vol. I, p. 482)). King, J. (2002). Crucial choices: How students financial decisions affect their academic success. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Lareau, A. (2000). Home advantage (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Legters, N. E., Balfanz, R., Jordan, W. J., & McPartland, J. M. (2004). Comprehensive reform for urban high schools. In: J. H. Ballantine & J. Z. Spade (Eds), Schools and society: A sociological approach to education (2nd ed., pp. 220–227). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Mitchem, A. (2005). No children left behind – Unless they’re poor. Washington, DC: Inside Higher Education. http://insidehighered.com/views/2005/01/25/mitchem1 Moore, D. M. (1999). National experts judge chicago’s program of retaining students a failure. Chicago: Designs for Change [On-line] Available: http://www.dfc1.org National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A Nation at Risk. Retrieved February 1, 2006 from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html National TRIO Clearinghouse. (2003). Racial and ethnic diversity in the Federal TRIO programs: Fact sheet. Washington, DC: Pell Institute. Office of Management and Budget. (2004). Performance and management assessments. Washington, DC. http://whitehouse.fed.us/omb/budget/fy2004/pma.html Pell Institute. (2004). Indicators of opportunity, page 7. Washington, DC: Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education. Pell Institute. (2005a). Indicators of opportunity, page 4. Washington, DC: Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education. Pell Institute. (2005b). Indicators of opportunity, page 10. Washington, DC: Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education. Public Law No. 89-329. (1965). Higher education act of 1965. H.R. 621, 89th Congress, 1st session. Raftery, A. E., & Hout, M. (1993). Maximally maintained inequality: Expansion, reform, and opportunity in irish education, 1921–1975. Sociology of Education, 66, 22–39. Sax, L. J., Astin, A., Korn, W. S., & Mahoney, K. M. (1999). The American freshman: National norms for the fall 1999. Los Angeles: Higher Educational Research Institute, UCLA. Simpson, C. M. (2005). Guest opinion: Federal TRIO programs deserve continued support. Washington, DC: Congressional Website. http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ id02_simpson/TRIO_oped.html
364
M. CHRISTOPHER BROWN II ET AL.
Steinberg, J. (2000, December 22). Student failure causes states to retool programs. New York Times: A1, A19. U.S. Census Bureau (2001). October 2000 current population survey, Table 8: People 15 to 24 years old enrolled in secondary school in previous year by current enrollment status, sex, race, Hispanic origin, and family income (for dependent family members). http:// www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/education/ppl-157.html U.S. Department of Education (1965). National TRIO programs. Washington, DC. http:// www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/index.html U.S. Department of Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education (2002). A profile of the talent search program 1999-2000. U.S. Department of Education (2003). Descriptive summary of 1995-96 beginning postsecondary students: Six years later. Statistical analysis report 2003-151. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), U.S., Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Education (2004a). Executive summary of the no child left behind act of 2001. U.S. Department of Education (2004b). A profile of the upward bound program: 2000-2001. Unpubished data. http://www.ed.gov/programs/trioupbound/ubprofile-00-01.pdf. U.S. Department of Education (2006). Office of Postsecondary Education, Federal TRIO Homepage. http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/index.html U.S. Office of Management and Budget (2005). Department of Education PART Assessments. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pma/education.pdf Useem, E. L. (1992). Middle schools and math groups: Parents’ involvement in children’s placement. Sociology of Education, 65, 263–279.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS Tawannah G. Allen, EdD has a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Psychology and a Masters of Education in Communication Disorders, both from North Carolina Central University, in Durham, North Carolina. Tawannah practiced as a speech-language pathologist for 10 years after having student taught and taught Kindergarten in Durham Public Schools. Her degree in School Administration was obtained from Fayetteville State University, in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Ms. Allen earned her Doctorate in Education in Educational Leadership from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her research interests include resiliency and the African American male and African American women in leadership. She continues to conduct research in the area of African American males and academic success, while also presenting at conferences and professional development trainings. Currently, Dr. Allen is employed with Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) as the Director of Elementary Programming and Professional Development. In this position, she is responsible for the articulation, implementation, and monitoring of the elementary instructional programming for nine elementary schools, while also identifying and providing quality professional development for the teachers, principals, and other administrators within the CHCCS district. Dr. Allen’s professional goals include becoming an assistant superintendent in a small urban district and then ultimately becoming a superintendent. Frank Brown, Ph.D. is the Cary C. Boshamer distinguished professor of Education and former dean, School of Education, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He holds the Ph.D. in Policy, Planning, and Administration from the University of California at Berkeley. He has more than 100 referred publications. He has served as a K-12 administrator, state education department administrator, faculty, and administrative appointments at the University of California at Berkeley, City College of New York, the State University of New York at Buffalo, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has authored more than 200 publications on educational law, finance, and equity issues. 365
