As the United States stands on the brink of a new era in American history with new leaders, fresh ideas, and a strong feeling of optimism for our future, we have an important opportunity to get the nation's education policy right. ASCD recommends that as policymakers reshape the ESEA/NCLB, they take the time to speak with the people who understand the issues best: educators.

According to the results of The 40th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public School (Bushaw & Gallup, 2008), "Americans believe the next president should turn to education leaders—not political or business leaders—in developing policies for public schools" (p. 10). ASCD recommends that policymakers also solicit the opinions of parents, education experts, and other education stakeholders to get the full picture of the U.S. education system.

The ESEA/NCLB calls for increased accountability at all levels of the education system, from the classroom to the state education agency. Although some decision makers may argue that educators do not want to be held accountable for student achievement, in reality most educators welcome high expectations and strive to meet them. Educators are seeking new education policy that is based on educational research and sound pedagogical practices and that has the best interests of children at the forefront. They believe accountability is necessary but that measures should be fair and reasonable.

Teachers want to teach, and they want their students to attain high levels of academic achievement. However, the one-size-fits-all approach of the current ESEA/NCLB often binds teachers' hands if students require a new instructional approach, a more appropriate assessment tool, or a different learning environment to excel. Also, because teachers spend so much class time preparing students for standardized tests, many schools have had to narrow the curriculum, cutting classes in art, music, and physical education. By leaving these subjects behind, students miss out on a well-rounded, robust education.

ASCD supports policy that focuses on educating the whole child. The following recommendations for the reauthorization of the ESEA/NCLB will provide educators with the capacity to increase student achievement and prepare young people to be engaged citizens, productive workers, and innovative leaders.

Multiple Measures of Assessment

ASCD recommends that policymakers adjust the adequate yearly progress (AYP) model to incorporate multiple measures of assessment, including growth models, formative assessments, grade point averages, student exhibitions, advanced placement and international baccalaureate courses, and portfolio assessments.

The current law requires students to be tested in reading and math in grades 3–8 and in science in high school. Although the law does not mandate multiple-choice assessments, states often lack the necessary resources to create rich assessments that provide the full picture of student ability and achievement.

Education experts Linda Darling-Hammond, Elle Rustique-Forrester, and Raymond L. Pecheone (2004) explain, "The costs associated with [ESEA/NCLB's] extensive requirements have also caused some states to reduce or abandon performance-oriented assessments that evaluate higher order skills and provide more evidence of student reasoning and performance" (p. 1).

ASCD supports the use of multiple measures of assessment systems that are

• Fair, balanced, and grounded in the art and science of learning and teaching;
• Reflective of curricular and developmental goals and representative of content that students have had an opportunity to learn;
• Used to inform and improve instruction;
• Designed to accommodate non-native speakers and students with special needs; and
• Valid, reliable, and supported by professional scientific and ethical standards designed to fairly assess the unique and diverse abilities and knowledge base of all students.

Educators need to have access to all assessment methods that are research-based, pedagogically sound, and child-focused to move their students toward proficiency and beyond.

Assessing Special Student Populations

The current federal guidelines set benchmarks for English language learners (ELLs) and students with disabilities at levels they may not ever be able to achieve.

The Forum on Educational Accountability (FEA) (2007) reports that the law penalizes schools that have large populations of students with special needs and diverse learners and doesn't provide appropriate assessment systems for these students.

Assessing ELLs

Without the ability to read and write proficiently in academic English, ELLs cannot possibly hope to understand and correctly answer questions about reading, math, and science. Expecting ELLs to match the proficiency levels of native speakers within their first year of English instruction is not realistic for many students. To ensure a more fair and accurate measurement of achievement, ASCD recommends that ELL students be given a minimum of three years—and up to five years—to make AYP. States should be permitted to give ELLs state language proficiency assessments instead of reading tests until they meet proficiency.

The American Educational Research Association (2000) asserts that including ELLs in high-stakes assessments before they have mastered English can provide misleading results. "If a student lacks mastery of the language in which a test is given, then that test becomes, in part, a test of language proficiency," (para. 13) the report states. "Unless a primary purpose of a test is to evaluate language proficiency, it should not be used with students who cannot understand the instructions or the language of the test itself."

In a survey of 40 Arizona elementary schools that have substantial populations of ELLs, teachers reported that, during state assessments, students were unable to appropriately take the test because of a lack of English language skills. The report states: "Seventy eight percent reported instances of students complaining that they could not understand the test questions, 68 percent reported instances of students leaving entire sections of the test blank, and 78 percent reported instances of students randomly bubbling in answers without reading the questions" (Wright, 2006, p. 24).

Although ESEA/NCLB was intended to move students toward English language proficiency and academic success, the current assessment system often provokes frustration and feelings of inadequacy in students with limited language skills. To better serve these students, ELLs should have time to learn the language before being matched against native speakers.

