Survey of IRA members showed support for basic premises of NCLB, but concern about implementation
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act legislated sweeping changes for public education in the United States. The legislation has had a broad impact on elementary and secondary education, and many members of the International Reading Association have felt that impact.
With this in mind, IRA sent a survey about NCLB to a random sample of 4,000 members. From that sample, 1,557 usable surveys were returned. The survey had a section for collecting demographic data and a series of questions that examined members’ opinions about seven key issues related to NCLB:
benefits of NCLB to students and other groups
adequacy of funding
impact of implementation on schools
efficacy of annual assessment
effects of NCLB on specified outcomes
various NCLB sanctions
highly qualified teachers
The most striking aspect of the data was the extent to which members supported the basic premises of the law. For example, when asked the extent to which they agreed with the statement, “Children’s reading achievement will improve when research-backed curriculum and instruction are fully implemented,” 77.9% agreed or strongly agreed, 12.4% neither agreed nor disagreed, and only 9.7% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Responses were similarly positive for the statement, “Children’s reading achievement will improve when schools receive technical assistance to implement improvement.” Nearly three out of four survey respondents (71.5%) agreed or strongly agreed, 16.3% neither agreed nor disagreed, and 12.2% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
These results were in stark contrast with those for a statement about NCLB implementation. When given the statement, “NCLB implementation in your school or district has been sufficiently funded to achieve reading proficiency,” nearly three out of four respondents (74.3%) disagreed or strongly disagreed.
When asked to respond to the statement, “The educational benefits resulting from NCLB implementation in your school or district will, on balance, outweigh any adverse impacts for students in the aggregate,” the distribution of responses was bimodal. Most respondents expressed either positive (37.3%) or negative (42%) feelings; relatively few were neutral (20.8%). For many of the questions, response patterns were bimodal, with the numbers of both positive and negative responses outnumbering the number of neutral responses.
When asked whether NCLB benefited the broader community, 27.9% agreed or strongly agreed, 29.4% neither agreed nor disagreed, and 42.6% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Hiring of Reading Coaches chart
The next set of responses focused on the specifics of implementation. Respondents were asked whether NCLB implementation in their school or district has resulted in the following changes:
revised reading curricula
more reading materials in classroom and school libraries
reallocation of instructional or other funds for data gathering and analysis
hiring of new instructional staff
hiring of reading coaches
reassignment of reading specialists
higher-quality professional development
more access to professional development
The pattern of responses was again bimodal. More respondents agreed that reading curricula were revised, funds were reallocated, and existing staff members were reassigned as a result of NCLB. Responses were more negative than positive regarding the other changes.
A second set of items related to implementation asked respondents to rate their agreement with the following statements:
Classroom reading instruction has improved.
Reading instruction receives more attention.
Teacher morale has improved.
District and state support for school performance has increased.
Community interest in education has increased.
Again most of the response patterns were bimodal. Two out of three respondents (67.8%) agreed that reading instruction receives more attention because of NCLB. Responses to the other items were more negative than positive. More than three out of four respondents (78.2%) disagreed with the statement that teacher morale has improved as a result of NCLB.
Another group of items explored members’ opinions related to the annual assessments required by NCLB. Members were asked to respond to the statement, “The NCLB annual assessment requirement provides a sound basis for”:
assessing students’ reading proficiency
identifying students who need additional reading instruction
monitoring student progress
evaluating teacher performance
rating effectiveness of schools
Responses related to students were again bimodal, and they were more positive than negative. Responses related to teacher performance and school effectiveness were not bimodal and were overwhelmingly negative.
A final section of the survey asked members about the sanctions imposed when schools fail to make adequate yearly progress. The stem for these items was, “Children’s reading achievement will improve when...”
students have public school choice, with transportation provided
students receive supplemental educational services from state-approved providers
schools have reduced management authority
the school day or year is extended
reading staff members are replaced
all or most of the school staff members are replaced
schools reopen as public charter schools
outside consultants or management companies have more influence on school operation
the state takes over
Of these statements, only the ones relating to students receiving supplemental educational services and extending the school day or year drew positive responses. For all of the other items, the respondents overwhelmingly disagreed, with the level of disagreement rising with the severity of the sanction.
A final item addressed NCLB’s “highly qualified teacher” provision: “The highly qualified teacher described by NCLB will ensure quality instruction in reading.” This item again had a bimodal distribution, with 33.7% agreeing, 21.5% neither agreeing nor disagreeing, and 44.7% disagreeing.
One interesting aspect of these survey data was the large number of items for which there was a bimodal distribution of responses. The data showed that the IRA membership had strong and opposing opinions about many issues surrounding NCLB.
If we were working with averages, we would assume that most IRA members on most items would neither agree nor disagree with positive statements about NCLB. The data, however, clearly indicated that most IRA members did have opinions—both positive and negative—about many of the statements.
The statements about the basic underlying assumptions of NCLB—that research-based instruction and professional development will improve achievement—were strongly supported by most IRA members. Not surprisingly, respondents whose schools have received Reading First funding were more positive about NCLB. This makes sense because these schools are implementing research-based instruction, and they have received technical assistance.
On the other hand, especially for statements regarding the use of NCLB assessments to evaluate teacher or school effectiveness and for statements suggesting that severe NCLB sanctions will improve children’s reading achievement, many more members disagreed with positive statements about NCLB than agreed. For instance, more than nine out of 10 respondents (93.4%) disagreed or strongly disagreed with the idea that having the state take over a low-performing school would improve achievement.
IRA will host a panel discussion in Washington, DC, on February 9 about the new federal Striving Readers Initiative. At that event, IRA representatives will discuss the NCLB survey results and what we have learned from them. Watch for coverage of this event in the Reading Today Daily section of the IRA website at www.reading.org. Also watch for NCLB survey results to be posted on the IRA website.
Mixed reactions to NCLB. (February 2005). Reading Today, 22(4), 1, 4.
Journals
Reading Today