366
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
M. Christopher Brown II, Ph.D. is vice president for Research and Policy at the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Dr. Brown is on leave of absence from his appointment as associate professor of Education and Senior Research Associate in the Center for the Study of Higher Education at The Pennsylvania State University. Dr. Brown earned a national reputation for his research and scholarly writing on higher education policy and administration meriting him both the ASHE (2001) and AERA (2002) early career research awards. His research addresses issues of higher education leadership and governance, postsecondary statutory and legal concerns, institutional history, and collegiate diversity. This scholarly agenda focuses on increasing effectiveness and efficiency, building organizational capacity, and assessing outcomes in campus settings. He is especially well known for his studies of historically black colleges, educational equity, and institutional culture. He is the author/editor of seven books and monographs, as well as author or co-author of more than 90 journal articles, book chapters, monographs, and publications related to education and society. He has received research support from the Lumina Foundation, Spencer Foundation, AT&T Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Sallie Mae Fund, as well as other foundations and corporations. He is the former director of Social Justice and Professional Development for the American Educational Research Association, as well as former executive director and chief research scientist of the Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute of the United Negro College Fund. Lecretia A. Buckley, Ph.D. is an assistant professor of Mathematics Education in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. Her research interests include equity issues in mathematics education and pre-service mathematics teacher education. In her research, she examines pre-service and in-service secondary mathematics teachers’ conceptions of equity and how those conceptions influence preservice teachers’ willingness to engage equity issues in mathematics education and in-service teachers’ instruction and construction of department level policies. She completed her doctoral studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana, Urbana, Illinois. Her dissertation work was supported by a predoctoral fellowship awarded by the Spencer Foundation and the American Educational Research Association and a doctoral fellowship awarded by the Spencer Foundation. In this study, she examined the curricular redesign efforts of one high school mathematics department aimed at addressing high failure rates of students enrolled in low-level mathematics courses disproportionately populated by African American students.
About the Authors
367
A. Reynaldo Contreras, Ph.D. is professor of Educational Leadership, San Francisco State University. Professor Contreras research interests include minority and urban education, bilingual education, Hispanic education, and educational equity. He is a scholar in the areas of Hispanic Education, diversity, and educational equity. Professor Contreras is active in the Education Law Association, the American Education Research Association and he has published widely in major academic journals on urban education, Hispanic education, and educational equity. T. E. Dancy II, Ph.D. candidate in higher education is a Huel Perkins graduate fellow and Southern Regional Education Board doctoral scholar, is currently completing a doctorate of philosophy in Higher Education at the Louisiana State University. His research and scholarly writing focuses on the intersection of race and gender in colleges and universities. More specifically, this agenda focuses on identifying the strategies for improving African American men’s social and academic experiences in different college contexts, as well as understanding African American male constructions of manhood and sense-making. Additionally, careful attention is paid to assessing African American male persistence and outcomes. Currently, he is completing his dissertation on African American male collegiate experiences and behavior in the Department of Educational Leadership and Research. His research and commentary have been published in American Behavioral Scientist and other academic periodicals. He has presented original data collection and other scholarly work at several national conferences. His scholarship carefully considers the topics of curricular change, the sociohistorical nature of schooling, and culturally relevant pedagogies in college. Philip T. K. Daniel, JD and Ph.D., is professor of Educational Administration/Higher Education and adjunct professor of Law, The Ohio State University. Professor Daniel is the immediate past president of the Educational Law Association. Saran Donahoo, Ph.D. is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Administration and Higher Education at Southern Illinois University – Carbondale. She earned both her doctorate in higher education administration and her AM in history at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She completed her BA in secondary education at the University of Arizona. Her research interests include history of education, legal issues affecting education, educational policy, and educational diversity and equity.
