The Legacy of Civil Rights in the Every Student Succeeds Act

Educational Policy, 2010

2003

SUMMARY: ... Board of Education transformed American schools and established the judiciary as a principal protector of the constitutional rights of minorities bereft of political defense. ... But based on our close observation of the New Accountability at work in Texas, Kentucky, and Community District 2 in New York City-observations we describe in detail in a companion study-we are convinced that this method of organizing schools offers the best hope of improved educational outcomes for those most neglected by the current school system. ... Either the states are getting flexibility without giving anything in return-in which case the NCLB amounts to the deregulation of federal funds spent on education, which in turn delivers students, particularly poor and minority students, into the hands of selfish local oligarchs-or, the standards and accountability system are real enough, but are not actually intended to achieve reform. ... For example, the Cross City Campaign for Urban School R...

Handbook of education policy, 2023

Federal education legislation has been an important lever for redressing the exclusion from US public education of youth of color (Reardon et al., 2012) and youth with disabilities (Christensen & Dorn, 1997), as well as for remediating other long-standing inequities (such as discrimination in school discipline and restrictive special education placement) (Albrecht et al., 2012; Skiba, 2013). Notwithstanding long delays in enactment and vague benchmarks for success, public education agencies have been made accountable for the educational desegregation of Black and Brown students and students with disabilities through landmark cases decided by the Supreme Court. These include Brown v Board of Education (1954); Brown II (1955); in which the Supreme Court ordered the lower federal courts to require desegregation "with all deliberate speed"; Title IV of the Civil Rights Act, which authorized the federal government to file school desegregation cases; and Green v County School Board of New Kent County (1968), where the Court ordered states to dismantle segregated school systems and identified five factors to assess Brown compliance: facilities, staff, faculty, extracurricular activities, and transportation. Groundbreaking legislation is also at the heart of federal efforts to address educational inequities at the intersection of race and disability. For example, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and 1975's Public Law 94-142 (later reauthorized as the Individuals with Disability Education Act [IDEA] in 1990) guaranteed students with disabilities the right to a free and appropriate public education, and education-relevant Titles under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 assured access and non-discrimination in relation to race, color, sex, national origin, and religion. Moreover, the accountability systems built into such legislation also bolster public education agencies' implementation of federal laws in ways that impact educational equity. The IDEA (2004), the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), and ESEA's subsequent reauthorizations as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) have over time increased requirements for educational agencies to collect and report data on access, participation, outcomes, and progress for students across racial and disability groups. In turn, these actions have expanded public education agencies' accountability for educational equity tied to federal education law. The legislative process for drafting and passing federal educational legislation requires Congressional action; when issues of equity are of concern this process can be especially arduous and span several federal administrations, as it did with the Rehabilitation Act of 1974. There is consensus that education governance systems rely on policies and accountability measures to meet goals and implement reforms (Mulford, 2005). Indeed, accountability is regarded as the engine of policy (Cotter, 2000). As suggested in the preceding discussion, this is especially important when policies target educational equity problems affecting margin

2004

Educational Researcher, 2002

The recently enacted No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The new law substantially increases the testing requirements for states and sets demanding accountability standards for schools, districts, and states, including the setting of measurable adequate yearly progress objectives for all students, as well as for subgroups of students defined by socioeconomic background, race/ethnicity, and English language proficiency. Some of the implications of the law for state accountability systems are discussed. Issues raised by variations among states in their content standards, the rigor of their tests, and the stringency of their performance standards are illustrated. In addition, the differences in types of tests are considered, as well as provisions related to how local tests might be integrated into the system. Some suggestions are provided for leveling the playing field among states and for improving the ways in which adequate yearly progress is evaluated. By making accountability the centerpiece of the education agenda, President George W. Bush (The White House, 2001) strongly reinforced what was already a

Race Ethnicity and Education, 2007

Hursh wider society, it diverts our attention from the issues that must be tackled if we are to improve all students' learning and develop a more equitable society. Therefore, I will begin by providing a short description of NCLB focusing on the characteristics most pertinent to my argument here: mandatory standardized testing used to evaluate students, teachers and schools, and the consequences schools face if their test scores do not achieve 'adequate yearly progress.' I then turn to the central rationales for passage of NCLB, in particular that standardized testing and accountability will improve student learning for all children and close the achievement gap, and then provide evidence that NCLB may be undermining education and exacerbating inequality. The promise of No Child Left Behind NCLB passed as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001 and, as such, will need to renewed and is likely to be amended by the now Democratically controlled Congress and the President in 2007. NCLB affects almost every aspect of elementary and secondary education, most obviously curriculum and assessment, but also increases the qualifications for teachers and teachers' aides, opens up schools to religious groups and groups, such as the Boy Scouts, that discriminate, and requires that students' names and contact information be given to military recruiters and that schools adopt curriculum that has been 'scientifically tested.' However, I will focus on the testing, accountability and curricular aspects of NCLB. Further, because NCLB leaves it to the states to develop their assessments and states vary in the consequences the tests have for students (for example in New York, Texas and about 10 other states, students must pass one or more standardized tests to graduate from secondary school, and in New York City and Texas students must pass tests for promotion from specific 'benchmark grades'), my evidence for the success or failure of NCLB necessarily relies on state rather than national data. President Bush promoted NCLB as a means of replicating at the federal level the 'success' previously achieved at the state level, such as in Texas (where he was governor) and New York. NCLB requires that 95% of students in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school be assessed through standardized tests aligned with 'challenging academic standards' in math, reading and (beginning in 2007-08) science (US Department of Education, 2003c, p. 4). Furthermore, states must permit the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to administer standardized tests to a sample of students in tested grades so that students can be compared across states. Each state is required to submit to the federal government a plan for student assessment and how they will determine whether schools are making adequate yearly progress. Each year, an increasing percentage of students are to demonstrate 'proficiency' until 2014, at which time for all states and every school, all students (regardless of ability or proficiency, whether they have a disability or recently immigrated to the United States and are English language learners) are expected to be proficient in every subject. Note 1. NCLB passed in the house 381-41 and in the Senate 87-10.

Michigan Reading Journal, 2015

2009

Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 2003

Theory and Research in Education, 2004

This paper examines the options available to states to redefine their accountability systems as they begin to implement the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The new law provides the possibility that states can create more balanced systems of support and accountability focused on educating young people so they can become productive, engaged citizens who are prepared for 21st century college and careers. We examine these possibilities, beginning with an overview of the law's requirements, including its allowances for indicators of school progress, methods of identifying schools for support and intervention, and requirements for the use of evidence-based interventions. We then look more closely at the range of indicators that might be considered in a multiple measures accountability system as evidence of learning, opportunities to learn, and student engagement. Next we discuss how these indicators might be combined to identify schools for intervention and support, and how they could be used within a continuous improvement system that also examines school practices through school visits and observations. We close with a discussion of research supporting evidence-based interventions that may be worth considering to support school improvement in a new accountability system.

English Language Proficiency Assessment in the Nation: CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE PRACTICE, 2007

Moriah Horner assesses the current application of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and its effect on student achievement. She examines the background goals and requirements of NCLB, and how the implementation of its policy has failed to accomplish these goals. Some of the primary goals of NCLB are unattainable, causing many schools to be perceived as failing. These goals hinge upon standardized testing, which has proven to not be an accurate measurement of student achievement, teacher qualification, or school success. Under NCLB legislation, the schools that need the most help are punished the most. She uses the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test scores as well as opinions of educational professionals to study the effect NCLB and standardized testing have had on student achievement. While recent policy changes have decreased NCLB accountability, they have not improved or changed the fundamental problems for NCLB.