No Child Left Behind and Educational Impact on At-Risk Youth

No Child Left Behind and Educational Impact on At-Risk Youth

Amy Sennett

Monmouth University

Part I: No Child Left Behind & the “Dropout” Crisis

A. Its Stated Goal: At-Risk Youth

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) aims to decrease the achievement gap and improve student performance so that 100% of students will meet math and language arts standards by 2014 (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Orlich, 2004).  NCLB passed as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001 with the clear mandate to target increases in achievement of 4 subgroups collectively referred to as “at-risk” youth.  This group includes minority children, students with disabilities, poor children, and English language learners (Leonard, 2007; Hursh, 2005).  NCLB attempts to accomplish this closing of the achievement gap between white economically advantaged students and “at-risk” students by focusing the attention of schools’ on improving test scores, providing parents more choice, and ensuring better qualified teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2007).

B. General Problems with NCLB

Despite its stated goals, NCLB actually has a seriously negative impact on “at-risk” youth (Smyth, 2008; Darling-Hammond, 2007; Gay, 2007; Hursh, 2007).  Through a variety direct and indirect means, NCLB succeeds in doing exactly the opposite of what it intended.  It has maintained inequality of funding which has lead to failing schools, confuses measuring schools with reforming them, uses invalid variables to measure student progress, narrows the curriculum and provides only the illusion of school choice.

Maintains Inequalities – Our “Education Debt”

NCLB requires the lowest performing schools in the nation to demonstrate the greatest academic gains through adequate yearly progress (AYP).  At the same time these policies ignore the facts that these same schools are not only the most under-funded in the nation but they also serve the neediest populations (Gay, 2007; Darling-Hammond, 2007).   The most highly funded US public schools spend up to 10 times as much per student as the poorest schools (Darling-Hammond, 2007).  This fiscal imbalance leads to an imbalance in resources.  The end result is under funded schools, serving the largest numbers of the “at-risk” youth, typically with the largest class sizes and fewer, lower quality instructional materials, minimal extra curricular activities, smaller libraries, less counselors, and lower-quality academic courses (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Gay, 2007). Most importantly, these schools still have the least qualified teachers which is directly correlated with poor test scores which is intended to be a key point of reform in NCLB (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Gay, 2007; Tuerk, 2005).

Furthermore, many of these large urban and rural districts do not have the tax base needed to provide high quality education.  NCLB fails to address these school-based inequalities.  If the law were serious about providing high-quality education to its stated target population, it would provide more funding to correct these conditions (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Gay, 2007).

Confuses Measurement and Reform

Linda Darling-Hammond said it best when she noted that, “The biggest problem with the Act is that it mistakes measuring schools for fixing them.” (Darling-Hammond, p.249)  Not only are the schools that house most of our “at-risk” population under-funded, they are tested and punished rather than fixed. NCLB spends the vast majority of its money, between 1.9 and 5.3 billion on testing (between 2002 – 2008), not fixing schools (Smyth, 2008).  Once schools are labeled as failing to reach AYP it makes it much harder for those schools to attract and keep highly qualified teachers.  More importantly, the money that is needed to fix these schools it taken away when a school fails to reach AYP (Darling-Hammond, 2007).

It Uses a Bad Measuring Stick

In some cases schools have worked tirelessly to improve the achievement of  “at-risk”, but the white student sub-group did not improve “sufficiently.”  This can likely be attributed to the fact that these students had scored very high on state tests previously; hit the test ceiling.  Ironically, these schools have promoted achievement gains among “at-risk” students and narrowed the achievement gap according to the goals of NCLB but failed to meet AYP and were therefore punished (Darling-Hammond, 2007).

Other practical concerns include the freedom given to each state to implement testing regimes with varying content, performance standards and assessment (Lane, 2004; Linn, Baker & Betebenner, 2002).  Since 2001, there is clear evidence that some states are lowering their performance standards so their schools are not labeled as “failing” (Gay, 2007).

It is also interesting to note that on norm-referenced tests, which are commonly employed by states due to the specific annual requirements of NCLB, it is impossible to attain 100% proficiency levels.  These norm-referenced tests, by definition, must have 50% of the student score below the norm. Even if different tests were used, the time provided for student achievement to increase is unrealistic.  If we use the progress on math scores in the 1990’s as a base, it has been calculated that it would take schools more than 160 years to reach the new math targets (Darling-Hammond, 2007).

