Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2011 National Association of Secondary School Principals - All rights to the intellectual property contained herein, including copyrights, trademarks, and service marks, are reserved by NASSP.
Approximately 5,000 of America’s 100,000 public schools are on track for restructuring under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) by the 2009 – 10 school year, according to The Turnaround Challenge, a new report by the Mass Insight Education and Research Institute.
Schools entering the planning phase of restructuring have missed adequate yearly progress (AYP) for five consecutive years, and if AYP is missed for a sixth consecutive year, a district must take one of several drastic measures, including: replacing the school principal and other staff who are relevant to the school missing AYP; reopening the school as a public charter school; entering into a contract with a private management company with a demonstrated record of effectiveness, to operate the school; or state takeover of the school. The district may also implement “any other major restructuring of the school’s governance arrangement that makes fundamental reforms, such as significant changes in the school’s staffing and governance, to improve student academic achievement in the school and that has substantial promise of enabling the school to make adequate yearly progress.”
How do we turn around these chronically low-performing schools when past reform efforts have simply not worked? The answer, some researchers and educators are saying, can be found through innovation and entrepreneurship. Specifically, researchers at Mass Insight say that we should be looking at what practices high-performing, high-poverty (HPHP) schools have engaged in to achieve success in the face of formidable obstacles, and then attempt to replicate those same practices in other schools with similar characteristics.
In fact, for the last 5 years, NASSP has been identifying and recognizing schools that have implemented innovative programs to dramatically improve student achievement through the Breakthrough Schools Program. According to Judith Richardson, Associate Director of School Improvement, “NASSP in partnership with MetLife Foundation is identifying schools serving large numbers of economically disadvantaged students but have demonstrated academic growth for all student groups. These middle and high school level Breakthrough schools exemplify strategies and programs that principals can use to dramatically improve student achievement.”
In an attempt to do just this, the authors of The Turnaround Challenge analyzed the intervention efforts of HPHP schools in ten states and four districts, and found nine strategies these schools have used to improve student achievement. These strategies are:
- Safety, discipline, and engagement: Students feel secure and inspired to learn
- Action against adversity: Schools directly address their students’ poverty-driven deficits
- Close student-adult relationships: Students have positive and enduring mentor/teacher relationships
- Shared responsibility for achievement: Staff feel deep accountability and a missionary zeal for student achievement
- Personalization of instruction: Individualized teaching based on diagnostic assessment and adjustment time on task
- Professional teaching culture: Continuous improvement through collaboration and job-embedded learning
- Resource authority: School leaders can make mission-driven decisions regarding people, time, money, and program
- Resource ingenuity: Leaders are adept at securing additional resources and leveraging partner relationships
- Agility in the face of turbulence: Leaders, teachers, and systems are flexible and intervene in responding to constant unrest.
These strategies may seem familiar to NASSP members, as we have been advocating for many of them since 1996 through our Breaking Ranks publications and trainings.
Rather than merely replacing staff, NASSP recommends that improved student performance results when the following elements are combined in a school and community: collaborative leadership and the establishment of professional learning communities; personalization of the school environment; and building on personalized learning by connecting high expectations with rigorous curriculum, instruction, and assessments to empower students to take charge of their own continuous learning and development. NASSP details 7 Cornerstone implementation strategies (high school) or 9 Cornerstone implementation strategies (middle level) for leading effective school reform. For more information on NASSP’s Breaking Ranks series and other professional development opportunities, visit http://www.principals.org/s_nassp/sec_inside.asp?CID=1162&DID=54968.
The Turnaround Challenge argues that schools in the restructuring phase “are like organisms that have built immunity, over years of attempted intervention, to the ‘medicine’ of incremental reform. Low-expectation culture, reform-fatigued faculty, high-percentage staff turnover, inadequate leadership, and insufficient authority for fundamental change all contribute to the general lack of success.” As a result, dramatic change is needed. True turnaround efforts, the report explains, should produce significant achievement gains within two years, and position the school for further gains in the years to come.
