RAND study recommends revisions to NCLB
Congress and the Obama administration should use the upcoming reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 to promote more consistent and rigorous academic standards across states, as well as more consistent and relevant teacher qualification requirements, according to a new RAND Corporation report.
The report finds that the flexibility provided for in the Elementary and Secondary Act - which originated in 1965 and was reauthorized as No Child Left Behind in 2001 - has expanded the patchwork of accountability systems across states. The result is 52 separate systems, each with different academic standards, levels of student proficiency and requirements for teacher certification.
The RAND recommendations follow several years of study and evaluation conducted by RAND and others for the U.S. Department of Education. The nonprofit research institution has examined the impacts of the No Child Left Behind law on teachers, schools, school districts and at the state level.
Should Congress reauthorize NCLB, the authors recommend that
it consider making the following changes to the law:
• Promote more-uniform academic standards. While the expectation
in allowing states to have flexibility in setting standards
was that states would set high standards, this expectation has
not been met in some states, leading to significant inconsistency
across states. This puts students in some states at a disadvantage in
preparing for college and careers, and it does not serve the country
well in bolstering our economic competitiveness. Greater consistency
of academic standards across states could be achieved by
setting and requiring nationwide standards. If current voluntary
efforts bear fruit, that will signal a significant accomplishment; if
not, other options should be considered, including requirements
for common standards.
• Promote more-uniform teacher qualification requirements.
As is true for academic standards, the findings show that states
have set highly variable requirements for "highly qualified" teachers.
Minimizing these variations across states is desirable for the
same reasons as for academic standards.
• Set more-appropriate improvement targets. Given the rate of
progress in student achievement since NCLB was implemented,
NCLB's goal that 100 percent of the nation's students should be
proficient by 2014 is unattainable and may discourage principals
and teachers in their improvement efforts. Alternative accountability
approaches that incorporate growth without the current
targeting structure should be explored.
• Broaden the measures of student learning. The fact that states
mostly rely on multiple-choice tests in reading and mathematics
to measure student learning discourages the development of
higher-thinking and problem-solving skills and also shortchanges
subjects other than math and reading. Broadening test measures
and holding schools accountable in some way for subjects other
than math and reading would be desirable.
• Provide incentives for teachers to teach in low-performing
schools. Teachers in schools identified for improvement continue
to be less likely to be highly qualified than teachers in schools
not so identified. Given the critical role that teachers play in student
learning, incentives, such as higher salary or lower class load,
should be offered to highly qualified teachers to teach in schools
identified for improvements.
• Allow for a more flexible system of interventions. The current
system of interventions for schools identified for improvement is
rigid and mechanical. A more flexible and effective system would
allow states and districts to identify and prioritize the schools
most in need and to design consequences to address their particular
needs.
• Broaden staff development. Staff development now focuses on
academic content and effective instruction, but should be broadened
to include approaches to problem solving, the development
of interventions geared to the problems identified, and tools and
practices for effective implementation of interventions.
• Enhance school choice. Few parents have taken advantage of the
option offered under NCLB to move their child from a school identified
for improvement to a school not identified. While there are
a number of reasons for this that can be addressed, some reasons
simply reflect a parental decision not to change schools. Policymakers
need to recognize the limited benefits of school choice,
atleast at this time, and efforts for school improvement should focus
on all schools while continuing to offer school choice.
• Commit more resources to developmental activities. Schools
and districts frequently reported that they did not receive the
technical assistance they needed to effectively improve learning of
students with disabilities and limited English proficiency (LEP)
students. Resources should be committed for experimentation
to find better instructional methods and programs, both for students
with disabilities and LEP students and for all students.
Leave a comment