University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Graduate School Professional Papers 2011 The Impact of NCLB Reforms in the Elementary Schools Comparing Perceptions/Practices from 2002 to 2011 Judith L. Gosnell-Lamb The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Gosnell-Lamb, Judith L., "The Impact of NCLB Reforms in the Elementary Schools Comparing Perceptions/Practices from 2002 to 2011" (2011). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers.edu/etd/1347 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana.
It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact scholarworks@mso. The Impact of NCLB Reforms in the Elementary Schools Comparing Perceptions/Practices of 2002 to 2011 By: Judith Gosnell-Lamb B., Youngstown State University, 1983 M., The University of Montana, 1986 Dissertation Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education In Educational Leadership The University of Montana Missoula, MT December 2011 Approved by: Steven Sprang Dean of the Graduate School Dr. Frances O’Reilly Co-chair Phyllis J.
Washington College of Education -UM Missoula Dr. John Matt Co-chair Phyllis J. Washington College of Education -UM Missoula Dr. William McCaw Phyllis J.
Washington College of Education -UM Missoula Dr. John Lundt Phyllis J. Washington College of Education -UM Missoula Dr. Donald Wattam University of Idaho College of Education ABSTRACT Gosnell-Lamb, Judith, December 2011 Educational Leadership The Impact of NCLB Reforms in the Elementary Schools: Comparing Perceptions/Practices of 2002 to 2011 to see the extent of change in educational practices and the perceived impact on leadership and curriculum at the local level.
Committee Co-Chair(s): Dr. Frances O’Reilly Dr. John Matt With the advent of No Child Left behind in 2002, public education in the United States entered into a reform movement with mounting consequences and ramifications. This unprecedented federal in-road into public education became the umbrella regulator over programs, staff, budgets and students.
The purpose of this quantitative study was to determine to what extent federal mandates, specifically, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), had impacted educational leadership and classroom practices as educators have strived to serve their students and the federal mandates at the same time. A request for participants went out over the internet to over 1000 elementary principals. Asking if they had been in the same assignment since 2002 and if they had been would they complete a survey and have five of their teachers who had been in the same assignment as well complete it. A total of 123 principals responded and 95 teachers.
The survey requested number of years in education, years their district had or had not made AYP, and a list of their top five professional priorities for 2002 when NCLB was signed. The survey asked further to list their current top five professional priorities and state whether they had changed due to NCLB. If there had been a change, did it have a positive or negative effect on student learning. The responses were tallied and multiple comparisons were made between the two years.
The study compared staff responses between those that had made AYP and those that hadn’t. It also looked for the changes where respondents had said there was a negative impact on student learning. There were differences between teachers and principals. Findings included time restraints due to the addition of the required components of NCLB.
Educators are doing more, faster and with less autonomy. Their autonomy is restricted by the limited amount of time and resources which are the leftovers once they get through the NCLB mandates. Even those respondents from districts that met AYP a majority of the time had to change their priorities to meet the requirements of federal mandates. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My family traveled with me down this road, allowing me to take the time I needed to complete this process even when life got in the way.
My dear children, Georgia, Rachel and Patrick were with me even when we thought we were alone, and my husband, Roy, who found his way back, arrived at the finish line with me. My wonderful mothers who together are my rock: Inez Gosnell who prayed for me without ceasing and Joan Larson who always was there to help with home, kids, husband and safe haven, were together my safety net and calm assurance. My University of Montana dissertation committee: Dr. John Lundt, Dr.
Bill McCaw and Dr. Don Wattam who were there at the beginning on a cold January’s day that marked the start of this journey and came back to celebrate with me at the finale. And to my dissertation chairs: Dr. Frances O’Reilly and Dr.
John Matt who believed in me, challenged me and assisted me in finishing my dissertation. I was discouraged and you helped me break through and find my way. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii ACKNOWLWDGEMENTS iii TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF FIGURES viii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1 Problem Statement 1 Purpose of the Study 5 Research Question 9 Definition of Terms 9 Delimitations 12 Limitations 13 Significance of the Study 13 Summary 15 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 17 Historical Perspective 17 Introduction of Federal Funding 26 The Educator’s Struggle between Leadership and Management 34 Current Relationship between Federal Mandates and School Leadership 39 Summary 42 CHAPTER THREE: METHODS AND PROCEDURES 43 Overview 43 iv Methodology 43 Research Design 44 Sample Description 45 Survey Design 46 Variables 47 Levels of Data 47 Instrument 48 Procedure 48 Treatment of Data 49 Hypotheses 50 Summary 50 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 52 Data Collection 52 Demographic Information 53 Changing Priorities 56 Relationship/Influence of AYP 56 Principals’ Responses 56 Teacher Responses 60 Summary 65 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 67 Summation of the Research Question 67 Hypothesis 1: 68 Hypothesis 2: 70 v Hypothesis 3: 72 Hypothesis 4: 72 Summary 73 Findings of the Study 73 Educational Leadership or School Management 74 Changes in Curriculum and Teacher Emphasis 76 NCLB’s Continued Impact 78 Implications for Administrators 79 Implications for Teachers 80 Implications for Policy Makers 81 Implications for Further Research 81 References 85 Appendix A: Contact Letter 98 Appendix B: Survey Questions and Responses 99 Appendix C: Research Question Rational 103 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 4.1 Changes in Principals’ Professional Daily Priorities 57 4. Principal Priorities where schools have met AYP 5 or more years 58 4.