To achieve such success, the report notes, schools and districts need to make use of the nine strategies outlined above, and suggests the creation of a “state turnaround agency” to coordinate and target reform efforts of nonprofits, businesses, institutes of higher education, and other stakeholders in districts and states. Because the report found that many of the HPHP schools are public charters, its authors also suggest that states may also want to consider creating special “turnaround zones” with charter-like authority, including greater administrator control over staff, scheduling, curriculum, and budget decisions.
As states and districts struggle to find ways to improve student achievement in chronically underperforming schools, the report provides a starting point for school leaders who are principally charged with turnaround efforts in their schools and an assessment guide that evaluates strategies currently in place. Principals and other school leaders may also want to explore the questionnaires and self assessments contained in NASSP’s own Breaking Ranks guides for middle level and high school reform, as well as our guides for improving schoolwide numeracy, and creating a culture of literacy. These publications can be accessed at http://www.principals.org/s_nassp/sec_inside.asp?CID=1162&DID=54968. NASSP’s Leadership Skills Assessment can also be found at http://www.principals.org/s_nassp/sec_inside.asp?CID=39&DID=39.
There are nearly 6.2 million total students eligible for school choice under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), yet only about 1% of these students participated in the program during the 2003 – 04 school year, and only 17% of the 1.8 million total students eligible for supplemental educational services (SES) participated in the program during that same timeframe, according to a newly-issued report by the U.S. Department of Education (ED).
Schools that miss adequate yearly progress (AYP) under NCLB for two or more years are required to offer parents the option of transferring their child to another public school in the district. Schools that miss AYP for three or more years are also required to offer free SES to all enrolled low-income students.
The study found that while 70% of districts required to offer school choice to elementary students reported doing so, only 20% of middle school students participated, and only 17% of high school students participated. The reason most districts gave for these lower rates was that all schools at that grade level were identified for improvement under NCLB, and as a result, there were no schools available to send the students to.
Communicating with parents remains a problem, and may contribute to low participation rates in school choice and SES, according to the study. The study found that 29% of those districts required to offer school choice notified parents of their child’s eligibility before the beginning of the 2004 – 05 school year, and in a survey of eight urban districts, only 53% of parents with children eligible for SES reported having been notified of their child’s eligibility, despite all eight districts providing proof that such notifications were sent out.
The findings of this report are in line with the results of several previous reports on SES and school choice. The “report offers a disappointing glimpse into the hurdles that parents are often forced to overcome to take advantage of the law’s promise,” said Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), ranking member of the House Education and Labor Committee. The “report echoes earlier findings from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and others showing that too many parents are being denied access to timely, useful information on their options under NCLB. As a result, students are not benefiting from the full availability of these services,” McKeon continued.
In an attempt to address these concerns, and increase parental awareness of SES, McKeon introduced the Improving Supplemental Education by Ensuring Parental Awareness Act (H.R. 2203) in 2007. This bill would allow students to participate in free SES after their school misses AYP for two consecutive years, as opposed to waiting the current three, and would require districts to document that parents of eligible students are aware that SES options exists, or have policies in place that have been shown to increase participation in SES programs. The bill would also require any unused SES funds to roll-over into an SES account that would be used during the following school year. Currently, any SES funds not used by a school district at the conclusion of a school year go back to the district, and can be used for another purpose.
Despite the desire among some to increase the availability of SES programs, the quality of these programs has remained an issue of concern among policymakers and educators alike. The recent study by ED found that 19% of SES providers reported having no contact with classroom teachers, while 70% of providers reported having communicated with classroom teachers at least a few times per year.
In light of such findings, and with spending on SES estimated at $192 million in 2003 – 04 alone, one might conclude that funding for school choice and SES programs might better be spent elsewhere.
In response to ED’s 2007 release of a guide designed to improve the use of school choice and SES entitled, Giving Parents Options: Strategies for Informing Parents and Implementing Public School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services Under No Child Left Behind, NASSP Executive Director Gerald N. Tirozzi released the following statement, which may also be applied to ED’s most recent report on school choice and SES:
“Based on the lack of student participation, NASSP questions the effectiveness of SES programs. We urge principals to use their school’s data to focus school improvement efforts on professional development to create change that benefits all students.”
In response to continued criticism and calls for reform of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and its one-size-fits-all approach to school improvement, U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings announced a new “differentiated accountability” pilot program at a press conference on March 18.
