Reauthorization of the law begins in earnest in 2007. It’s a once-every-five-years opportunity for Capitol Hill to offer revisions that go beyond regulatory tweaks. The AFT already is working on a variety of fronts to make sure members’ views and concerns get heard in the process.

Last fall, AFT leaders went before the Commission on No Child Left Behind, an independent, bipartisan panel that is preparing recommendations for Congress. AFT president Edward J. McElroy presented the group with a preliminary set of AFT-developed recommendations, prepared by leaders on the union’s NCLB task force. These recommendations reflect the views and experiences of frontline educators, including thousands who have participated in AFT-sponsored NCLB town hall meetings around the country.

The AYP dilemma
McElroy described to the panel how schools making real progress are not being given credit under NCLB’s adequate yearly progress (AYP) formulas. He detailed stories from members about how the threat of a “failing school label” has ushered in “drill-and-kill preparation [that] is resulting in a narrowing of the curriculum” and is sapping instructional time from schools.  AFT members also report that standardized assessments often are not aligned with the curriculum they teach all year, McElroy told the group.

The  AFT will continue to solicit member input as it prepares for the reauthorization of NCLB. “We’re going to be conducting another round of town hall meetings so that we can share our recommendations with members and get their feedback,” says AFT executive vice president Antonia Cortese.

In addition, she says, the union’s NCLB task force will be meeting in December to further develop a strategy for ensuring that Congress takes into account the views of the AFT and its members during NCLB deliberations on Capitol Hill.

The AFT recommends . . .

Here are excerpts from some of the preliminary recommendations the AFT has put before Congress as it considers revisions to the No Child Left Behind Act.

1. Implement an accountability system that gives credit for progress and/or proficiency.

Rationale: Even schools progressing significantly can be labeled as failing under NCLB’s current adequate yearly progress (AYP) model. AYP needs to give credit for progress, in addition to proficiency, and progress goals should be set at ambitious but attainable levels.

2. Prohibit unnecessary and duplicative student testing.

Rationale: Many states and districts add NCLB requirements onto an already overburdened testing schedule. States and districts should be required to audit their testing programs to prohibit testing that is redundant or fails to yield timely or useful information.

3. Reduce schools’ exclusive focus on reading and math.

Rationale: Teachers in many districts report that the curriculum has been narrowed to address only reading and math—and much of the extended time for reading and math is devoted to test-preparation drill instead of high-quality instruction. NCLB must not push aside social studies, science, art, music and physical education.

4. Include English language learners (ELLs) appropriately in assessment and accountability systems.

Rationale: Research indicates that it takes five to seven years for an ELL student to fully acquire the English language skills to perform academically on par with their non-ELL peers. NCLB’s current one-year exemption from having ELL test scores included in AYP systems ignores this fact. Also, the law should require states to develop native language and simplified English tests and to provide guidelines for school districts on these tests and on appropriate accommodations for ELL students.

5. Include students with disabilities appropriately in assessment and accountability systems.

Rationale: Students with disabilities, by definition, need special accommodations and supports to access the state-defined standards and assessments. Individualized education programs (IEPs) should determine how students participate in state academic assessments, including alternate assessments, modified assessments or assessments with accommodations. IEP teams should be provided professional development on how to determine appropriate assessments.

6. Require states to develop a “learning environment index” for all schools, and mandate that districts and states address the problem areas identified by the index for schools not making AYP.

Rationale: NCLB has established high-stakes consequences for staff and students, yet many of the schools not making AYP do not have adequate facilities, safe conditions, teacher-retention incentives, and the financial and professional supports necessary to succeed. The learning environment index should identify and measure teaching and learning conditions in each school that are known to contribute to increased student achievement. States and districts would be required to provide the resources to ensure that schools address the teaching and learning conditions identified for improvement.

7. Fund NCLB at the level promised in the 2001 reauthorization.

Rationale: As of January 2006, the difference between the amount Congress promised for NCLB programs and what it has actually provided for these programs is $40 billion. This is money that could have been spent on underserved and unserved students by reducing class size, offering proven interventions to schools that most need assistance, developing mentoring and induction programs, providing resources for turning around low-performing schools, and other services to achieve the goals of NCLB.

8. Require districts to develop incentives to attract and retain qualified teachers in low-performing schools, including increased compensation, improved working conditions, meaningful professional development, a safe environment and other instructional supports.

Rationale: The data on school district reform show that teachers are attracted to—and continue to teach in—academically challenged schools when appropriate supports are provided to them.

9. Require that paraprofessionals be provided in-service and pre-service training and professional development that fully prepares them to support instruction in the classroom.

Rationale: NCLB currently provides three options for meeting education requirements, but fails to mandate the delivery of, or participation in, professional development for paraprofessionals. The minimal professional development recommendations in the law are not required to be job-specific or aligned to the skills and knowledge required to perform the job.

10. Provide schools and districts with the resources and flexibility to implement research-based interventions.

Rationale: Struggling schools need a broad range of complementary interventions, and they need research-based professional development, instructional strategies, materials and curricula aligned with standards, expertise and supports to fully implement those interventions. Some proven interventions include extended school day, reduced class size, intensive and additional reading and math instruction, summer school and access to early childhood education programs.

11. Allow schools to continue to receive interventions for at least three years after they have exited the “in need of improvement” category.

Rationale: Interventions that have worked at a school must be maintained when the school improves. Schools need continued support to solidify their accomplishments—including the financial resources to continue the successful interventions.

“NCLB: Let’s Get It Right: AFT’s Recommendations for No Child Left Behind,” which contains the full list of recommendations, is available online at www.aft.org/topics/nclb/downloads/
LGIRrecommend.pdf.

Building alliances to fix NCLB
AFT reaching out to other national organizations and community groups

“We hope to identify issues and concerns around which we can find common ground so we can go to Capitol Hill with as strong and as broad a coalition as possible,” says AFT director of legislation Tor Cowan.

The union already has a working relationship with organizations such as the NEA, the Council of the Great City Schools, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the NAACP, and also has forged a partnership with the National Caucus of Black State Legislators and the National Caucus of Hispanic State Legislators.

“These kind of alliances are absolutely essential to mobilizing key communities around changes to NCLB,” says Foster Stringer, director of the AFT department of human rights and community relations.

Michael Wotorson, director of education for the NAACP, recently addressed the AFT Teachers program and policy council where he cited the “history of cooperation between our two organizations.” 

A teacher for 26 years, June Danford Smith is currently a staff representative for the Houston Federation of Teachers. In that capacity, she regularly speaks to Texas teachers who are unhappy with NCLB, particularly the underfunding of the law. “Our members support the law’s call for high standards for all kids,” Smith says, but many members are frustrated “because their schools lack the programs and other resources they need to raise achievement.”

It’s important that the union communicate with local organizations that speak for parents and other members of the community “so that they know what we’re thinking and we know what they’re thinking” regarding NCLB, Smith adds. “We may learn that we have some different ideas as to what needs to be done, but the only way to find that out and then see if we can figure out ways to work together is to open up that dialogue.”

Real solutions for hard-to-staff schools

Some say “that union-negotiated transfer policies result in a lack of qualified, experienced teachers in low-performing schools. That is simply not true,” AFT president Edward J. McElroy recently told the Commission on No Child Left Behind. He 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  accountable for ensuring adequate facilities, a safe school environment, and the instructional supports students need to succeed.