Children learn and demonstrate learning in different ways and at varying rates.  These diverse ways of learning should be viewed as assets to schools, not liabilities. Using a single achievement measure of educational quality is at best selling our students short.  At worst this policy is a political and economic manipulation to preserve the advantages of one group, those who do well on that single measure, over others (Gay, 2007).

Most importantly, there are legitimate questions around the assumption that standardized tests are the most reliable way to assess student learning (Fuller, Wright, Gesicki & Kang, 2007; Kirby et al., 2002; Hursh, 2007).  Results indicate that standardized test scores correlate more to family income than any other factor (Gay, 2007; Paul, 2004; Hursh, 2007).  Therefore, NCLB essentially functions to discriminate against a specific socioeconomic bracket of our young people.

Narrowing of the Curriculum

NCLB, with its myopic focus on math and language arts, has forced schools to abandon robust curricular initiatives and real school reform in favor of test prep strategies and materials. Not only has this focus on test-based instruction caused schools previously working hard at school reform and curriculum development to shift gears, but it has also lowered teacher expectations and student morale.  Instead of teaching critical thinking, problem solving, and real world applications of learning, teachers end up employing “drill and kill” model of test preparation.  Most disturbingly, this narrowing of the curriculum reduces the chance that students who learn in different ways will have the opportunities to display what they have learned and showcase their distinctive talents (Hursch, 2007; Gay, 2007; Darling-Hammond, 2007).

The Illusion of Choice

NCLB promises to free “at-risk” populations from their failing schools by giving them the choice to attend private or charter schools through a school voucher programs or transfer to more successful public schools; a promise which ignores the fact that almost all schools serving “at-risk” populations will be failing by 2014.  This leads some to believe that this provision of NCLB is a prelude to privatizing the education system.  All of these facts give reason for serious concerns with the idea of “choice” (Darling-Hammond, 2007).

The idea of choosing to attend alternative schools implies in some way that schools in these poor communities are not worth fixing and that there is something better about the middle class, primarily white schools.  This raises the questions of why victims should make the concession.  Why not spend the resources to make these failing schools work instead of shipping students out of district where they may feel isolated and unwelcome? (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Gay, 2007).  On a more practical note, often there are no open seats in non-failing schools. When space is available, questions arise about who is going to foot the bill (Gay, 2007; Darling-Hammond, 2007).  Most importantly, the success of private and charters schools often is based on the schools’ ability to employ a diversity of indirect student selection techniques and parental involvement.  In most cases, those students “at-risk” are eliminated from the successful school (Darling-Hammond, 2007).  Unfortunately, when “at-risk” students are allowed into successful schools, they often continue to be unsuccessful academically, simply in a new location (Gay, 2007).

C. The Anatomy of the “Push Out”

Maintaining inequalities, focusing on measuring rather than fixing schools, using myopic and flawed metrics, narrowing of the curriculum and the illusion of school choice all might be acceptable if NCLB was accomplishing its stated goal of narrowing the achievement gap and raising performance for the 4 sub groups deemed “at-risk”.   Some supporters claim NCLB is to be given credit for the narrowing of the achievement gap in some states (Kober et al., 2008).  A closer look at the states’ that have demonstrated a narrowing of the gap illuminates the most pervasive aspect of NCLB.  Tragically, some states that have reported a narrowed gap can not attribute the change to increased achievement, but rather a system that incentivizes the removal of low achieving students (Dworkin, 2005; Haney, 2000; Lipman 2002; Urrieta, 2004).

The Dropout Crisis

A number of studies have shown a very strong negative correlation between high stakes accountability and graduation rates (McNeil et al., 2008; Darling-Hammond, 2006, The Advancement Project, 2010).  Furthermore, results from standardized test are often used to retain students in a grade (Haney, 2000; Jacob, 2002, The Advancement Project, 2010). These two factors together, the increase in high stakes testing as a graduation requirement and increased retention rates, are the number one and number two predictors of student drop-out.  Both factors surpass discipline problems and suspensions as a predictor, which fall third on this list (Christine et al., 2007; Edley & Wald, 2002).

As one would expect, in states and cities where high-stakes testing is required for graduation, grade retention and drop-out rates have been highest ( Orfield & Ashkinaze, 1991; Heurbert & Hauser, 1999; Roderick et al., 1999; Clarke et al., 2000; Jacob, 2001; Lilliard & DeCicca, 2001; Wheelock, 2003) and the achievement gap has actually widened (Orfield et al., 2004).