According to information available on the Department of Education’s (ED) website, “differentiated accountability will allow states to vary the intensity and type of interventions to match the academic reasons that lead to a school’s identification.”
The pilot program is limited to 10 state slots, with preference given to states with at least 20% of their Title I schools identified for improvement, and which “combine innovation with a rigorous approach to reform, and…propose to take the most significant and comprehensive interventions for the lowest-performing schools earlier in the improvement timeline.” Preference will also be given to those states whose standards and assessment system have been fully approved by ED, have an approved highly qualified teacher plan, and that provide timely and transparent information on adequate yearly progress (AYP) to the public. According to ED, “states that have had more than one non-approved occurrence of late AYP in the past two years are not eligible.”
States have until May 2, 2008, to submit their proposals for participation in the pilot program, with approval notices coming possibly before the start of the 2008-09 school year.
In addition to the new pilot program, differentiated improvement is a concept that has been gaining traction on Capitol Hill as well. Last year Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX) introduced the Graduation Promise Act (S. 1185/H.R. 2928), which would provide grants to states and schools to develop systems of differentiated high school improvement that will focus research and evidence-based intervention on the lowest performing high schools, and improve the capacity of these high schools to decrease dropout rates and increase student achievement.
NASSP strongly advocated for the Graduation Promise Act, and was extremely pleased to see provisions of the bill incorporated into both the House and Senate NCLB reauthorization discussion drafts.
An unlimited number of states are now eligible for participation in the growth model pilot program, according to a December 7 announcement by U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings. Prior to this announcement, the program had been limited to ten slots, of which nine had been filled by Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, and Tennessee.
“A growth model is a way for states that are raising achievement and following the bright-line principles of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) to strengthen accountability,” Spellings said. “I believe that extending the growth model pilot for the 2007-2008 school year will promote two important goals. It will allow states another effective way of measuring adequate yearly progress (AYP) by measuring individual student growth over time, and it will continue to expand the flexibility available to states under No Child Left Behind.”
In response to the program’s expansion, Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, and a chief author of the House proposal to reauthorize NCLB, issued the following statement:
“Schools should receive the credit they deserve for the yearly achievement gains made by their students. As part of our efforts to improve No Child Left Behind, we have proposed allowing all states to develop and use growth models – a proposal that we believe is essential to providing states and schools with much-needed flexibility and fairness. I welcome Secretary Spellings’ announcement as confirmation of our proposal.”
NASSP applauds the decision to expand the pilot program. In our legislative recommendations for No Child Left Behind, we recommend that states calculate AYP on the basis of state-developed growth formulas and have worked with a diverse array of education associations to advance this goal. We believe the most accurate measures of student and school performance are those that analyze progress from year to year, and were very pleased to see growth models included in the House discussion draft to reauthorize NCLB.
The Bush Administration and Democratic leadership in Congress are currently at loggerheads on a number of issues, yet the expansion of the pilot program is demonstrative of the fact that there are areas of agreement between these two. While Congress will not likely vote to reauthorize NCLB this year, perhaps this means there is hope in 2008.
In an effort to make school choice and supplemental educational services (SES) work better for more students, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) released a guide in September titled Giving Parents Options: Strategies for Informing Parents and Implementing Public School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services Under No Child Left Behind.
Under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), when a school does not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for two or more years, the school district must offer parents the option of transferring their child to another school in the district. If the school does not meet AYP for three or more years, the school district must offer SES to all low-income students enrolled in the school. However, research shows that few parents are exercising the transfer option, and participation rates in SES remain low, especially for high school students.
“Implementation of the Department of Education’s guidance for optimizing school choice will divert much-needed resources and school staff time away from the business of school improvement for all students,” said NASSP Executive Director Gerald N. Tirozzi. “NASSP does not support public funding of school choice and, based on the lack of student participation, questions the effectiveness of choice and SES programs. We urge principals to use their school’s data to focus school improvement efforts on professional development to create change that benefits all students.”
The full guide is available on the department’s Web site at www.ed.gov/admins/comm/choice/options/index.html.
