by AFT President Sandra Feldman
July 2001

We need to make sure education
policy choices have real benefits for students.

There are almost four thousand students today at my alma mater, James Madison High School in Brooklyn, NY. They come from hardworking families representing virtually every ethnic and racial background in America, and they’re getting a good education, just as I did. Graduating last month, along with my nephew Zachary, were classmates from Haiti, Bosnia and Brighton Beach, to name just a few of their birthplaces. Most of them will go on to some form of higher education-community colleges or a variety of 4-year colleges, universities or technical schools.

What all of these young people have in common is a good deal of hope for a strong future in this great and diverse nation, thanks to the high-quality education they received in New York City’s public schools.

I’m grateful that my family--nieces, nephews and grandsons--keep me connected to the real world of learning. Too often, here in Washington, amidst the political and ideological wrangling (most recently over the technicalities of a complex education bill), policymakers can lose sight of the effect their actions have on schools and classrooms. But the enactment of any education law, particularly one as all-encompassing as the pending Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), has a significant impact on the lives of real students and their families.

A closer look

President Bush and a bipartisan majority of legislators have made some important changes to ESEA--changes that are worth looking at more closely to see how, and whether, they’ll do what they are intended to do.

One change is a provision that mandates annual testing of all children in grades 3 through 8. Make no mistake, testing is crucial--for determining if standards are being met, for measuring student progress and for identifying where students, and schools, need to improve. But students can also be over-tested. There is a risk that new tests mandated by the Federal government will be piled on top of existing state tests and become an extra burden on students, teachers, administrators and parents. That could force states and districts to substitute testing quantity for testing quality. We need to ensure that the ESEA requires coordination among federal, state and local officials to avoid this pitfall.

Furthermore, good tests are expensive to develop and administer. The sums that Congress has proposed for these new tests are nowhere near enough, and will amount to another unfunded federal mandate for the states. It would be a serious step backward if, instead of administering assessments connected to their specific standards, states were forced to use tests that have little or no relationship to standards-based classroom instruction. So, like it or not, test development and implementation have to be adequately funded.

A second important change in ESEA is increased "flexibility," a word that has very different connotations depending on the circumstances. When local school districts can waive burdensome regulations so successful educational programs can be used more easily, that’s good. That kind of flexibility with federal funds has enabled many urban school districts to adopt proven, research-based reading programs, for example.

But if "flexibility" means that states are allowed to eliminate funding targeted to specific programs or needs--which in turn leads to a lack of accountability--that’s bad.

For example, the new ESEA proposes to combine funding for professional development and class-size reduction. Both are critical initiatives, and both deserve full support. Lower class size significantly improves student achievement, especially in less advantaged schools. Teacher quality is also essential. In schools where teachers receive ongoing professional development to improve their classroom skills and adopt new methods, student achievement is rising.

Preventing "either-or" choices

Forcing states and school districts to make a choice between these two priorities amounts to practicing "triage" on our children. But many poor school districts will have to make those kinds of "either-or" choices about a number of crucial needs, from computer technology to after-school programs, unless Congress provides adequate funding for them.

Money alone is not a solution for all educational problems. But a solution without the funding to make it work is itself a problem. That’s why Congress must adequately fund the new tests it is requiring, as well as these programs--like lower class size--that are needed to make sure our children succeed. And nothing should stop Congress from supplementing this work with other important legislation--funding for school modernization, for instance. These are investments that can make a profound difference for our children--at James Madison High School and across the country. They should be national priorities.