Most disturbing is the disparate impact NCLB high stakes testing has on “at-risk” populations.   Less than half of the nations schools require high schools exit exams. However, 75 percent of students of color attend public schools in states that require exit exams to graduate.  This percentage will rise to 84 percent by 2012 (Zabala et al.; 2008). Not only are these “at-risk” students in schools that are under-resourced, with less likelihood of having highly qualified teachers, but they are more likely subject to high-stakes testing which in turn result in grade retention and the increased potential of dropping out (McNeil et al., 2008).

The Pressure of High Stakes Testing

To truly understand the drop-out dynamic that is reeking havoc on “at-risk” youth it is essential to examine the increased pressure imposed by NCLB high-stakes testing. Between 2001-2008 the number of states utilizing test results to sanction schools rose from 14 to 32.  These sanctions included turning them over to private management, conversion to charter schools and reconstituting; firing everyone on staff (The Advancement Project, 2010).

As discussed, this leads to a narrowing curricula, less critical thinking, job dissatisfaction among teachers as well as a negative impact on student performance in other subjects. At the same time high-stakes testing has never been proven effective in improving student achievement in the subjects on which it focuses (Nichols et al., 2006)

Incentives to Push-Out Students

School administrators and teachers are caught in a system of accountability that forces compliance rather than genuine school reform (McNeil, et al., 2008). Ironically, a key provision in NCLB, the disaggregating of test scores by sub groups does not lead to greater equity but rather marks those failing students as potential liabilities (McNeil et al., 2008).  The message to school administrators is clear; pushing struggling students out of school will boost test scores (McNeil et al., 2008; The Advancement Project, 2008).

The Anatomy of the Push-Out

Although official statistics record student drop-out rates, a more accurate description is to say that these students are really victims of a system by which they are “pushed-out” by one means or another. This begins with the implementation of high-takes testing and the associated threat of sanctions. The threat of sanctions scares schools into ridged zero tolerance discipline systems and narrows the curriculum.  At this point schools have the top three reasons for student drop-outs working in conjunction – high stakes testing leading to increased grade retention and disciplinary action (Advancement project, 2010).  Disaggregated data functions to show school administrators exactly where the problems lie.  Student whom feel pressured to pass the test as a means of protecting their teachers jobs or the future of their high school and are not actively encouraged by adults to stay in school but rather, often times, counseled to leave (McNeil, 2008).

School administrators have many push-out options:

1. Push-out into special education so scores are not counted (Allington &McGill-            Franzen, 1992; Figlio & Getzler, 2002).

2. Retain students in a grade so grade level scores will look better (Haney, 2000;             Jacob, 2002).

3. Exclude lower scoring students from admission (Smith, 1986; Darling-            Hammond, 1991).

4. Actively encouraging students to leave school (Smith, 1986; Orfield &             Ashkinaze, 1991; Haney, 2000).

Students feel the push-out pressure in a number of ways:

1. Suspended or expelled.

2. Discouraged and ashamed of test results and consequently act out until            removed.

3. Retained a grade.

4. Bored with test–driven curriculum and disrupt class.

5. Denied a diploma as a result of test scores.

(Advancement project, 2008)

The Impact on Schools – Case Studies

Considering Texas was used as the model for the federal NCLB policy, it is useful to look at the “Texas Miracle” (McNeil, 2008).  The claim is that the Texas education policy and NCLB are improving education and that they leave no children behind.  The “Texas Miracle” was actually the “Texas Mirage” (Haney, 2000).  Close examination of the Texas school records indicate the classic “push-out” that made tens of thousands of student disappear from the schools altogether (Dobbs, 2003; Haney, 2000)

In Massachusetts when they phased in high-stakes testing during the 1990’s a 300% increase in middle school drop-outs occurred between 1997 – 1998 and 1999 – 2000.  At the high school level there was as 5% decrease in graduation rates in 2002 when an exit exam for graduation was introduced. These changes disproportionately impacted at-risk students  (Wheelock, 2003).

In 2000 – 2001 in New York, 1 year after high-stakes testing was introduced 55,000 students were “discharged” without graduating.  Only 34,000 seniors actually graduated from high school (Advocates for Children, 2002).

The National Picture

A comprehensive study on just the 100 largest school districts in the country provides an excellent cross-section of how NCLB is pushing-out “at-risk” students.   These districts serve 40% of the nations minority population. From 1996 to 2002 (when NCLB was signed into law) 68 of those 100 districts were experiencing rising graduation rates.  From 2002 to 2006 73 of the 100 districts experienced declining graduation rates (Fluery et al., 2008).