Changes in Teachers’ Professional Daily Priorities 61 4. Teacher Priorities where schools have met AYP 5 or more years 62 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 4.1 Survey Responses by State 54 4.2 Demography of Elementary Schools Represented in Survey 55 4.3 Principals’ comments on Priority Changes that have had a Negative Impact. AYP had been met Five Years or more 59 4. Principals whose buildings did not subsequently meet AYP 60 more than 50% 2002 top five Priorities 4.
Teacher’s Comments on Priority Changes that had had a Negative 64 Impact on Student Learning.6 Were NCLB Changes Positive or Negative Based on Locale 65 viii 1 CHAPTER ONE The main theme of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was the concept of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Bush signed this education bill in January of 2002. Until this newest reauthorization, Title I had never encompassed so many programs. The 1,148 pages include programs, definitions, timelines for implementation, reporting, and measuring, as well as benchmarks for accountability with the rewards and consequences spelled out across the ensuing years.
This demonstrated a substantial departure from past practice where guidelines had been laid out for students in poverty. Re-authorization of Title I in 2001 made the states, their schools, and individual buildings accountable for the success of all students. Problem Statement The nature of the ranked scores on standardized tests creates winners and losers. Half of the students and schools will always appear to be doing poorly because of their rank when in actuality there may be very little differences in the overall number of correct on the assessment and the expectation/requirement was that all will be proficient.
This was the primary tool of NCLB in determining success and failure in the public schools called making adequate yearly progress (AYP). AYP directives were applied to districts as a whole as well as to disaggregated populations. If one group failed to make the AYP test goal, the entire district failed. As the AYP bar pushed higher each year, and schools were expected to continue to reach higher levels of achievement, would there be enough time in public education for schools to follow current programs in standards and curriculum reform while 2 simultaneously implementing the out-come testing mandates as set forth in NCLB? With a finite school day school administrators and classroom teachers would have to manipulate time structures, curriculum, instruction, planning and reporting to carry on the local public school as defined by the local school board as well as remain accountable to the NCLB mandates.
Educational leadership as well as classroom teachers would have to change in order to target disaggregated groups who needed more support, create time for testing and reporting to make AYP in order to preserve their district unit from failing status, loss of autonomy, and possible dismantlement. The problem remained determining if educational leadership and best instructional practices could remain intact under the strain. A Nation at Risk (1983) crystallized the idea and desire to make education accountable to quantifiable numbers like business production standards. The standards movement began soon thereafter.
Assessments were developed within districts to measure student outcomes across the curriculum, inclusive of application testing strands that included projects, portfolios, and essays, all striving for authentic assessment. The State of Kentucky and others who had already begun state assessments and accountability systems had found assessment, scoring, and standardization across teachers and schools were time intensive and expensive. This resulted in schools abandoning the process (Reidy, 1997). In the same time frame, the federal government selected other assessments that were relatively quick to administer, score and compile results.
In the interest of time and costs, detailed accurate reporting of student skills and achievement was being replaced with a single-time, standardized achievement test (Clark & Clark, 2000, ¶ 8). 3 Froese-Germain cautioned research shows again and again “while useful for sorting and ranking of students, standardized tests are inadequate in assessing student learning and development” (2001, p. Actually research has found standardized test scores tell more about the size of students’ houses than about the quality of their learning (Kohn, 2001, 349a). Popham (1999a) believed one of the chief reasons children’s socioeconomic status was so highly correlated with standardized test scores was that many items really focused on assessing knowledge and or skills learned outside of school, knowledge more likely to be learned in some socioeconomic settings than in others.
NCLB determined success or failure of students and schools on the basis of sorting and ranking of scores. Unless improvement was shown in the year to year test scores, federal money could be cut and channeled into other programs. Schools were publicly identified as failing or in need of remediation. Graduation for students was jeopardized as well as their ability to gain entry into higher education and in qualifying for grants and scholarships.
Teachers and administrators were questioned as to their capability to educate and lead. The community, its citizens, and its children were impacted by the published test results. NCLB distributed Title I funds according to the outcomes of the testing. Formulas were crafted to initially boost instructional programs of struggling schools.
If annual yearly progress (AYP) was not met after the initial boost in finances, those same funds were to be made available to outside agencies for contracts to provide supplementary instructional programs.