Assessing Students with Disabilities

It may not be possible for some students with disabilities to achieve proficiency at the levels set by federal guidelines.

"ESEA/NCLB does not acknowledge the tremendous variation in the nature and severity of students' disabilities, or persistent differences in student access to the general education curriculum," the FEA states (2007, p. 27). "Standards and assessments for [students with disabilities] cover only academic goals, ignoring the social and vocational goals important for all students, including those with disabilities."

ASCD promotes using students' individualized education programs (IEPs), rather than state assessments, as the measure for learning. Created in consultation with experts, educational professionals, and parents, an IEP is designed to be a realistic outline of a child's educational path. It includes regular goals and performance benchmarks that reflect a child's capabilities.

Students with disabilities have a diverse range of learning needs that the law's restrictive regulations are not always able to accommodate using the available assessment instruments. In their article in Preventing School Failure, Michael L. Hardman and Shirley Dawson (2008, p. 7) write, "The testing and curriculum-development industry has yet to successfully design or revise assessment instruments or instructional materials that are accessible to every student or that can accommodate their individual needs. For students with disabilities . . . the system must promote and use instructional practices that have proven to be effective in meeting diverse needs."

Rather than requiring teachers to spend valuable instructional time teaching to a test on which students may never be successful, teachers and students should work toward meeting the carefully outlined goals of the students' IEPs.

Leaving Students Out in the Cold

Instead of closing the achievement gap, the current assessment requirements may actually be leading some schools that are in danger of failing to meet AYP to encourage students in certain subgroups to leave school.

"Perhaps the most troubling unintended consequence of NCLB has been that the law creates incentives for schools to boost scores by pushing low-scoring students out of school," said Darling-Hammond (2007, p. 11), professor of Education at Stanford University, during her Congressional testimony about the ESEA/NCLB reauthorization. "The very important goal of graduating more of our students has simply not been implemented, and the accountability provisions actually reward schools with high dropout rates. Push-out incentives and the narrowed curriculum are especially severe for students with disabilities, English language learners, students of color, and economically disadvantaged students . . . This creates the perverse outcome that efforts to raise standards are resulting in fewer students receiving an education."

All students should be educated and assessed in ways that are realistic, using practices that are just, valid, and fair. To do anything less defeats the purpose of measures to leave no child behind on the road to success.

Sanctions and Interventions

A one-size-fits-all plan for sanctions and interventions will not create the results the federal government intends under the ESEA/NCLB. ASCD urges policymakers to eliminate prescriptive requirements that dictate a specific order of approaches and to allow schools and school districts to use the improvement options that will be most effective and appropriate for their students.

No two schools or school districts face the exact same problems; therefore, it is appropriate to use a variety of solutions for school improvement. The Center on Education Policy (CEP) developed a comprehensive study examining the types of assistance received by schools that have been identified as needing improvement under ESEA/NCLB and measured the efficacy of this assistance.

In its 2007 report, Moving Beyond Identification: Assisting Schools in Improvement, CEP notes, "Our surveys and case study interviews showed that the needs of schools in improvement vary considerably, based on the number of years the school has been in improvement, the reasons the school was identified . . . and the school's individual context" (p. 3).

The CEP report also showed that restructuring options listed under the ESEA/NCLB were not the most effective for meeting the improvement needs of all schools. In California, Maryland, and Michigan, the study found that, "School-based staff in all three states said federal restructuring options were not the key to improving student achievement. Instead, school and state-based initiatives were seen as essential to transforming schools" (p. 17).

Some intervention measures will work for some schools while others may have no effect, or worse, be detrimental by creating confusion and frustration among teachers, school leaders, and students. Educators and local and state administrators should have the flexibility to determine what types of reform will work best for their students.

Professional Development for Teachers

ASCD recognizes the need for high-quality teachers and school leaders to build capacity for student success and school improvement. For educators to be effective, they must continually engage in professional development. Therefore, schools need the funding to tap into programs and resources that can help teachers revamp education practices.

Research from the Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) at Edvance Research Inc. supports the claim that professional development for teachers can significantly influence student achievement. A REL study shows that "teachers who receive substantial professional development—an average of 49 hours in nine studies—can boost their students' achievement by about 21 percentile points" (Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007, p. 1).

High-quality professional development provides teachers with the opportunity to learn about new research and educational resources and gain additional skills and knowledge that, if used in the classroom, can enhance teaching and learning. It also provides educators with opportunities to meet and collaborate with their colleagues and share ideas about promising practices.

Incentives for Educators Serving High-Needs Schools

Unfortunately, at schools with the highest levels of student poverty, teacher quality is often at the lowest level.