368
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Jite Eferakorho, Ph.D. is a UCEA postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Educational Leadership & Policy Analysis, University of Missouri-Columbia. Prior to joining the faculty at the University of Missouri-Columbia, he held an academic position as a visiting assistant professor of Education at Beloit College, Wisconsin. His current research focuses on diversity and multicultural reform, faculty evaluation, and preparation of teachers and educational leaders. His research has been published in the Journal of School Leadership, UCEA Review, technical reports and as a book chapter. His most recent work entitled, ‘‘Evaluation and rewarding of university faculty’’ is co-authored by Michelle Young and Jumoke Sanusi and has been accepted for publication in the Encyclopedia of educational leadership and administration (Sage Publications, 2006). He has taught both graduate and undergraduate courses in education at Beloit College and the University of Missouri-Columbia. He has been involved in a number of UCEA program initiatives, including the Barbara L. Jackson Scholars Network, UCEA’s Diversity and Social Justice Committee and several other UCEA led research projects. Fenwick English, EdD earned his doctorate from Arizona State University and is the R. Wendell Eaves distinguished professor of Educational Leadership at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Formerly he served as a program coordinator, department chair, dean, and vice-chancellor of academic affairs, the latter two positions in the Purdue University system. As a K-12 practitioner, he has been a superintendent of schools in New York, an assistant superintendent of schools in Florida, and a middle school principal in California. He also had a stint as an associate executive director of AASA and served as principal (partner) in Peat, Marwick, Main & Co. (now KPMG Peat Marwick), where he was national practice director for elementary and secondary education, North America. Dr. English has written over 20 books and 100 journal articles. He recently served as editor of the SAGE Handbook of Educational Leadership (2005) and the SAGE general editor of the Encyclopedia of Educational Leadership and Administration (2006) and is the author (2003) of The Postmodern Challenge to the Theory and Practice of Educational Administration, a collection of papers given at Division A of AERA and UCEA over a decade. He is currently serving a second term as a member of the UCEA Executive Committee and is President Elect. of that organization. Mark A. Gooden, Ph.D. is an assistant professor in the departments of educational leadership and urban educational leadership (UEL). He is also
About the Authors
369
co-coordinator of the UEL program. His research interests include educational technology and its use by administrators, legal issues related to the connection between the Internet, students’ rights and school violence, and issues in urban educational leadership. He received his Ph.D. in educational administration and higher education from The Ohio State University, a BA in mathematics from Albany State College (now University) and his M.Ed. in mathematics education and MA in educational administration, both from The Ohio State University. Prior to returning to graduate school full-time, he taught mathematics and served as the Departmental Chairperson at the high school and middle school levels in the Columbus Public Schools district. His most recent publications appear in Education and Urban Society, School Business Affairs, Education Law Association Case Citations 2002: Violence and Safety, The Journal of Negro Education and Educational Administration Quarterly. Dr. Gooden, who served as one of the editors for the Education Law Association’s Principal Legal Handbook, also completed a chapter for that volume on legal issues associated with students’ use of technology and the Internet. Preston Green, JD, EdD is an associate professor in the Department of Education Policy Studies at the Pennsylvania State University. Dr. Green holds an EdD in Educational Administration from Teachers College, Columbia University and a JD from the Columbia University School of Law. Professor Green’s research has focused on legal issues surrounding charter schools and equal access to education. He is co-author of Charter Schools and the Law: Chartering New Legal Relationships, with Julie Mead. He is also co-author of the forthcoming book, The School Finance. He publishes regularly in law reviews and education journals, including American Journal of Education, Journal of Education Finance, West’s Education Law Reporter, Brigham Young University Law and Education Journal, and the Texas Forum on Civil Rights & Civil Liberties. Norman S. Greer, Ph.D. is an associate professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Eastern Illinois University. He earned his doctorate in Speech Communication at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. He earned both his MA and BA in Speech Communication at Northern Illinois University – Dekalb. His research interest include social norming, mentoring, intercultural communication, and learning styles and diversity in the classroom. Additionally, he serves as pastor of a local congregation and education consultant for the elementary and secondary school districts in Carbondale.