Part II: Dropouts and the Cycle of Oppression

The problems plaguing NCLB, and especially the current dropout crisis, threaten society as a whole.  An educated pubic is needed for our democracy to work properly.  Any national policy resulting in an education system that fails to reach the most needy segment of our population is a direct threat to our free and open society. Through both the narrowing of the curriculum and the increasing loss of at-risk students, we are undermining our ability to create the future society we, as a country, need.

Beyond these overarching concerns, NCLB and the resulting dropout crisis have very specific and real impact on the youth.  This is especially ironic in light of the fact that the negatively impacted individuals are the very same that the policies were written with the intention of helping.  Students who dropout of high school have few options for employment, are more likely to experience health problems, have a higher chance of engaging in criminal activities and are more often found on welfare and other government assistance programs (Martin et al., 2002).

According to 2000 high school graduation data, 56% of high school dropouts were unemployed compared with 16% of graduates (Standard, 2003). The job options that are available to them tend to be lower paying, low-skilled jobs.  According to the Census Bureau the average income of a dropout from 2000 is $12,400 compared to $21,000 for a high school graduate (Campbell, 2003 – 2004).  Drop-outs make-up 52% welfare recipients, 85% of the juvenile justice cases and 82% of the prison population (Standard, 2003).

Most disturbing is the development of the school-to-prison pipeline that has helped triple prison enrollments since the 1980’s (Wald &Losen, 2003).  The fact that more than 50% of the inmates are functionally illiterate and 40% have learning disabilities that were not addressed in school is an indication that these young inmates were let down by there education system (Darling-Hammond, 2004b).

The cost to society is great as well.  Some of the negative impacts of dropouts include:

a. forgone national income

b. forgone tax revenues for

c. increased demand for social services

d. increased crime and antisocial behavior

e. reduced political participation

f. reduced intergenerational mobility

g. poorer levels of health

(Hayes et al., 2002)

Perhaps most astonishing is the financial cost to our criminal justice system, which has increased by 600% since the 1980’s.  This system, fed by the school-to-prison pipeline, requires states to pay $30,000 per inmate when they are unwilling to pay even 25% of that to provide them with good schools that serve their needs (Darling- Hammond, 2007).

The loss of young people from our schools and society to our prisons and the street has incalculable cost.  Not only are we moving too many resources away (to testing & prisons) from services that could make people product members of society, we are short changing ourselves and out future.  The gifts, talents and problem solving ability we need reside in our youth.   If we are to solve our numerous and considerable problems, we must tap the potential of our children, not test and punish them.

Part III: Fix, Don’t Just Measure & Seeing Through the Smoke Screen

Presidents Obama’s suggested changes to NCLB tweak the current law rather than give it the comprehensive overhaul it needs. The Race to the Top (RTTT), passed as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is President Obama’s first attempt to remake the country’s education system.  It fails in many ways, perhaps most importantly because it sets up competition between states for increased funds.  The nature of this competition ensures that there are winners and losers rather than simply improving education for all schools in the country. Not only does Obama’s education reform plan skirt comprehensive reform, it also distract from the underlying societal factors that cause children to struggle in school.  By focusing on school reform, we divert attention from the fundamental societal ills which need to be addressed.  We must deal with comprehensive NCLB reform first and then the issue of scapegoating and education reform.

Comprehensive Reform of NCLB

The most important thing about NCLB is to ensure that it fixes the real and persistent problems with schools rather than just measure them. Research has shown testing mandates and the threat of sanctions without simultaneous support are doomed to fail.  Conversely, well-funded and well-planned long-term instructional programs, when implemented, find success (Gorey, 2009).

Comprehensive reform must be multifaceted and all encompassing. Although the outline below is a synthesis of various researchers’ work, it draws very heavily on the work of Linda Darling-Hammond at Stanford University and The Advancement Project. For clarification on any of the major points mentioned below, their work provides a holistic and thoughtful analysis of the challenges and potential solutions to reform schools under NCLB.

Three major prongs of comprehensive reform emerge when one look seriously at schools under NCLB:

1. Improved learning environments by elimination of policies and practices that push students out of school through dropouts, suspensions, expulsions, and referral to alternative school.

2. Replace high stakes testing with a redesigned assessment and accountability regulations that keep students in the learning environment and are focused on authentic achievement.

3. Ensure that every student is provided with a high-quality pre-K – 12 education.

(Darling-Hammond, 2006; The Advancement Project, 2010)

1. Improving Learning Environments:

a. Create community working groups of stakeholders to craft school discipline policies that set-limits on suspensions, expulsions and referrals to other institutions. Collect and report school discipline data to a school discipline oversight committee made up of school personnel, parents, students and community members. The committee would hold school officials accountable to the limits set-up by the working group.

b. Increase or divert funds (from disciplinary positions such as vice principals) for more guidance councilors, social works and school psychologist.

c. Expand teacher training and professional development on classroom management, conflict resolution and discipline alternatives.