Research shows that, in "48 states . . . high-poverty schools were less likely than wealthier ones to have secondary classes taught by highly qualified teachers. In 38 states, high-poverty schools were less likely to have elementary classes taught by such teachers" (Honawar, 2008, para. 12).

Disadvantaged schools desperately need strong teachers willing to go the extra mile. Research shows that professional development opportunities, career ladders, and other financial incentives can improve a school's ability to hire and retain high-quality teachers.

The Teacher Excellence for All Children Act of 2005, or TEACH Act, addresses the challenges schools face in recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers. The legislation provides financial incentives for teachers and principals; encourages using data to inform learning and teaching; promotes the establishment of career ladders; and provides opportunities for professional development, coaching, and mentoring.

ASCD encourages policymakers to include these important strategies in ESEA/NCLB. In addition, ASCD recommends that policymakers expand the Teacher Incentive Fund, which funds state and local programs that reward educators for student performance, and support similar programs that provide incentives to teachers and school leaders who work in high-needs, high-poverty school districts.

Money alone does not attract effective teachers to hard-to-serve schools; most teachers take jobs in these schools because they sincerely want to see the most disadvantaged students succeed. However, through a variety of incentives for teachers and school leaders, the poorest schools can provide students with the richest educational experiences.

High School Redesign

Research shows the current high school design is not working. Despite the efforts of teachers, students are dropping out at alarming rates. According to America's Promise Alliance (n.d.), one high school student drops out of school every 26 seconds.

To support and encourage innovative teaching measures and new programs, ASCD urges policymakers to create a dedicated fund to help redesign U.S. high schools using research-based methods and practices. ASCD recommends the following strategies for high school redesign:

• Using multiple indicators of student success and achievement.
• Offering personalized learning opportunities that engage students in relevant and rigorous curricula, challenging educational plans that lead to graduation, and mentoring programs that support and encourage students.
• Providing for the flexible use of time, which enables high schools to develop alternative approaches instead of relying on the 180-day, Carnegie unit-based school year and other antiquated structures.
• Offering professional development that builds capacity for successful school leadership and effective instructional practice.
• Supporting business, community, and parental engagement by providing incentives to businesses and community services that align with expanded student learning opportunities and innovative programs.

Providing the Tools for Change

ASCD's recommendations for the reauthorization of the ESEA/NCLB will provide educators with the resources and flexibility to make appropriate changes that can significantly affect student learning and achievement.

The goal of educating children should be broader than their attaining the minimum level of achievement on a standardized test. As a nation, we should look beyond teaching students to fill in bubbles with memorized facts. To be successful in the 21st century, young people will need to learn different skills and knowledge than previous generations. The United States is moving in an exciting new direction; it is paramount that, as the path shifts, we pave the way to truly make it possible to move every child forward.

Adding Value in Ohio In 2005, the federal government began granting states permission to participate in a pilot program that allows schools to use growth models for assessment under ESEA/NCLB. For the 2007–08 school year, Ohio compared test scores from two consecutive school years using a value-added assessment and reported the results to the federal government. By comparing students' state achievement test scores to previous years' test scores, the Ohio Department of Education can determine which districts' schools are making progress and which ones are struggling. The school districts in which students' scores go up each year are "adding value" and meeting their expected "growth," and the state government takes this into account when measuring AYP. Using the value-added model, schools can be awarded three grades: above expected growth, met expected growth, or below expected growth. "Above" means that it has made more progress than the target for one year. "Met" means it has met the target progress for one year. And "below" means that it has made less progress than the target for one year. (Ohio Department of Education, 2008, p. 3) The value-added model allows each district to accurately gauge how much progress the school system is making—something they were not able to reliably measure before. After reviewing the students' progress, educators can effectively identify students who are not progressing adequately and begin working with them to meet their educational needs. The Fairfield City School District, in the suburbs of Cincinnati, views the program as an overwhelming success. "I think the value-added [assessment] is more valuable than any test score," says District Curriculum Director Bonnie Fitzharris. Fairfield City Schools received an overall grade of "above expected growth," and overall the district made great strides toward its goals and was designated "excellent" on the state report card. "You're looking at the needs and the growth of each individual child," Fitzharris says. "I've been in education for 35 years, and I've never had a system that did that before."