370
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Richard C. Hunter, EdD is a professor of educational administration and former head of the Educational Organization and Leadership Department at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). He was a professor and chair of Educational Leadership Program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and has worked in the public schools as a superintendent in the cities of Richmond, Virginia; Dayton, Ohio; and Baltimore, Maryland. Dr. Hunter has also worked as a teacher, assistant principal, principal, assistant and associate superintendent, and associate director of education in the school districts of Berkeley, California; Seattle, Washington; and Richmond, California, and the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA). Richard earned his BS degree in Elementary Education from the University of Omaha, MA degree in Elementary School Administration from San Francisco State College, and EdD degree in Policy, Planning, and Administration from the University of California at Berkeley. He primary research interest is urban education and has written many articles and book chapters on this subject. Currently, he is serving as editor for this book series with JAI-Elsevier Science. Stephen B. Lawton, Ph.D. is chair of the Department of Graduate Studies and Professional Development in the College of Teacher Education and Leadership at Arizona State University, where he is leading the introduction of ASU’s West campus’s first doctoral program, a Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership and Innovation. He formerly chaired departments of educational leadership at Central Michigan University and The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. He co-authored Teachers’ Unions in Canada and authored Financing Canadian Education, Busting Bureaucracy to Reclaim Our Schools, and numerous articles and book chapters on the finance, governance, and effectiveness of educational institutions. His current research focuses on school district consolidation, school choice, charter schools, and the cost of regulation in higher education. He earned a Ph.D. in Education, MA in Statistics, and California Teaching Credential at U.C. Berkeley and a BA in Mathematics with minor in History at U.C. Santa Barbara. James E. Lyons, Ph.D. is professor of Educational Leadership in the Department of Educational Leadership at The University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He joined the UNC-Charlotte faculty in 1979, and served as Department Chairperson for fifteen years. He has taught and mentored numerous masters and doctoral students in educational leadership programs
About the Authors
371
who now hold middle and senior level educational leadership positions. Previously, he served as a high school teacher, assistant principal, principal, and school management consultant with the Ohio Department of Education. His research interests include educational policy studies, human resources, organizational development, and school leadership. During the last 25 years, he has published more than 35 articles and book chapters, presented research findings at national and international conferences, and served as a consultant to numerous colleges and universities, state education agencies, local school districts and several hundred schools. Professor Lyons earned the Ph.D. at The Ohio State University. Nicole Norfles, Ph.D. is the special assistant to the President of the Council for Opportunity in Education, also serves as fellow in the PELL INSTITUTE for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education. She advances research on issues surrounding educational opportunity for low-income and first-generation college students. More specifically, Dr. Norfles’ research focuses on the expansion of educational opportunity for low-income and first-generation college students both nationally and internationally to include undergraduate and graduate college persistence issues, technology use and access, student financial aid and general indicators of educational opportunity. She has teaching experience at the George Washington University where she previously worked as program coordinator of the New Practitioners Program (NPP) and, later, as director and finance manager within the Bilingual Special Education Program. Dr. Norfles has presented on numerous national and international conferences, authored reports on technology, financing graduate school as well as access and retention issues internationally. Her publications include ‘‘Toward Equal and Equitable Access: Obstacles and Opportunities in International Education’’ (Duke University, 2003), ‘‘Financing The First Year of Graduate School’’ (The PELL INSTITUTE, 2002), ‘‘Closing the Divide: Technology Use in TRIO Upward Bound Projects’’ (The National TRIO Clearinghouse, 2001), and ‘‘Transformation And Pedagogy: Expressions From Vista and Zululand Universities’’ (Pergamon, 2001). Teresa Y. Nowlin is a doctoral candidate at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Joseph Oluwole is an EdD candidate in the Department of Education Policy Studies, Pennsylvania State University.
