The No Child Left Behind Act must change, AFT president Edward J. McElroy told a blue-ribbon education commission on Sept. 25, and the changes must be driven by hard evidence and classroom realities—not by myths and ideological agendas brewing inside the Beltway.

McElroy delivered his testimony in Washington, D.C., at the last in a series of hearings held by the Commission on No Child Left Behind. This independent, bipartisan group is preparing recommendations to help guide Congress as it begins reauthorization of NCLB next year. McElroy presented the group with a preliminary set of AFT-developed recommendations that were prepared by members of the union's NCLB task force and also reflect the views and experiences of frontline educators, including thousands who have participated in AFT-sponsored NCLB town hall meetings around the country.

Beginning with AYP
"The flaws of NCLB's adequate yearly progress system are well-known. Thousands of schools are making real progress with students, but are being misidentified under AYP as failing," McElroy told the commission.

He quoted one fourth-grade teacher at a recent AFT town hall meeting in Boston who described how AYP had changed the climate at her school: "It's not about balanced curriculum, enrichment or learning anymore," she told the room. "It's all about avoiding that failing school label." Many teachers, McElroy added, describe how the threat of a "failing school label" has ushered in "drill-and-kill preparation [that] is resulting in a narrowing of the curriculum to only those subjects being tested." The Commission on NCLB need look no further than testimony it received at one of its previous hearings to see how this is affecting schools, McElroy said. It came from an AFT member in Hartford, Conn., who told the panel that her students spent 55 days sitting for tests over the course of a school year.

"Commissioners, do you believe that these children were receiving a good education when one-third of their academic time was spent taking tests—not on instruction?" McElroy asked the group. AFT members also report that standardized assessments often are not aligned with the curriculum they teach all year, McElroy said. "It's like being told to swim when you've just spent the last six weeks learning to ride a bicycle." The bottom line, the AFT president stressed, is that "we all want an accountability system that is fair and accurate. That system should give schools credit for meaningful progress."

A Record of Commitment—and Success
Educators in general—and the AFT in particular—made a commitment to high expectations for all students since the 1980s, McElroy reminded the panel. "The AFT has a long track record of collaborating with administrators, parents and communities to provide real help to truly low-performing schools," McElroy said. "We know that struggling schools need real help—not punishments or unproven approaches like state takeovers of schools, private management interventions or diverting funds to supplemental educational services with no record of effectiveness."

The AFT president outlined strategies that have increased student achievement in many previously low-achieving schools—strategies supported by solid research and the union's own experiences in promoting school improvement. They include effective early intervention for children who are behind in learning to read and a content-rich curriculum starting no later than kindergarten. These types of strategies speak directly to the needs of at-risk students, and they are the proven underpinnings of any serious effort close the achievement gap, he said.

Hard-to-Stomach Myths
The issue of hard-to-staff schools is sure to command considerable attention when Congress begins to address NCLB next year. It's a complex issue—one that's become considerably more difficult thanks to myths and distortions that are beginning to circulate on Capitol Hill, McElroy said. "You may hear today that union-negotiated transfer policies result in a lack of qualified, experienced teachers in low-performing schools. That is simply not true." McElroy pointed out that 22 states prohibit collective bargaining. If union contracts hampered efforts to get qualified teachers in hard-to-staff schools, then states without bargaining would have no problem. But that's not the case: It's generally agreed that all states have fallen short when it comes to attracting and keeping teachers in these schools.

Contracts are not the culprit, said McElroy, pointing to an AFT analysis of this issue. In urban districts with collective bargaining, new teachers are evenly distributed between high- and low-poverty schools. In districts without collective bargaining, new teachers are placed in high-poverty schools at three times the rate of low-poverty schools.

What's needed are competitive compensation and other incentives to attract well-qualified teachers to low-performing schools—and keep them there, McElroy testified. Elected officials and school leaders should be held responsible and accountable for ensuring adequate facilities, a safe and orderly school environment and the instructional supports students need to succeed.

AFT executive vice president Antonia Cortese also addressed the panel and detailed areas that should be uppermost in lawmakers' minds as they take up NCLB reauthorization. Cortese stressed that AYP must change so that schools making outstanding progress are no longer labeled as failures. And massive, early intervention for at-risk children also must be a top priority, she said.

September, 2006