Civil Rights Groups Split Over NCLB

This news story title seems over-stated in light of the Joint Organizational Statement on NCLB (see statement below) that LULAC, NAACP, NABE and numerous other groups endorsed. I disagree with Bill Taylor’s analogy to forced integration in order to presumably establish a rationale for why civil rights orgs should support NCLB. Forced integration indeed made the restaurants, schools, and hotels accountable, as intended. However, NCLB is misdirected because accountability is not to the public, but rather in the opposite direction—to the state.

Forced integration, moreover, was not forced on those patronizing the schools and businesses but rather on those who owned and operated them. In contrast, the politically weakest individuals in the system (children and their teachers) are held responsible for the outcomes when these correlate to funding and the flow of finance over which neither has any control—alongside a host of other issues beyond schools related to housing, health care, crime, and poverty that most school reform models ignore.

This current high-stakes model is akin to making consumers responsible for the quality of a product over which they had no role in making. This approach doesn’t even make good business sense—unless, of course, the real purpose here is to discredit public schools to pave the way to vouchers and privatization. Yet such critical analyses are rare with the press opting, in my opinion, to either sensationalize differences or treat in a reductive manner legitimate differences in perspective that exist between civil rights groups when such is inevitable with legislation that is as over-arching as NCLB. -Angela



Published: August 31, 2005
Civil Rights Groups Split Over NCLB
Accountability Provisions Stirring Heated Debate
By Karla Scoon Reid /Edweek.org

Leading national civil rights groups and advocates are increasingly divided over whether the No Child Left Behind Act will improve the academic achievement of poor and minority students, a rift that is generating conversation and concern among a circle of people accustomed to working together.

The differences of opinion range from qualified support to harsh criticism, leaving some longtime civil rights activists on opposing sides for the first time. “Unity is always best,” said John H. Jackson, the national director of education for the NAACP, which has joined forces with those seeking major changes to the nearly 4-year-old federal law. “But a little of what everyone is saying is correct. Each side is presenting a voice that needs to be heard.”

The divisions are deep enough that last year, two civil rights groups joined forces with a prominent business organization to form the Achievement Alliance, a coalition that counters attacks on the law.

Few civil rights advocates disagree with the law’s overarching goal: bringing all U.S. students’ state test scores in reading and mathematics to the proficient level by 2013-14. Because that goal requires closing gaps between African-American and Hispanic students and their white peers, most support the law’s mandate to break down performance data for racial, ethnic, economic, and other subgroups to hold schools and districts accountable for their progress.

But the law’s sanctions for failing to make adequate yearly progress toward its goals have some in the civil rights community claiming it penalizes and stigmatizes struggling districts and schools without giving them the resources needed to improve.

Others believe the law is the best tool available to pressure schools and districts to ensure that all students receive a high-quality education. The NCLB law, the centerpiece of President Bush’s agenda for schools, passed Congress in 2001 with large bipartisan majorities.

The debate came into sharp focus this summer, when the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University released a report examining district-level accountability under the federal law in six states. It concluded that districts facing sanctions, such as student transfers, serve large numbers of poor and minority students.

The report, which characterized the law as having a “racially disproportionate impact,” also contended that federally approved changes to some states’ accountability standards are letting predominantly white suburban districts off the hook.

Accountability at Issue
Gary Orfield, the director of the Civil Rights Project, said some civil rights leaders who were “very involved” in writing the law believe in demanding a level of academic achievement from schools and districts and setting deadlines to get the job done. But that approach is not founded in any research or understanding of effective ways of improving education, he argued.

Assessing the No Child Left Behind Act

Raul Gonzalez

Legislative Director, National Council of La Raza

"For the most part, civil rights groups all have the same goal in mind. Given the breadth of NCLB, it shouldn't be a surprise that there are some differences of opinion."


Gary Orfield

Director, Civil Rights Project, Harvard University

Civil rights leaders are "absolutely committed to racial justice. It's a matter of understanding how to get there."


Reg Weaver

President, National Education Association

"There's a growing chorus of dissatisfaction with the implementation of NCLB that can't be swept under the rug."

The “adequate yearly progress” requirements and sanctions in the law were “misconceived in serious ways by people who had the best of intentions,” Mr. Orfield said. He added that the measures have resulted in “unanticipated, deep consequences” that are undermining efforts to improve schools.

The Achievement Alliance immediately issued a news release to counter the Civil Rights Project’s conclusions.

“The fact that students in larger, more diverse districts are being paid attention to and given extra help is a welcome change in an education system that routinely shortchanges such students,” the statement said. “This additional support should not be characterized as punishment.”

The Achievement Alliance is made up of the Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights, a national watchdog group; the National Council of La Raza, a leading Hispanic advocacy group; the Education Trust, a research and advocacy group that promotes high achievement for poor and minority students; the Business Roundtable, an association of chief executives of major corporations; and the National Center for Educational Accountability, an Austin, Texas-based nonprofit organization that promotes the use of data to improve learning. The other groups are located in Washington.

“Kids were getting punished before this,” said William L. Taylor, the chairman of the Citizens’ Commission, who helped write the education law. “Even if they’re not held back in school, they are coming out of school without having learned what’s necessary to be effective participants in society.”

Mr. Taylor, a veteran desegregation lawyer and longtime activist, characterized the split within the civil rights community as harmful to achieving the law’s goals.

“It’s a war on the whole idea of reform. Gary [Orfield] wasn’t opposed to sanctions when it came to dealing with segregated schools,” he said. “When public officials are not carrying out their duties, you sanction them.”

Observers say that civil rights advocates have differed on the No Child Left Behind law since its inception, but that those differences have been overshadowed by the National Education Association’s April lawsuit challenging the act and by widely publicized examples of state resistance to the legislation.