372
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Xue Lan Rong, Ph.D. is anassociate professor in School of Education, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She focused her research on studies of educational achievements and schooling behaviors of immigrant children. Rong authored/coauthored 17 referred articles published in journals such as the Harvard Educational Review, American Educational Research Journal, Urban Education, etc., 14 book chapters, and a book entitled Educating Immigrant Students published by Sage–Coward. Charles J. Russo, JD, EdD is the Joseph Panzer Chair in Education in the School of Education and Allied Professions and adjunct professor in the School of Law at the University of Dayton. The 1998–1999 President of the Education Law Association, and winner of its 2002 McGhehey Award, he has authored or co-authored more than 160 articles in peer-reviewed journals, authored, co-authored, edited, or co-edited 22 books, and has in excess of 500 publications. Dr. Russo also speaks extensively on issues in Education Law in the United States and eighteen other countries on five continents. He has also taught summer courses in England and Spain and served as a visiting professor at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia; the University of Sarajevo, Bosnia; South East European University, Macedonia; and the Potchefstroom Campus of Northwest University in Potchefstroom, South Africa. In May 2004, he received a Ph.D. Honoris Causa from Potchefstroom University, now the Potchefstroom Campus of Northwest University, in Potchefstroom, South Africa, for his contributions to the field of Education Law. Carolyn Talbert-Johnson, Ph.D. is a professor in the School of Education and Allied Professions and the associate chair of Graduate Education at the University of Dayton. She has authored or co-authored many articles, book chapters and other published works on the topics of education of diverse student populations, urban education, the No Child Left Behind Act and school renewal. Dr. Talbert-Johnson has consistently presented at national and regional juried conferences on issues relevant to the marginalization of individuals in learning contexts. As an expert consultant to the United States Commission on Civil Rights, she presented on the topic of the Overrepresentation of African American Males in Special Education. Currently she is the co-recipient of the Leary Fellow, a two-year appointment that addresses curricular innovation that promotes connected learning, especially as it relates to the development of ethical understandings and professional dispositions of graduate candidates in teacher education and educational
About the Authors
373
leadership relevant to urban education. In August 2005, she was the corecipient of the Alumni Award in Scholarship. Linda C. Tillman, Ph.D. is an associate professor in the Educational Leadership Program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her research interests include leadership theory, the education of all children, particularly African Americans in K-12 and post secondary education; mentoring African American teachers, administrators, and faculty; and, the use of racially and culturally sensitive qualitative research approaches. Based on her article Culturally Sensitive Research Approaches: An African American Perspective, she uses a culturally sensitive research framework to investigate factors that affect African Americans in Pk-12 and higher education. Her current research investigates the role of the principal in mentoring first year African American teachers in an urban school district. Recent publications include African American Principals and the Legacy of Brown in the Review of Research in Education. She is also the guest editor of special issues of The International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, titled Research on the Color Line: Perspectives on Race, Culture and Qualitative Research and Educational Administration Quarterly, titled Pushing Back Resistance: African American Perspectives on School Leadership. Dr. Tillman is the 2004 recipient of the Early Career Contribution Award from the American Educational Research Association Committee on Scholars of Color in Education and is the Vice President Elect of Division A of the American Educational Research Association. Dawn G. Williams, Ph.D. is an assistant professor and Master’s Program Coordinator in the Department of Educational Administration and Policy at Howard University. She holds an MA and Ph.D. in Educational Policy from the University of Illinois. Her research and writing has focused on educational inequities as they exist across ethnicity. Her scholarship and teaching interests include mixed methods research and educational policy as it affects urban settings. Dr. Williams is author or co-author of numerous articles and book chapters that highlight the impact of several educational policies (particularly school choice policies) on students of color.