(The Advancement Project, 2010)

2. Redesigning Accountability:

a. Include a school site visits from state officials that would require the school to do a self-assessment prior to the visit and the state to provide conclusions and recommendations to the school after the visit. Based upon the report, each school would develop a school improvement plan in conjunction with state officials (Smyth, 2008).

b. Accountability must flow two ways; down to students and schools but also up to local, state and federal officials and policymakers to ensure they provide equitable, high-quality learning conditions of every student (The Advancement Project, 2010).

c. Student performance displayed by using multiple indicators of student performance in all subject areas.  This should include classroom-based evidence and actual student performance, both qualitatively and quantitatively assessed (The Advancement Project, 2010). Performance assessment, including attendance and course passage, should be used to motivate ambitious intellectual work (Darling-Hammond, 2006).

d. Measure students’ progress as well as performance. This should include achievement based on the entire cohort of students who entered school together, to avoid and incentive to retain students in a grade to artificially boost achievement levels (The Advancement Project, 2010; Darling-Hammond, 2006).

e. Testing regimes should be formative rather than punitive; used to provide insight into how to improve teaching and learning instead of punishing (The Advancement Project, 2010; Darling-Hammond, 2006).

f. Ensure accountability accurately assesses student progress without penalizing schools for serving the most diverse student bodies and not encourage the “pushout” of students by making improvement in graduation rates a significant component of accountability. One that sets target graduation rates, disaggregates the graduation rates and focuses on the graduation rates of students who have previously scored poorly on standardized testing.

(The Achievement Project, 2010; Darling-Hammond, 2006)

3. Provide High-Quality Education for All:

a. Make high quality education the civil right of every child (The Advancement Project, 2010).

b. Address the “education debt” by eliminating the inequalities in our education systems by creating local and state “Opportunity to Learn Commissions” that ensure schools have sufficient resources to provide high-quality learning experiences to every child by focusing on:

– inequitable resource distribution

– rich and diverse curriculum

– the impact of testing on learning

– the impact of discipline policies on learning

– academic tracking of at risk youth into low-level classes

– poorly run special education classes

– excessive grade retention

– inequitable distribution of experienced and effective teachers

– under representation of at risk students in high level classes

– overcrowded classrooms

– inadequate academic “safety nets”

– out of school factors such as health care, housing, employment and                                     community safety (The Advancement Project, 2010)

c. Invest in “A new Marshall Plan” for teachers and school leaders as the Forum for Education and Democracy suggests. This will ensure there are well-prepared and effective educators for all students (The Advancement Project, 2010).  Some elements of this plan might include:

– a focus on the equity provisions of NCLB to reduce disparities in access

to qualified teachers for “at risk” students

– creation of allowances for multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary                                                 teaching that are necessities in small schools and an advantage in                                                 secondary schools

– teachers should not be identified as highly qualified unless they have                                     demonstrated they have mastered essential teaching skills.

– greater federal support and incentives are needed to recruit and prepare                                     and distribute highly qualified teachers

(Darling-Hammond, 2006).

d. With increased funds for school councilors and social workers increase their roles by having them:

– educate school staff about the impact of poverty and racism on students                                     ability             to perform in the classroom.

– help the school to become culturally competent in their interactions with                                     students.

– address resource inequalities, school segregation and the impact of                                     NCLB at the macro level by working to improve school policies

– identify student with personal and family problems and help them to                                     access             support services and monitor the impact of these services on                                     academic achievement.

– help students foster positive peer relationships and help teachers                                                 understand the impact there attitudes have on student achievement.

– attempt to relieve the stress NCLB has on teachers by helping them with                                     classroom issues, especially with “at-risk” students.

(Lagana-Riordan, 2009)

e. Provide the opportunity for students, parents, families and the community to have a voice and opportunity to engage in school decision making and improvement. (The Advancement Project, 2010)

f. Address children’s health through full-service school clinics

g. Improve the quality of students’ out of school time by increasing investment in community schools and after-school and summer programs (The Advancement Project, 2010)

Scapegoating the Schools

There is some encouraging evidence that small urban schools serving  “at-risk” youth have had success by implementing some of the above suggestions (Bensman, 1987; Darling-Hammond, 1997; Darling-Hammond et al., 2002; Fine et al., 2005; Wasley, et al., 2000).  More promising is the evidence that schools able to employ well-qualified teachers, personalize curriculum, use performance-based assessment (based on common core curriculum) and provide specific supports for struggling student have been dramatically more effective than average urban schools (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Darling-Hammond, 1997; Darling-Hammond, et al., 2002; Lee & Smith, 1995; Newman, 1996; Newman & Wehlage, 1995; Wasley et al., 2000; Wehlage et al., 1989).

