November 2006 | Volume 64 | Number 3 NCLB: Taking Stock, Looking Forward Pages 38-42 No More Invisible Kids Kati Haycock By shining a spotlight on the achievement of previously ignored student groups, NCLB has given educators the leverage they need to reform public schools. What are the next steps? One of the best things about my job is how much time I get to spend with educators across the United States who are working hard to improve student achievement. I learn a lot from these principals and teachers about what really works for poor and minority students, and about what doesn't. These educators always leave me inspired by their accomplishments and hopeful about the future. Not surprisingly, almost everywhere I go, I get an earful about No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The comments are not all positive, of course. But despite all the rancor and anxiety that seem to dominate the headlines, I'm struck by how often educators tell me that the law is having an enormously positive effect. The biggest benefit of all? There are no more invisible kids. NCLB has shone a spotlight on the academic performance of poor and minority students, English language learners, and students with disabilities—students whose lagging achievement had previously been hidden. As a result, schools are now focusing more attention on these students' education. The law also provides real leverage for educators who are trying to bring about change. Many teachers and administrators have told me that NCLB strengthens the hands of those who are working to boost overall achievement and close achievement gaps. Before passage of this law, these reformers mostly had to rely on exhortation. Now, they've got the federal government behind them. Although NCLB isn't perfect, the Bush administration and Congress did something important in passing it. They called on educators to embrace a new challenge—not just access for all, but achievement for all. Thousands of educators have answered, bringing more energy, attention, and resources to improving the education of poor and minority students than at any other time in the last two decades. Spotlight on Success At Centennial Place Elementary School in Atlanta, Georgia, data collected under NCLB give educators concrete information on individual student achievement. Administrators and teachers are using this information to identify lower-achieving students and address their individual needs. Although nearly two-thirds of Centennial's students come from low-income families and 90 percent are African American, hard work and a clear focus made the school one of the top performers in the state. But in 2004, new data collected under NCLB brought to light something November 2006 Page 1 of 5ASCD11/27/2006http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.459dee008f99653f...that the school had overlooked: The achievement of students with disabilities lagged behind that of other students. Cynthia Kuhlman, Centennial's principal, said, We took it to heart. We had gone through a period when we didn't acknowledge that our special education students weren't doing well. No Child Left Behind helped us focus. As a result, the school turned new attention to students with disabilities, adding more depth to the curriculum and ensuring that students in special education had access to the same enrichment programs that other students did. One year later, 87 percent of students with disabilities met or exceeded standards in math, and 85 percent met or exceeded standards in reading—up from 41 percent in math and 53 percent in reading. A second example of NCLB's benefits comes from Virginia, where data analysis has revealed that achievement disparities are not the sole province of inner-city schools. Breaking achievement data down by students' race and ethnicity helped sound an alarm in Fairfax County, one of the wealthiest school systems in the United States. African American students in Fairfax (many of whose parents spent a lot of money to secure housing within the school district boundaries) scored significantly lower than African American students in other parts of the state—including Richmond, a predominantly African American school district with far more poverty and far fewer resources than Fairfax has. In recent interviews with the Washington Post, educators in Richmond attributed much of their improvement to the significant changes made in response to NCLB (Glod, 2006). Schools closely track individual student data to monitor student performance and offer extra tutoring to struggling students to ensure that they reach proficiency targets. At Richmond's Woodville Elementary School, where 75 percent of students come from low-incomefamilies, the improvement has been dramatic: 95 percent of 5th graders met state standards in math last year, compared with 33 percent in 2002. Woodville has seen large gains in other grade levels and in other subjects, too, because the school leaves little to chance. Students take weekly tests to ensure they are grasping the material. If the tests reveal problems, students receive tutoring. When “four Woodville 5th-graders failed a reading test in preparation for the statewide Standards of Learning,” the reporter noted, “the next afternoon an assistant principal was planning extra help for them.” Today, educators from Fairfax—and from all across the state—are traveling to Richmond to learn more. Trends in Student Achievement The important question is, Are students learning more as a result of this greater focus on achievement for all? The Education Trust works hard to track achievement patterns both in the United States as a whole and in the individual states. We collect and analyze results from state assessments and the various exams that make up the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Although numbers vary from state to state and are complicated by frequent changes in tests, the overall patterns are fairly consistent. In general, we're seeing improved achievement and narrowing gaps on state tests in the elementary grades, where most of the energy and resources provided through NCLB's Title I are focused. Our analysis of state assessment results from 2003 to 2005 (Hall & Kennedy, 2006) looked at states that had at least three years of consistent elementary assessments for which they had reported results for the different subgroups. We found that in reading, 27 of 31 showed improvement, 22 of 29 states narrowed