The discussion draft on reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act does not go far enough to address concerns of frontline educators, and "more work needs to be done" to fix fundamental flaws in the act, AFT executive vice president Antonia Cortese told the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Education and Labor on Sept. 10.

In testimony delivered on Capitol Hill, Cortese noted that major concerns of the union, including problems with "adequate yearly progress" provisions of the law and the use of unproven programs in supplemental education services for schools in need of improvement, point to the need for "substantive changes" in the law. The AFT on Sept. 5 submitted initial comments that focused on the committee's discussion draft of Title I of NCLB; the union is still reviewing additional discussion documents, released on Sept. 7, for Title II and Titles III through XI.  In a separate statement, AFT president Edward J. McElroy also objected to the "irresponsible timetable" set by the committee for reauthorization, which will result in "a sloppy law that is worse than the current law."

The discussion draft documents, publicly released as Congress prepares to take up reauthorization of the law, seeks to replace NCLB's accountability system, the AYP formula, with a "growth model" instead of a single high-stakes test. The model does not adequately account for student growth, however, and "does not give credit to schools that started further behind but are making real progress not recognized under the law," Cortese told lawmakers. "This is clearly an area that needs more thought and work."

Also, instead of giving struggling schools more help when they need it most, the draft requires the continued use of supplemental educational services (SES) as an intervention for high-priority schools despite the lack of any reliable data that demonstrates they are effective, said Cortese. "Schools that are not making progress need to have the flexibility to choose which interventions meet their needs."

The union is also concerned that the cumulative language in Titles I and II of the NCLB draft has the potential to lead to forced transfers, and ultimately drive teachers out of urban school districts and, perhaps, out of the profession. "Simply put, if we want highly qualified teachers to work in hard-to-staff schools, we must address the factors that will improve learning and teaching conditions" in those schools, including poor building conditions and lack of professional supports, Cortese told the committee. "We need real remedies, not ones that have the potential to drive teachers out of the profession or to other, more-advantaged schools."

Additionally, new provisions of the bill relating to teacher assignments and compensation should not have the ability to override collective bargaining agreements, Cortese warned, noting that the draft interjects federal law into the bargaining process, a matter that is within the purview of state and local law.

September 11, 2007