The No Child Left Behind Act: The Civil Rights Perspective

November 16-17, 2006

The No Child Left Behind Act: The Civil Rights Perspective

Sponsored by

The Civil Rights Project and the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute

To present this research, the Civil Rights Project and the Warren Institute convened a series of roundtables bringing together scholars, policy experts, as well as civil rights and educational advocates to discuss findings and research-based proposals for statutory and regulatory changes. The goal of these roundtables was to foster active policy debate between researchers and the policy community.

The first set of papers evaluated what is known about the law’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) provisions and developed recommendations for reforming these accountability provisions. The second set of papers focused on the challenges states face in meeting the law’s ambitious educational goals and how outcome-based accountability systems have worked in states where they were tried prior to NCLB. The final set of papers examined elements of successful high school reforms, exploring how NCLB requirements affect those conditions and how to change the law in ways that support effective high school reform.

Generous funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation supported both the commissioned research and roundtables.
The following papers were presented during the roundtables, “Key Issues Under the No Child Left Behind Act: Reforming Adequate Yearly Progress and Evaluating State Capacity” held in Washington, D.C. on November 16-17, 2006.
Papers on Adequate Yearly Progress include the following:

The Pending Reauthorization of NCLB: An Opportunity to Rethink Basic Strategy
Daniel Koretz, Harvard University

This paper argues that debating possible modifications of many NCLB provisions obscures more important problems that the civil rights community cannot afford to ignore. These problems include the lack of knowledge about how to hold schools accountable, key aspects of NCLB that are inconsistent with the current accountability evidence, and the illusion of progress generated by NCLB through its reliance on state assessments. The author discusses these issues in detail.

Toward a More Effective Definition of Adequate Yearly Progress
Robert L. Linn, University of Colorado at Boulder

The author identifies five limitations with the definition of Adequate Yearly Progress and proposes remedies to address each. These limitations include: the expectation of universal proficiency, a reliance on state definitions of proficient achievement, the focus on ‘current status’ as a measure of school improvement, the multiple hurdles schools must meet to fulfill requirements, and the narrow focus on two subjects—reading and mathematics.

Beyond Standardization in School Accountability
Mindy L. Kornhaber, Pennsylvania State University

This paper argues that two aims of any system of accountability—that they be informative and cognitively constructive (i.e., they advance students’ learning and enable educators to improve instruction)—are not being met under NCLB. To address these issues, the author proposes a compensatory index that includes multiple measures of student performance.

Promises and Pitfalls: Implications of No Child Left Behind for Defining, Assessing, and Serving English Language Learners
Michael Kieffer, Nonie Lesaux, and Catherine Snow, Harvard University

While the policies imposed by NCLB have raised awareness of the challenges of teaching English and content knowledge to Language Minority learners, the authors argue that these policies fall short of ensuring that all Language Minority students benefit. As a result, these policies risk disadvantaging these students and their schools. The authors outline concerns with NCLB as it pertains to Language Minority students, with recommend changes.

Papers on State Capacity include the following:

Interstate Inequality in Educational Equity
Goodwin Liu, University of California, Berkeley

The most significant component of educational inequality nationally is not the inequalities that occur within states but inequalities between states. This paper discusses current educational inequality across states in terms of funding, standards and outcomes. It shows that interstate disparities in educational resources are dependent upon the capacity of a state to finance education than their willingness to do so. The author concludes with recommendations for reforming the federal role in school finance so it is more responsive to state effort and capacity.

Massive Responsibilities and Limited Resources: The State Response to NCLB
Gail L. Sunderman and Gary Orfield, Harvard University

Under NCLB, it is state education agencies that play the crucial role in supporting and monitoring the implementation of the federal mandates. Using data collected from six states, this paper examines the state response to meeting the law’s requirements. It identifies significant changes in NCLB from previous legislation that alter the state role and examines whether states have the resources, knowledge, and organizational capacity to implement the law and intervene in low-performing schools on the scale demanded by NCLB.

Low-performing Schools Programs and State Capacity Requirements: Meeting the NCLB Educational Goals
Heinrich Mintrop, University of California, Berkeley

This paper examines first-generation accountability systems in five states that began experimenting with outcome-based accountability systems some ten years prior to NCLB. The findings suggest that sanctioning low-performing schools does not work as well in practice as in theory and a trade-off ensues between maintaining rigorous educational goals, the scope of low-performing schools programs necessary to help schools meet mandated benchmarks, and the level of state capacity required to implement these programs.

The following papers were presented during the roundtable “The No Child Left Behind Act: How Does it Affect High School Reform” held in Washington, D.C. on October 14, 2005.

No Child Left Behind and High School Reform
Linda Darling-Hammond, Stanford University

This paper examines how various aspects of NCLB support or undermine the current national movement to reform high schools—a movement that advances similar goals but approaches them from a different perspective. Specific amendments to NCLB are proposed that could help to achieve the goals of a high-quality, equitable education for all youth.

NCLB and Continuous School Improvement
Willis D. Hawley, University of Maryland, College Park

Embedded in the No Child Left Behind Act is this theory of reform: continuous improvement will be the product of holding schools accountable for increased student performance. This paper provides an overview of what continuous improvement involves, examines how NCLB affects the conditions needed for continuous school improvement, and what might be done to strengthen the law’s effects.

No Child Left Behind and Reforming the Nation’s Lowest Performing High Schools: Help, Hindrance or Unrealized Potential?
Robert Balfanz and Nettie Legters, Johns Hopkins University

Are high schools that produce half or more of the nation’s dropouts being identified for improvement and if they are, are they improving as a result of NCLB? This paper examines these questions, finding that AYP does not always identify the nation’s lowest performing high schools. It then highlights core weaknesses in the NCLB accountability measures that work against identifying the lowest performing high schools effectively and consistently and offers proposals to address these shortcomings .

The Limitations of the No Child Left Behind Act as a Strategy for Improving High School Graduation Rates
Russell Rumberger, University of California, Santa Barbara

The challenge for many high schools is finding ways to reduce the dropout rate. This paper reviews the research on how high schools themselves contribute to student dropouts and effective strategies to reduce dropout rates. It explores NCLB as a strategy for improving schools in general and graduation rates specifically and why performance based accountability systems are limited when it comes to achieving these goals. Suggestions for improving graduation rates are offered.