Follow-up survey on NCLB indicates that IRA members continue to support the basic tenets of the law while believing that many aspects of its implementation are negative
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act legislated sweeping changes for public education in the United States. The April/May 2005 issue of Reading Today published the results of an IRA survey of members’ experiences with NCLB. IRA sent that survey to a random sample of 4,000 members, and 1,557 usable surveys were returned.
In 2006 the Association sent the same survey to another random sample of 4,000 members and received 1,406 usable surveys. The survey addressed 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
Once again, 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-based curriculum and instruction are fully implemented,” an even greater number of respondents agreed or strongly agreed this time than in the first survey—81.7% versus 77.9%. Responses to the statement, “Children’s reading achievement will improve when schools receive technical assistance to implement improvement,” were virtually the same—71.5% positive in 2005 and 71.7% positive in 2006.
Members continue to believe that implementing a strong research-based curriculum and providing schools with technical assistance is the right approach to improving reading achievement. And, as in the first survey, members strongly believe that NCLB is insufficiently funded (percentages of disagreement were identical at 74.3%).
In terms of items related to the benefits of NCLB, members had more negative views in 2006 than they did in 2005. For example, when asked to respond to the statement, “The educational benefits resulting from NCLB implementation in your school district will, on balance, outweigh any adverse effects for students in the aggregate,” responses were again bimodally distributed, with 37.3% in 2005 and 37.2% in 2006 responding positively. However, fewer respondents were neutral, and the percentage of negative responses increased from 42% in 2005 to 50.5% in 2006.
When asked whether NCLB benefited the broader community, the percentage of negative responses increased from 42.6% in 2005 to 46.3% in 2006.
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 these 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. Similar to the 2005 results, the 2006 results indicated that more respondents agreed that reading curricula were revised, funds were reallocated, and existing staff members were reassigned as a result of NCLB. Responses were again more negative than positive for the other changes.
A second set of responses 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.
Responses for most of these items remained negative. However, the number of members agreeing that reading instruction receives more attention increased from 2 out of 3 to 3 out of 4.
Another group of items explored members’ opinions related to the annual assessments required by NCLB. Members were asked whether the NCLB assessment requirement provides a sound basis for the following:
assessing students’ reading proficiency
identifying students who need additional reading instruction
monitoring student progress
evaluating teacher performance
rating effectiveness of schools
Assessment was an area in which there were changes in members’ responses. While the patterns were again bimodal, in the original survey members believed that NCLB did provide a sound basis for student assessment. In 2006, members’ responses were negative in relation to assessing students’ reading proficiency and monitoring student progress. Members remained positive about using NCLB as a basis for identifying students who need additional reading instruction, and they continue to believe that the NCLB assessment requirement does not provide a sound basis for evaluating teacher performance or rating the effectiveness of schools.
A final section of the survey asked members about the sanctions imposed when schools fail to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) goals. These questions asked if children’s achievement will improve when the following factors are in place:
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.
Results were remarkably unchanged from 2005 to 2006. Once again, members responded positively to the items related to supplemental services and extending the school day or year. They responded negatively to the remaining sanctions, and the level of disagreement increased with the severity of the sanction.
A final item addressed NCLB’s “highly qualified teacher” provision. As in 2005, members disagreed that the highly qualified teacher provision would ensure quality instruction, and the level of disagreement increased from 44.7% in 2005 to 50.8% in 2006.
Members’ responses to the NCLB 2006 follow-up survey were remarkably similar to the responses from the identical 2005 survey. In general, they supported the basic premises of the law while faulting the implementation.
However, there were several areas in which their responses were more negative. The most important of these was in the area of assessment. In 2005, members believed that the assessment provisions of NCLB were a sound basis for student assessment. They now believe that the provisions are adequate for identifying students who need more help in reading but that they are not sound for assessing student proficiency, monitoring student progress, evaluating teachers, and making decisions about school effectiveness.
Members also were more negative about the benefits of NCLB for various groups and for the general community. In addition, members lost confidence in the NCLB “highly qualified teacher” provisions.
IRA members speak out on NCLB. (February 2007). Reading Today, 24(4), 1.
Journals
Reading Today