Despite hopeful evidence that real school reform can reach the four sub-groups NCLB has failed, the reality is that ultimately schools cannot fix problems they did not create. As stated earlier, a study done comparing 40 schools in Kentucky identified the top three indicators of school failure as measured by high dropout rates.  Achievement test scores, rate of retaining student in a grade and the occurrence of maladaptive or undesirable student behavior were the first three factors. Following these three closely were poverty and ethnicity; the higher the dropout rates, the higher percentage of low-income families and the lower percentage of White students (Christle et al., 2007).

Students from low-income families are 2.4 times more likely to drop out of high school than middle-income students.  The proportion of black students who fail to graduate for high school is twice that of white students (Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2001).  Children without access to proper nutrition, adequate housing, safe communities or adequate health care are less able to perform academically (Gerstl-Pepin, 2006; Mathis, 2004).  Family factors such as abuse, mental health problems, lack of parental supervision, family mobility, inadequate/inconsistent housing and unemployment are negatively correlated with school success (Price et al., 2006; Borman et al., 2004; Prodente et al, 2002; Recie, 2005). This data, in conjunction with evidence suggesting that changes to curriculum and teaching are not enough to bring about improved learning, causes questions of the ultimate motivation and purpose of NCLB (Gerstel-Pepin, 2006).

Looking specifically at the achievement gap in upper-elementary school, age 11, two-thirds of the gap can be explained by family factors.  The top 10 family factors influencing a child’s cognitive skills at age five are:

1. Parents’ IQ

2. Cognitive stimulation/instruction

3. Emotional support/nurturance

4. Parents’ education attainment

5. Family income and poverty status

6. Family structure: marital status, number of parents

7. Mother’s age when child is born

8. Number of siblings

9. Childs nutrition (including breast feeding)

10. Child’s birth weight

(Amor, 2006)

Once these family risk factors are removed, the achievement gap goes from 9.3 to 2.4 test points. An additional influence is the interaction between the individual child and environment.  This is to say that one family with the same 10 factors would be perceived and experience differently by each individual child. To control for this variable an earlier measure of IQ was used.  After this variable is removed, the achievement gap was further reduced to 0.2 test points.  Almost completely eliminated (Amor, 2006).

Not only does the research point toward factors beyond the construct of our schools, but 77% of the general public also believes the achievement gap is primarily due to “other factors” while only 19% think it is “mostly related to quality of schooling” (Hess & Rotherham, 2007).

It seems clear that risk factors for failure in, and dropping out of, school exist in all parts of a student’s life.  Further, the chance that a student drops out increases as these factors accumulate (Woods, 1995).  At best, a policy like NCLB is simply poorly designed. NCLB not only increases the in-school factors for dropping out, such as high stakes testing, grade retention and discipline problems, but tends to ignore the impact of socio-economic status has on dropouts (Lagana-Riordan, 2009). At worst NCLB is a well-informed and brilliant strategy to perpetuate a systems of social and racial oppression (Leonard, 2007).

In Richard Rothstein’s book, “Class and schools: Using social, economic and educational reform to close the back-white achievement gap” he argues that if we can’t close the gaps in income, health, and housing there will be little prospect of equalizing achievement (Rothstein, 2004).  Others go further in saying that NCLB and its blaming of schools and teachers for student failures, diverts attention away from more appropriate focuses of government attention; unemployment, affordable housing, public transportation, health care, etc. These policies outline a system of finger-pointing which frames schools as the root of our social problems.  Therefore, creating the illusion that government attempts to fix schools are actually efforts to do something about our social problems (Hursh, 2007; Leonard, 2007).  Looking at NCLB from this perspective helps unpack the social ramifications of schools that fail to make AYP.

Even with all the best practices in place, schools cannot solve all of society’s ills. It is clear that public education in our country needs reform.  NCLB clearly does not do that.  In reality it puts our most vulnerable students, those whom it aims to help, in the cross hairs of high stakes testing.  In doing so, ultimately undermining the schools ability to reach them.  Beyond school reform, we need an honest dialogue regarding the cycles of oppression and racisms that plague this country.  We must see through the smoke screen of school reform and deal with the real world problems facing our youth.  When we reach the 2014 deadline for NCLB and the achievement gap has not been closed, will politicians still pretend we have a teaching and learning problem? Or will they be honest and deal with poverty, oppression and racism in a holistic and real manner?

