EVENTS

Date:	Monday, July 16, 2007
Time:	11:30 AM -- 1:00 PM
Location:	Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

July 2007

Is NCLB Leaving Children Behind?

 

The 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) increased federal involvement in America's public schools by mandating state-imposed sanctions on schools failing to meet state-determined standards. Through NCLB, the federal government requires students in grades 3 through 8 to take standardized tests in reading and math. The law's legitimacy rests on the idea that rigorous testing, followed by firm assessments and accountability standards, are necessary to bring the least achieving students--a group heavily weighted toward minority populations--up to an acceptable educational level. With NCLB reauthorization pending before Congress, there is, however, much debate as to whether this legislation has improved outcomes for poorly performing students or merely added another layer of bureaucracy to the public school system.

A new study coauthored by University of Chicago economist Derek Neal provides information about the law's impact. Using Chicago public school data, the authors compared test-score outcomes among students before and after the implementation of NCLB. By measuring the performance of students tested under NCLB relative to control groups that are similar with respect to prior achievement, they are able to isolate the effects of NCLB on test scores of specific student groups. Following his presentation, Neal discussed with AEI scholar Charles Murray, Doug Mesecar of the Department of Education, Susan Traiman of The Business Roundtable, and legislative analyst Katherine Haley the challenges and obstacles involved in creating an accountability system with incentives for students of all ability levels. AEI's Henry Olsen moderated.

Derek Neal
University of Chicago

With No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and other test-based accountability systems, how we keep score matters. For the most part, NCLB uses proficiency counts. But while this method may be simple and ordinal in focus, its detrimental effects mean we cannot justify its use. With proficiency counts, teachers are implicitly held to different standards because of the stark differences in their teaching environments. Perhaps the largest problem, however--and the focus of this paper--is that proficiency standards cause schools to focus on the children surrounding the proficiency bubble. These counts shape whom the teachers can focus on and directly contradict NCLB's stated goal of 100 percent proficiency.

This paper examines changes in test scores in Chicago schools, broken up into deciles among students, and shows that students in the fifth and sixth deciles improved on their scores above and beyond the expected rate prior to NCLB. The children at the bottom scored lower than expected, and this pattern holds true for different types of schools. Alternatives to this system have been discussed, including index systems that allow partial credit for teachers--an attempt to mitigate the tendency to focus on one group of students. In order to find a better standard, though, we might use a golf handicap system as a guide. This would ensure the evaluation of teachers while taking into account progress throughout the year, different student backgrounds, different student learning levels, different peer groups, etc. Finally, if schools are to be data-driven like private firms, we cannot have a formulaic solution. It is difficult to weigh incentives as in the private sector because principals do not have the same control and do not have their own money in the game. It would be the same as a professional evaluating a junior associate in the private sector.

The Honorable Doug Mesecar
U.S. Department of Education

This paper is a great way to start examining NCLB, but it is simply a start. The data surrounding transition points is interesting and compelling, but not conclusive. In addition, it should be noted that NCLB is not an all-inclusive program--it exists to measure and put pressure on data and results so that we can adjust behavior and patterns accordingly. We have recently proposed policies that could accommodate children with learning disabilities and those who have trouble speaking English.

Charles Murray
AEI

This paper strikes a major blow to proficiency standards. In order to broaden the paper's scope and reaffirm its research, it might be helpful to look at data from all schools in Illinois. One of the major goals of NCLB was to narrow achievement gaps, but with the use of proficiency counts, it is possible to have an identical continuing gap that artificially shows a large reduction. Proficiency counts are in no way objective. They simply need to go. The benefits of NCLB have been trivially small. The reason for this is that we overestimate what schools can do with the lower half of the intelligence distribution. There are ceiling effects on children, half of whom are below the median. Nearly 100 percent of the time, dramatic changes in achievement are the result of a previous underachiever's now achieving at his intelligence level. It is cruel to expect from children what they are not capable of, and because of this, NCLB cannot be fixed--it must be scratched.

Katherine Haley
Office of Representative Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.)

There have been unintended consequences from the implementation of NCLB. These include subtle encouragement for children to switch schools as well as undue burdens on teachers. Teachers and administrators have said that NCLB was taking more time and more resources to reach students and that it penalized them when they did not meet federal mandates. Representative Hoekstra has introduced A+ legislation, which diverts the responsibility of education to the states, allowing them to determine standards, define proficiency levels, and decide how to reach all students based on their specific situations. Many states are already set up to move in this direction, making this a prudent decision in the wake of NCLB.

Susan Traiman
The Business Roundtable

While it is clear that incentives matter, it is not a cruel expectation for all children to be proficient at grade level. Teaching to the middle is nothing new. NCLB should be improved, but this evidence is not conclusive in evaluating it, as the law was only passed three months before the data were collected. NCLB is only one reform driver. Finally, handicapping is for golfers: when someone comes to an employer, expectations are not adjusted.

AEI intern Jonathan Flugstad prepared this summary.