Monty Neill, the co-executive director of the National Center for Fair & Open Testing, or FairTest, a Cambridge, Mass.-based group critical of standardized tests, said most civil rights groups have found “serious flaws” with the law, including an over-emphasis on testing and a lack of adequate funding.

Calling for Changes

Mr. Neill helped write a joint statement last fall that calls for substantial changes to the law, which is due for renewal by Congress in 2007. More than 50 groups support the continuing effort, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Asian American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the NEA, and the National School Boards Association.

“You can’t just outline these requirements and sanction students and teachers without also providing the resources to do it,” said Mr. Jackson of the NAACP.

Reg Weaver, the president of the 2.7 million-member NEA, said some critics are erroneously portraying the union as anti-No Child Left Behind to drive a wedge between it and civil rights groups.

In fact, Mr. Weaver argues there are few differences in their positions, because the union supports standards, accountability, and elimination of achievement gaps.

“All we’re talking about is fixing it and funding it,” he said of the law. “I think it’s a cruel hoax to have the data disaggregated and find out what you need, but in many instances not have the needs of the students met.”

Civil rights advocates do share common criticisms of several provisions under the law, including concerns about the quality of testing for English-language learners and a wish to extend the law’s transfer option to allow students to move to better schools in neighboring districts, not just their home districts.

Raul Gonzalez, the legislative director for the National Council of La Raza, believes that cohesiveness proves that views of the law are not that far apart.

“I believe that the civil rights community, at the end of the day, will come up with some principles that we can all rally behind,” he said.

Vol. 25, Issue 01, Pages 1,20-21
?
Joint Organizational Statement on No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act
October 21, 2004

The undersigned education, civil rights, children’s, disability, and citizens’ organizations are committed to the No Child Left Behind Act’s objectives of strong academic achievement for all children and closing the achievement gap. We believe that the federal government has a critical role to play in attaining these goals. We endorse the use of an accountability system that helps ensure all children, including children of color, from low-income families, with disabilities, and of limited English proficiency, are prepared to be successful, participating members of our democracy.

While we all have different positions on various aspects of the law, based on concerns raised
during the implementation of NCLB, we believe the following significant, constructive
corrections are among those necessary to make the Act fair and effective. Among these concerns are: over-emphasizing standardized testing, narrowing curriculum and instruction to focus on test preparation rather than richer academic learning; over-identifying schools in need of improvement; using sanctions that do not help improve schools; inappropriately excluding low-scoring children in order to boost test results; and inadequate funding. Overall, the law’s emphasis needs to shift from applying sanctions for failing to raise test scores to holding states and localities accountable for making the systemic changes that improve student achievement.

Recommended Changes in NCLB


Progress Measurement



1. Replace the law's arbitrary proficiency targets with ambitious achievement targets based on rates of success actually achieved by the most effective public schools.



2. Allow states to measure progress by using students’ growth in achievement as well as their performance in relation to pre-determined levels of academic proficiency.



3. Ensure that states and school districts regularly report to the government and the public their progress in implementing systemic changes to enhance educator, family, and community capacity to improve student learning.



4. Provide a comprehensive picture of students' and schools' performance by moving from an overwhelming reliance on standardized tests to using multiple indicators of student achievement in addition to these tests.



5. Fund research and development of more effective accountability systems that better meet the goal of high academic achievement for all children



Assessments


6. Help states develop assessment systems that include district and school-based measures in order to provide better, more timely information about student learning.

7. Strengthen enforcement of NCLB provisions requiring that assessments must:
· Be aligned with state content and achievement standards;
· Be used for purposes for which they are valid and reliable;

· Be consistent with nationally recognized professional and technical standards;

· Be of adequate technical quality for each purpose required under the Act;

· Provide multiple, up-to-date measures of student performance including measures that assess higher order thinking skills and understanding; and

· Provide useful diagnostic information to improve teaching and learning.



8. Decrease the testing burden on states, schools and districts by allowing states to assess students annually in selected grades in elementary, middle schools, and high schools.



Building Capacity



9. Ensure changes in teacher and administrator preparation and continuing professional development that research evidence and experience indicate improve educational quality and student achievement.



10. Enhance state and local capacity to effectively implement the comprehensive changes required to increase the knowledge and skills of administrators, teachers, families, and communities to support high student achievement.


Sanctions

11. Ensure that improvement plans are allowed sufficient time to take hold before applying sanctions; sanctions should not be applied if they undermine existing effective reform efforts.

12. Replace sanctions that do not have a consistent record of success with interventions that enable schools to make changes that result in improved student achievement.

Funding

13. Raise authorized levels of NCLB funding to cover a substantial percentage of the costs that states and districts will incur to carry out these recommendations, and fully fund the law at those levels without reducing expenditures for other education programs.

14. Fully fund Title I to ensure that 100 percent of eligible children are served.

We, the undersigned, will work for the adoption of these recommendations as central structural changes needed to NCLB at the same time that we advance our individual organization’s proposals.

Advancement Project
American Association of School Administrators
American Association of University Women
ASPIRA
Association of School Business Officials International (ASBO)
Campaign for Fiscal Equity/ACCESS
Children's Defense Fund
Citizens for Effective Schools
Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders
Council for Exceptional Children
Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform
Division for Learning Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional Children (DLD/CEC)
FairTest: The National Center for Fair & Open Testing
Forum for Education and Democracy
International Reading Association
Learning Disabilities Association of America
National Alliance of Black School Educators
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Social Workers
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE)
National Down Syndrome Congress
National Education Association
National School Boards Association
National Urban League
Service Employees International Union
School Social Work Association of America