References

Advancement Project (2010). Test, Punish, and Push Out: How “Zero Tolerance” and High Stakes Testing Funnel Youth Into the School-to-Prison Pipeline. Retrieved from Advancementproject.org.

Advocates for Children (2002). Pushing out at-risk students: an analysis of high school discharge figures – a joint report by AFC and the Public Advocate. Retrieved from advocatedforchildren.org.

Allington, R., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1992). Unintended Effects of Educational Reform in New York. Educational Policy, 6(4), 397-414.

Armor, D. (2006). “Brown” and Black-White Achievement. Academic Questions, 19(2), 40-46.

Bensman, D. (1987). Quality education in the inner city: The Story of Central Park East Schools. New York: New York Community Trust.

Borman, K., Eitle, T., Michael, D., Eitle, D., Lee, R., Johnson, L., et al. (2004). Accountability in a Postdesegregation Era: The Continuing Significance of Racial Segregation in Florida’s Schools. American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 605-634.

Campbell, L. (2003-2004). As strong as the weakest link: Urban high school dropout. High School Journal, 87(2), 16-25.

Christle, C., Jolivette, K., & Nelson, C. (2007). School Characteristics Related to High School Dropout Rates. Remedial and Special Education, 28(6-), 325-339.

Coalition of Juvenile Justice. (2001). Abandon in the back row: New lessons in education and delinquency prevention. Washington, DC: Author.

Clarke, M. Madaus, G. Pedulla, J. & Shore, A. (2000) Statements: an agenda for research on educational testing. Boston: National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1991). The Implications of Testing Policy for Quality and Equality. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(3), 220-25.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The Right To Learn: A Blueprint for Creating Schools That Work. The Jossey-Bass Education Series.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1).

Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Ort, S. (2002). Reinventing High School: Outcomes of the Coalition Campus Schools Project. American Educational Research Journal, 39(3), 639-73.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). What happens to a dream deferred? A continuing quest for equal educational opportunity, in: J. A. Banks (Ed.) Handbook of research on multicultural education (2^nd edn). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 607-630.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). No Child Left Behind and High School Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 642-667.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006) Schools that work for all children, in: C. Glickman (Ed.) Letters o the next president: what we can do about the real crisis in public education. New York: Teachers College Press, 239-253.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Race, Inequality and Educational Accountability: The Irony of “No Child Left Behind”. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 245-260.

DeVoe, J.F. & Darling-Churchill, K. E. (2008). Status and Trends in the Education of

American Indians and Alaska Natives. NCES. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008084

Dobbs, M. (2003). Education “miracle” has a math problem, The Washington Post.

Figlio, D.N. & Getzler, L.S. (2002). Accountability, ability and disability: gaming the system? New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Fine, M., Stoudt, B., & Futch, V. (2005).  The international network for public schools: A quantitative and qualitative cohort analysis of graduation and dropout rates. New York: City University of New York, The Graduate Center.

Fuller, B., Wright, J., Gesicki, K., & Kang, E. (2007). Gauging Growth: How to Judge No Child Left Behind?. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 268-278.

Gay, G. (2007). The Rhetoric and Reality of NCLB. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 279-293.

Gerstl-Pepin, C. (2006). The Paradox of Poverty Narratives: Educators Struggling with Children Left Behind. Educational Policy, 20(1), 143-162.

Gorey, K. (2009). Comprehensive School Reform: Meta-Analytic Evidence of Black-White Achievement Gap Narrowing. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 17(25),

Haney, W. (2000). The Myth of the Texas Miracle in Education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(41).

Haney, W. (2002). Lake Woebeguaranteed: misuse of test scores in Massachusetts, Part I, Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 10(24).

Hayes, R., Nelson, J., Tabin, M., Pearson, G., & Worthy, C. (2002). Using School-Wide Data To Advocate for Student Success. Professional School Counseling, 6(2), 86-94.

Heilig, J.V. (2006). Progress and learning if urban minority students in an environment of accountability. Ph.D thesis, Stanford University.

Hess, F., Rotherham, A. J. (2007) NCLB and the Competitiveness Agenda: Happy Collaboration or a Collision Course? Phi Delta Kappan, 88(5), 345-353.

Heubert, J. & Hauser, R. (1999). High stakes: testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. A report of the National Research Council. Washington, DC, National Academy Press.

