by Alan E. Farstrup
Since 1965, when the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was first passed and signed by President Lyndon Johnson, there has been a steadily expanding U.S. federal role in education policy and practice. Title I, part of ESEA, provided for specific instructional support for children falling behind and in economically disadvantaged circumstances. Title I emphasized equity and equal access to high-quality teaching. In recent years this emphasis has shifted to a focus on accountability and results. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is one concrete result of this shift in emphasis. In 2002, when President George W. Bush signed NCLB into law, IRA and its Board of Directors expressed support for its overall goals. IRA’s “mixed feelings” reflect strong support for elimination of the achievement gap and for improvement of reading achievement through evidence-based teaching, but a growing frustration with how NCLB has been implemented.
Many IRA members are voicing concerns about NCLB’s instructional mandates in reading. State officials are more concerned about the impact of inadequately funded assessment and reporting requirements.
Meanwhile, various professional subject area associations are expressing concerns about reduced emphasis on vital school subjects other than reading and math. IRA is taking the lead by bringing together representatives of these organizations, including the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), school librarians, and others.
Our goal is to provide information and clear advice about how best to strengthen the total school curriculum while preserving a healthy, coordinated emphasis on reading and math. These groups met in April and will be issuing a briefing paper highlighting concerns about effective use of the school day and emphasizing the importance of comprehensive instruction in all essential subjects.
While nearly everyone supports the major goals of NCLB, there is a clear split in opinions about its effectiveness. IRA surveyed a random sample of members to learn more about how NCLB is perceived. Not surprisingly, IRA members strongly supported the basic premises of the NCLB legislation. More than three quarters of those surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that “children’s reading achievement will improve when research-backed curriculum and instruction are fully implemented.”
This agreement about goals contrasts with negative opinions about NCLB’s implementation. Nearly three out of four respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that NCLB implementation has been sufficiently funded in order to achieve its goals. The survey also indicated that teacher morale has not benefited.
Respondents from districts whose schools have received Reading First and NCLB funding were generally positive about the program, while those who have not received funding were less so. Again, we see very mixed feelings.
At the time of its passage, NCLB received broad support in the U.S. Congress. This strong basic support still exists, even as growing doubts emerge about how the program has been run and about many of the instructional mandates being imposed.
Recent media reports cite actions being taken in states such as Connecticut and Utah where officials are challenging the legality and appropriateness of regulatory requirements accompanying NCLB funding. Although these challenges are receiving a good deal of attention, it is important to recognize that the underlying goals of NCLB still generate strong public and political support. The results orientation of NCLB shows no sign of disappearing.
Many of these reports address regulatory and implementation issues. Very few address instructional issues of concern to IRA and its members. IRA members are most often critical when increased testing detracts from instructional time and when such testing doesn’t directly support their teaching. IRA is concerned that demands upon curriculum have the effect of reducing or weakening content instruction in areas such as science, social studies, math, and the language arts in general.
IRA is acting to better inform its members and the policymaking community. IRA’s survey of member opinions about key issues related to NCLB is an example. The Association has issued policy statements supporting the role of the reading teacher and reading specialist and pointing out the critical importance of using multiple proven methods of reading instruction to meet the varying needs of groups and individual students.
IRA favors quality professional development so that students will have the benefit of well-prepared, highly qualified teachers and reading specialists. Children having difficulties with reading need expert and early help. IRA supports evidence-based professional development and classroom instruction. Excellent teachers with the professional latitude to use their expertise and judgment to meet the varying needs of children are the key to high reading achievement.
Specific, documented examples of inappropriate mandates as well as of success stories resulting from NCLB are needed. By marshalling clear and documented facts, IRA can make a positive contribution toward the achievement of goals we support while seeking to eliminate inappropriate and wrong-headed program implementation.
IRA is dedicated to the support and defense of the interests of students, accomplished teachers, and public schools. Teachers should be treated with respect and as skilled professionals. Their advice and wisdom are needed as never before.
Through more active member involvement, IRA’s role as a reliable, trustworthy source of information and counsel will grow. IRA truly does make a difference by being engaged, by being part of the dialogue, and by offering solid, evidence-based advice. For more information about IRA’s advocacy actions, go to www.reading.org/association/advocacy.
A classic case of mixed feelings, by Alan E. Farstrup. (June 2005). Reading Today, 22(6), 7.
Journals
Reading Today