“Throughout our schools and communities, the American people have a very strong sense that the No Child Left Behind Act is not fair. That it is not flexible. And that it is not funded. And they are not wrong,” said Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, at a late July press conference where he clarified – for the first time publicly – his priorities for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), now known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
After reviewing recommendations from over 100 education, civil rights, and business organizations, and dozens of hearings and meetings, “a consensus about needed changes” to ESEA has emerged, said Miller, whose reauthorization priorities include:
- Supporting teachers and principals;
- Improving America’s high schools;
- Increased fairness and flexibility;
- Encouraging a challenging learning environment and promoting best practices;
- Continuing to hold schools accountable for students’ progress.
Specific elements of the chairman’s reauthorization proposal include: growth models; a voluntary performance pay program for principals and teachers; a system for tailoring the consequences of missing adequate yearly progress (AYP) to better address the unique needs and challenges of schools; and the addition of high school graduation rates in the determination of AYP. Multiple measures such as end of year course exams, AP/IB course participation, and college attendance rates may also be used for determining AYP, although Miller was quick to point out that schools will still primarily be held accountable for increasing student proficiency in reading and math, adding that additional measures of student achievement would not be “an escape hatch” for schools. High schools will also be a target of reform, and schools will be encouraged to work with institutions of higher education and businesses to alight their curricula with college and industry standards.
As Congress prepares to go on its August recess, Miller seems confident that he will be able to reauthorize the ESEA before it expires in September of this year. Not everyone is in such a hurry however. Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), senior Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee, said in a press statement that “the content of the legislation is far more important than the calendar, and any attempts to weaken the law will be met with stiff resistance from House Republicans who have already joined with the civil rights community and business leaders in expressing concerns that some of the Democrat proposals will undermine transparency for parents and the ability to hold schools accountable for student performance.” McKeon added that “changes to the law that weaken any of [the] three pillars of NCLB – accountability, flexibility, and parental choice… are likely to be a fatal blow to the reauthorization process.”
Echoing McKeon’s concerns, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings said in a prepared statement that “we must not roll back the clock on accountability for our schools or the progress our poor, minority and special education student have made since we created No Child Left Behind… While we all hope to see action on reauthorization soon, a comprehensive bill that has bipartisan support and holds firm to the goal of every child reading and doing math on grade level by 2014 is worth the wait.”
As the reauthorization of ESEA moves forward, you can be sure that NASSP is working hard to promote intelligent reforms based on proven research that will benefit both school leaders and students. Please visit NASSP’s Principal’s Legislative Action Center (www.nassp.org/plac), click the link under “Help Improve No Child Left Behind!”, and send a letter to your Senators and Representative urging them to support joint recommendations for the reauthorization of ESEA supported by six groups representing principals, teachers, school board members, superintendents, and other school staff directly responsible for increasing student achievement! Together we can help improve No Child Left Behind and help every child to succeed!
High school reform has not always been a phrase commonly heard on Capitol Hill, but as lawmakers gear up for the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the menu of education issues discussed is beginning to change.
This change is in large part a response to a swell of reports issued that brings to light high dropout rates and a lack of student preparation for college and the workplace. Recently, The Condition of Education 2007, an annual report on the state of education mandated by Congress, found that the U.S. had an overall high school graduation rate of only 71.7%, with some states reporting graduation rates as low as 56.5% (South Carolina). Other reports have documented a disturbing trend that fewer than half of high school students will receive the postsecondary education and training required for the fastest growing jobs.
NASSP has been working hard with lawmakers to address these concerns and implement meaningful reform at the middle and high school levels and has developed its own set of recommendations for comprehensive secondary school reform. The following 4 bills embody many of NASSP’s recommendations for middle level and high school reform, including support for schoolwide literacy strategies and interventions; the development of robust data systems to support personalized learning; and increased support for school counselors. Following are the summaries of these 4 secondary school reform bills, all of which NASSP supports, and which have been well-received on Capitol Hill:
The Graduation Promise Act (S. 1185/H.R. 2928)
Introduced by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX)
Summary:
- Provides grants to states and schools for targeted assistance to the 6 million students most at risk of dropping out by supporting the development of statewide systems of differentiated high school improvement that will focus research and evidence-based intervention on the lowest performing high schools, and will improve the capacity of the high schools to decrease dropout rates and increase student achievement;
- Provides districts with competitive grants for the development, implementation, and reproduction of effective high school models for struggling students and dropouts;
- Provides competitive grants to states to identify statewide obstacles hindering students from graduating, and provide incentives for states to increase graduation rates.