Hursh, D. (2007). Exacerbating Inequality: The Failed Promise of the No Child Left behind Act. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 295-308.

Jacob, B.A. (2001). Getting Tough? The impact of high school graduation exams, Education and Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 99-122.

Jacob, B.A. (2002). The impact of high-stakes testing on student achievement: evidence from Chicago. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Kirby, S., McCaffrey, D., Lockwood, J., McCombs, J., Naftel, S., & Barney, H. (2002). Using State School Accountability Data to Evaluate Federal Programs: A Long Uphill Road. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(4), 122-45.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities. New York: Crown Publishing.

Lagana-Riordan, C., & Aguilar, J. (2009). What’s Missing from No Child Left Behind? A Policy Analysis from a Social Work Perspective. Children & Schools, 31(3), 135-144.

Lane, S. (2004). Validity of High-Stakes Assessment: Are Students Engaged in Complex Thinking?. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23(3), 6-14.

Lee, V., & Smith, J. (1995). Effects of High School Restructuring and Size on Early Gains in Achievement and Engagement. Sociology of Education, 68(4), 241-70.

Le Floch, K., Taylor, J., & Thomsen, K. (2006). Implications of NCLB Accountability for Comprehensive School Reform. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 11(3-4), 353-366.

Leonardo, Z. (2007). The War on Schools: NCLB, Nation Creation and the Educational Construction of Whiteness. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 261-278.

Lillard, D. & DeCicca, P. (2001) Higher standards, more dropouts? Evidence within and across time, Economics of Education Reveiws, 20(5), 459-473.

Linn, R., Baker, E., Betebenner, D., California Univ., L., & National Center for Research on Evaluation, S. (2002). Accountability Systems: Implications of Requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. CSE Technical Report.

Mathis, W. (2004). NCLB and high-stakes accountability: A cure? Or a symptom of the disease? Educational Horizons, 82, 143-152.

Martin, E., Tobin, T., & Sugai, G. (2002). Current Information on Dropout Prevention: Ideas from the Practitioners and the Literature. Preventing School Failure, 47(1), 10-17.

McNeil, L., Coppola, E., Radigan, J., & Heilig, J. (2008). Avoidable Losses: High-Stakes Accountability and the Dropout Crisis. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 16(3), 1-48.

Newmann, F.M. & Wehlage, G.G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators. Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.

Newmann, F.M. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Orfield, G., & Ashkinaze, C. (1991). The Closing Door: Conservative Policy and Black Opportunity.

Orlich, D. (2004). No Child Left Behind: An Illogical Accountability Model. Clearing House, 78(1), 6.

Paul, D. (2004). The Train Has Left: The No Child Left Behind Act Leaves Black and Latino Literacy Learners Waiting at the Station. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47(8), 648-656.

Prince, D., Pepper, K., & Brocato, K. (2006). The Importance of Making the Well-Being of Children in Poverty a Priority. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(1), 21-28.

Reis, S., Colbert, R., & Hebert, T. (2005). Understanding Resilience in Diverse, Talented Students in an Urban High School. Roeper Review, 27(2), 110.

Roderick, M., Bryk, A., Jacob, B., Easton, J., Allensworth, E., & Consortium on Chicago School Research, I. (1999). Ending Social Promotion: Results from the First Two Years. Charting Reform in Chicago Series 1.

Smith, F. (1986). High school admission and the improvement of schooling. New York, New York: City Board of Education.

Smyth, T. (2008). Who Is No Child Left Behind Leaving Behind?. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 81(3), 133-137.

Stanard, R. (2003). High School Graduation Rates in the United States: Implications for the Counseling Profession. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81(2), 217-21.

Taylor, D. (2005). Class and Schools: Using Social, Economic, and Educational Reform to Close The Black-White Achievement Gap. School Effectiveness & School Improvement, 16(4), 445-449.

Tuerk, P.W. (2005). Research in the high-stakes era: Achievement, resources, and No Child Left Behind. Psychological Science, 16, 419-425.

Wasley, P., Fine, M., Gladden, M., Holland, N., King, S., Mosak, E., et al. (2000). Small Schools: Great Strides. New York: Bank Street College of Education.

Wehlage, G., & And, O. (1989). Reducing the Risk: Schools as Communities of Support. New York, NY:

Publisher name and contact information, as provided by the publisher; updated only if notified by the publisher.The Falmer Press.

Woods, E. G. (1995). Reducing the drop-out rate. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Wheelock, A. (2003). School Awards Programs and Accountability in Massachusetts: Misusing MCAS Scores To Assess School Quality.