This page intentionally left blank
374
SUBJECT INDEX 10th Amendment 147 academic achievement 210–211, 213, 216, 221 academic performance 145, 153 accountability 48, 54, 57, 127, 137–138, 231–233, 235–238, 243, 250, 254–258 achievement gap 231–233, 236, 238, 242–245, 250–253, 256–258 African American males 201–202, 207–219, 222–225 African American students 322 Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) 23, 26–32, 91, 97, 99, 101–105, 107–108 bilingual education 155, 162–163, 166–167, 171, 178, 183–184 black education 323–325, 329 black students 197, 323–325 blacks in education 234 caring adult 218–219, 225 charter schools 127–129, 133–138 choice 285–295, 297 community control 94, 96, 98, 100, 299–301 compensatory education 91, 93, 96, 98, 299, 302 confidence intervals 23, 30 decentralization 299–302 democracy 263–264, 266–270, 273, 277 desegregation 285, 289, 291–293
disadvantaged students 341, 343, 354, 360, 362 diversity 23–27, 29, 32, 155, 168, 176–178 education policy 93, 103, 244, 342 education reform 249–250 educational accountability 71, 114 educational equality 310 educational policy 286 English proficiency 155, 160–164, 170, 172, 179–180, 182 equity 37–39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57, 59 equity and accountability xv–xvii, 37–38 federal authority education 143 first-generation students 357 fiscal equity 3, 5, 17 globalization 249, 254–255 globalization and education 312, 316 Henderson & Milstein 202, 206 high expectations 201, 206–207, 214, 217–218, 220, 222–225 highly qualified teachers 75, 112–114, 117–118, 123 human capital 23, 26, 32–33 immigrants 321, 324–327, 329, 331, 334–335 individual 141, 144–146, 149–151 375
376
SUBJECT INDEX
individual (educational) rights 142–143 individualization 24 Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) 23, 33 intervention programs 343, 354
racial segregation 317 resiliency 201–208, 216–219, 222, 224–225 resiliency wheels 225 risk 202–205, 207, 210, 213, 219–220, 223–224
lawsuits/legal issues 141–143, 145, 148, 153 learning gaps 23, 27, 32 local school funding 19 low-income 341, 345, 350–351, 354–357, 360–361
school administration 103, 106 school choice 341, 344, 351–354 school failure 150 school leadership 299, 304 school reform 93, 101, 301 social justice 91 spending clause 146–148, 151, 153 states’ rights 151 superindendent and principal 299, 301, 305–306 support 201, 205–208, 213, 216–220, 222–225
mathematics education 263–271, 273, 275–281, 283 meaningful participation 201, 207, 217–218, 224 measurement error 23, 30–31 minority education 127 neoliberal reform 260 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) xi–xiii, xv–xvii, 3–5, 7, 37–39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57, 59, 91–92, 95–108, 155, 160–164, 167–172, 175, 183, 231, 236, 249–251, 253–258, 286–288, 291–292, 294–295 No Child Left Behind Act 61–62, 113, 119, 122, 124 parent involvement 299–308 poverty 91–92, 107–108
talent search 341, 343, 354–361 Title I 3–12, 14–20, 91, 95–96, 98–99, 103, 105 Title I funding 3, 5–7, 9–10, 15, 18 TRIO 341, 343, 353–361 U.S. Constitution 146–147 Unfunded Mandate Provision (in NCLB) 148 upward bound 341, 343, 354–361 urban education 75, 83, 114 urban school 345 urban schooling 341, 347