The Graduation for All Act (H.R. 1623)
Introduced by Rep. Ruben Hinjosa (D-TX)
Summary:
- Amends the Elementary and Secondary Education (ESEA) Act to include high school graduation rates in determining adequate yearly progress (AYP) and annual state report cards;
- Provides grants to states to establish a reading and writing partnership to increase the literacy skills for all students attending middle level and high schools, including strategies for economically disadvantaged students; students from major racial and ethnic groups; students with disabilities; and limited English proficient, migrant, and homeless students.
- Funds in each strategy would be targeted to secondary schools with the lowest graduation rates;
- Requires schools to use grant funds to hire and train literacy coaches for secondary schools, counseling for at-risk students, and professional development for educators that address the needs of poor students; students from major racial and ethnic groups; students with disabilities; and limited English proficient, migrant, and homeless students.
The Graduation for a Better Future Act (S. 765)
Introduced by Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)
Summary:
- Creates a competitive grant program targeted to high schools that have graduation rates of 60% or less;
- Requires grantees to use funds to create an early warning system that measures student progress levels in core content areas and quickly identifies students who are at risk of dropping out;
- Requires grantees to use funds to hire and provide in-service training to literacy coaches, provide professional development for educators to enhance literacy instruction, and provide counseling to at-risk students.
The Pathways for All Students to Succeed (PASS) Act (S. 611)
Introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)
Summary:
- Provides grants to states and schools to establish literacy and math skills programs to improve overall reading, writing, and mathematics performance among students in middle level and high schools;
- Schools receiving grants must hire and provide in-service training for at least one literacy or mathematics coach for every 20 teachers to assist teachers in secondary schools with research-based instruction;
- Provides grants to states and schools to develop personalized graduation plans in secondary schools to increase graduation rates;
- Provides funds to hire academic counselors to reduce the student to counselor ratio to at least one for every 150 students. These counselors would assist students in developing their personalized graduation plans and identify support services to aid students as they strive to achieve their graduation goals;
- Provides targeted grants to schools labeled as “in need of improvement” as a result of missing AYP for 2 consecutive years to implement comprehensive school reform models that have proven to be successful in increasing student achievement;
- Provides competitive grants to states to develop or enhance data systems for the collection and dissemination of student graduation rates.
NASSP has long advocated for comprehensive high school reform and is pleased to see the increased attention being paid by lawmakers. As NCLB reauthorization moves forward, we will continue to work hard to encourage lawmakers to pass intelligent secondary school reform. To view NASSP’s Middle Level Recommendations, visit www.nassp.org, and click on “Information for Middle Level Leaders.” To view NASSP’s High School Recommendations, visit www.nassp.org, and click on “Information for High School Leaders.”
The tide towards including growth models in assessing adequate yearly progress (AYP), and their possible inclusion in the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) continues to swell, as evidenced by the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) recent approval of growth model proposals in Ohio and Iowa. ED has already fully approved growth models for Arkansas, Delaware, North Carolina, and Tennessee, and has conditionally approved Florida’s model, leaving only three open slots for the pilot program.
Currently, most states measure AYP by comparing the test scores of one year’s students to the scores of the prior year’s students. Growth models, in contrast, would measure the progress of the same group of students over time as they move toward grade-level proficiency, and the approved states have come up with creative ideas for utilizing this alternative method.
Delaware, for example, uses a system in which each subgroup of students is assigned a target point value. Students in the subgroups who make academic progress over the prior year earn points toward their subgroup, and if a subgroup’s total points meet or exceed its target value, then it is considered to have met AYP.
Many other states, including Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, and Tennessee, use a system in which students who fail to meet the state’s proficiency goal may still be considered “proficient” if they show they have made significant progress over the previous year and are on target to meet that proficiency goal.
The possible inclusion of growth models in NCLB still remains uncertain, but several states are clamoring to win approval of their growth model proposals from ED, including: Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Utah.
In their on-going efforts to ensure that no child is left behind, and coming on the heels of a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report which found that of those eligible to receive supplemental educational services (SES), less than 20% actually receive it, lawmakers have introduced a number of bills to increase awareness and participation in SES for America’s struggling students.
Under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), when a school does not meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) for 3 or more years, the school district must offer SES to all low-income students enrolled in the school. The district must set aside 20% of their Title I funds to provide these services and transportation for students who choose to attend another school.
Introduced bills altering current SES provisions of NCLB include:
• Improving No Child Left Behind (INCLB) Act (S. 348)
• Raising Achievement through Improved Supplemental Education (RAISE) Act of 2007 (S. 1009)
• School Accountability Improvements Act (S. 1236)
• Empowering Parents through Choice Act (H.R. 1486/S. 1014)
• No Child Left Behind Reform Act (NCLBRA) (H.R. 2087/S. 1194)
• Improving Supplemental Education by Ensuring Parental Awareness Act (H.R. 2203)
Commonalities among these bills include: increasing parental awareness; improving data collection on the effectiveness of SES and parental satisfaction with services provided; reducing the time schools must wait before offering free SES after missing AYP; and targeting SES to students who are not proficient, rather than all low-income students.
While the details of the individual bills differ, the ideas and goals that they embody are largely similar. Moreover, as several hearings this year have shown, lawmakers are concerned about reports of continuing achievement gaps and stagnant student performance, and are paying serious attention to supplemental educational services, and other options to improve student achievement.
Although some of these bills contain provisions that NASSP objects to, the overarching goal of increasing student achievement and helping those in greatest need is a goal that NASSP strongly supports.
Gearing up for the upcoming reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the House Education and Labor Committee held hearings in late April in California and Arizona to hear from local education officials.
In California, witnesses applauded NCLB’s lofty goals that have focused attention on those students most in need of help and pushed students and educators to achieve at high levels. Yet witnesses also decried the law’s accountability system as unreasonable and ineffective. “To be effective, an accountability system must be judged as reasonable by those being held accountable. Ultimately, under the NCLB accountability plans established by most states, we are fast approaching the point at which the majority of participants in the system no longer view the system as reasonable. … When participants in the system no longer view the system’s goals as attainable, they cease to put forth the effort to reach them,” said Fred Tempes, director of the Comprehensive School Assistance Program at WestEd, a nonprofit research, development and service agency. Witnesses also bemoaned the lack of time they were given to implement reforms and the fact that even though schools may realize increased achievement for some students, if the AYP targets are not met for a subgroup, sanctions continue.
In Arizona, lawmakers sought input on NCLB’s impact on Indian education. Witnesses at the hearing testified that Indian communities face many of the same educational challenges that non-Indian communities face: the need for improved teacher recruitment and retention, enhanced consultation in determining education policies, and increased parental participation. Yet Indian Country also faces many unique challenges. In the area of teacher recruitment and retention, “while the pay scale at the schools in our community is competitive with many other area schools, this is not the solution to the problem. Potential teachers are not attracted to reservation schools because these schools are often isolated and rural, adding challenges of travel time and transportation costs for teachers,” testified William R. Rhodes, governor of Gila River Indian Community.
Another area of concern is the decreasing use and integration of Native American language and culture in Indian education. Conducting several hearings on NCLB and its effects on Indian Country, the National Indian Education Association (NIEA) found “a broad-based reduction and diminishment of culturally based education in schools… In classrooms across Indian Country, Native languages and cultures are being used less and less in teaching Native students math, science, or reading because Indian children are drilled all day long on the materials contained on standardized tests. These teaching methods do not work when teaching Indian children. Generally speaking, [Indian] children see and order their world very differently from most other children due to their culture and ways of life, and, as a result, learn in very different ways,” testified Dr. Willard S. Gilbert, president-elect of NIEA.
NIEA has prepared a preliminary report on NCLB and its effects on Indian Country, and has submitted legislative recommendations on the reauthorization of NCLB to Congress. For more information, visit www.niea.org.