ELLs Excel Using Portfolio Assessments Fairfax County Public Schools, in Virginia, saw reading test scores rise dramatically among ELLs in grades 3–8 after the federal government allowed the school district to use portfolios for assessment under NCLB. During the 2007–08 school year, the Department of Education accepted scores from the Virginia Grade Level Alternative Assessment (VGLA) to evaluate levels 1 and 2 students enrolled in the English for speakers of other languages program. VGLA assesses portfolios of students' work throughout the school year—as opposed to testing them once for assessment—and examines their progress and gains in English proficiency. During the 2007–08 school year, limited English learners' scored 84 percent proficient using the VGLA for assessment; a year earlier, using the Standards of Learning Assessment, ELL students' scores topped at 64 percent. The large gap between the scores in Fairfax County shows that schools need more flexibility in assessment. "There are ways to accommodate and to provide fair, valid, and appropriate assessment for students—even at beginning levels—if it's done in an appropriate way, such as a portfolio approach," says Teddi Predaris, director of the English for Speakers of Other Languages Program at Fairfax County Public Schools. "The key is the one-size-fits-all approach does not work, and that is saying all students must take the same multiple-choice test," continues Predaris. "We know from research and from years of experience that is not fair or appropriate for our kids learning English at the initial stages. That was proven by the data last year when we were forced to give the same test to everybody."

Innovations at Interlake High School In 2003, only 49 percent of students at Interlake High School in Bellevue, Wash., passed the state's math assessment test. However, that percentage increased to 73 percent in 2006 after the school implemented a rigorous curriculum and the supports needed to ensure its success (Huebner & Calisi Corbett, 2008, p. 8). "The reason it works so well is the combination of three things," says Interlake Principal Sharon Collins, "having a very common, well-articulated curriculum; having teachers that are highly-qualified . . . and having support structures for kids." The curriculum, now being emulated by the rest of the school district, places most students in honors-level courses during their freshman year and encourages them to take the most challenging courses they can handle. Interlake emphasizes the importance of taking four years of math, instead of the state-required three, and uses innovative methods for teaching. For example, instead of having the students frequently work on traditional math problems, they are taught math concepts that they can apply. "The kids see a lot more of the concepts and not as much of the procedures for doing the math," says Jeff McCabe, the school's math director. "It's not traditional and it's not the way I learned it, but it's been relatively successful." To help students achieve, Interlake has set up a number of supports, including offering after-school tutoring, spotting those middle school students struggling in math, and providing teachers with coaching from a curriculum specialist. Teachers are encouraged to take courses and attend conferences to build their skills and brainstorm together to tweak the curriculum if they feel something is not working. "It's a constant revision process," Collins says. "As with anything, you're always trying to make improvements with it."

Become an Advocate for Education Help ASCD change federal policy. Infobrief explores issues that may be considered by Congress. By joining Educator Advocates, you can make your voice heard. To learn more, visit www.ascd.org/educatoradvocates.

References

American Educational Research Association. (2000, July). AERA position statement on high-stakes testing in pre-K–12 education. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from http://www.aera.net/policyandprograms/?id=378

America's Promise Alliance. (n.d.). High school dropout prevention. Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http://www.americaspromise.org/APAPage.aspx?id=9172

Bushaw, W. J., & Gallup, A. M. (2008, September). The 40th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public's attitudes toward the public school. Phi Delta Kappan. Retrieved October 31, 2008, from http://www.pdkmembers.org/members_online/publications/e-GALLUP/kpoll_pdfs/pdkpoll40_2008.pdf

Center on Education Policy. (2007, July). Moving beyond identification: Assisting schools in improvement. Washington, DC: Author.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2007, September 10). Testimony before the House Education and Labor Committee on the re-authorization of No Child Left Behind. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from Committee on Education and Labor Web site: http://edlabor.house.gov/testimony/091007LindaDarlingHammondTestimony.pdf

Darling-Hammond, L., Rustique-Forrester, E., & Pecheone, R. L. (2004, April). Multiple measures approaches to high school graduation. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from Stanford University, School Redesign Network Web site: http://www.srnleads.org/data/pdfs/multiple_measures.pdf

Forum on Educational Accountability. (2007, August). Assessment and accountability for improving schools and learning: Principles and recommendations for federal law and state and local systems. Retrieved October 1, 2008, from http://www.edaccountability.org/AssessmentFullReportJUNE07.pdf

Hardman, M. L., & Dawson, S. (2008, Winter). The impact of federal public policy on curriculum and instruction for students with disabilities in the general classroom. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 7.

Honawar, V. (2008, June 6). Teachers achieving 'highly qualified' status on the rise. Education Week, 27(41), 14. Retrieved October 2, 2008, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/06/11/41hqt.h27.html

Huebner, T. A., & Calisi Corbett, G. (2008) Rethinking high school: Supporting all students to be college-ready in math (J. Zimmerman, Ed). Retrieved September 19, 2008, from http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/GF-08-01.pdf

Ohio Department of Education. (2008). Fairfield City School District 2007–2008 school year report card. Retrieved September 24, 2007, from http://www.ode.state.oh.us/reportcardfiles/2007-2008/DIST/046102.pdf

Wright, W. E. (2006, November). A catch-22 for language learners. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 22–27.

Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (REL 2007-No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved October 2, 2008, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs