AFT: Publications: American Teacher: December 2003/January 2004: NCLB Watch

When it comes to the No Child Left Behind Act, a promise is worth more than $9 billion—and counting. That’s the level of underfunding U.S. students and public schools have suffered thus far, based on what Congress authorized for NCLB and what it’s actually delivered.

“There are lots of things that are unclear about NCLB, but one thing was always crystal clear—Congress and the administration promised time and time again that they would provide the funding needed to help students reach higher achievement levels,” says Charlotte Fraas, AFT legislation director. “The funding just hasn’t happened as promised.”

Massive numbers like $9 billion can be tough to put into context. But consider what public schools could do with just an additional $500 million—fewer than 6 cents on every dollar promised but not delivered. Just that $500 million could:

In fact, all of these options could be paid for if the administration and Congress paid just a quarter on every dollar promised but not delivered.

The disconnect between high expectations and low funding is not going unnoticed. The media also are beginning to pick up on this key weakness in NCLB. “Nobody has figured out how any of this will be paid for,” Desert Morning News (Utah) columnist Doug Robinson recently wrote in a column detailing the daunting challenges imposed on schools under the law. “Essentially, the federal government ordered schools to [make adequate yearly progress targets], and when somebody asked how, the feds said, ‘Search me.’ Anyone for a bake sale?”

But the AFT has always been clear on the “how” portion—on the promises made by Congress and the administration when NCLB came into law. “The implementation problems with NCLB are difficult to begin with,” says AFT president Sandra Feldman. “Denying the promised funding is an exercise in cynicism.

“The AFT will keep fighting hard, not just to expose and change the underlying flaws in the law, but for the funding teachers and paras need to make its still worthy goals work for kids.”

AYP: What's progress got to do with it?

School A begins with only 5 percent of its students reaching the proficient benchmark in 2002. But improvement is steady and substantial, with the percentage of students reaching the proficient level rising at a 5 percent annual clip.

School B begins in 2002 slightly above the state’s “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) starting point under the No Child Left Behind law. This school also posts gains in ensuing years, although at a more modest rate of 3 percent.

School C is the only one in the example at which proficiency is going down. But the decline is relatively modest, and the school starts and stays comfortably above the AYP targets for many years.

So which school gets sanctioned under NCLB? The correct answer is “eventually, they all do.” But, in true through-the-looking-glass style, it’s the school that posts the highest rate of improvement that first gets to wear the “needs improvement” label and suffer sanctions. It will be joined a few years later by the school with slightly lower, but still positive, achievement growth. The last school to be targeted under AYP? You guessed it: School C, the only one in the sample that is losing ground.

“This simple example does not even get into the question of measuring subgroups—which is a plus. But when only one of those groups fails to nail the AYP target precisely, schools are labeled as failures, even if that subgroup is making great progress,” observes Bella Rosenberg, special assistant to the AFT president. “It’s no wonder measurements experts are saying that within a few years, most schools in the nation, and almost all school districts, will be on an AYP failure list.”