NCLB implementation draws heat from panel

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) earned high marks for its underlying goal but lackluster grades for implementation from AFT president Sandra Feldman and other leaders who participated in a Washington, D.C., panel discussion. The Dec. 3 event, sponsored by the Business Roundtable, gave education and public policy figures a chance to assess the impact of the law almost two years after its enactment.

The law has cast long-overdue attention on vulnerable student populations in schools nationwide, most panelists agreed. But there is widespread confusion about the legislation, fueled by a lack of leadership and guidance from the U.S. Education Department when it comes to key aspects of the law, such as “highly qualified” teacher provisions and testing of special school populations, most panelists argued. The vacuum of information has led to a hodgepodge of implementation strategies around the states and allowed many NCLB myths to go unchallenged. Also cited as implementation pitfalls were underfunding, broad-brush labeling of schools as failures, the formula for determining a school’s adequate yearly progress (AYP), and heavy demands on educators under the law’s “highly qualified teachers” provision.

“I was optimistic when [the law] was passed, [but] now I am very worried,” Feldman said. “We have to ask ourselves why a law that passed with such overwhelming bipartisan support is now mired in this kind of bickering and complaining and hostility and partisanship.”

Joining Feldman at the standing-room-only event were Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio); Education Trust director Kati Haycock; 21st Century Schools Project director Andrew Rotherham; Lisa Graham Keegan, CEO of the Education Leaders Council; and Sandy Kress, a former senior adviser to president Bush.

Boehner, one of the law’s co-authors, stressed that what needs to be done to improve NCLB must be done within the existing law. There has been absolutely no interest among congressional leaders he’s spoken with, Democrats and Republicans alike, in reopening the legislation, added Boehner. And much can be done within the current law, particularly when it comes to federal efforts to guide states. There is “confusion that exists in every state about what the facts of the law are.”

Haycock said the law deserves credit for addressing the needs of disadvantaged students through reporting of achievement broken down by key student groups. There are “no longer invisible children at the local levels,” as a consequence, she said.

But worthwhile concepts won’t hold unless policymakers take an unvarnished look at what’s actually happening in schools, Feldman and others warned. There is seething anger at schools being labeled as failures when they barely miss AYP progress targets, she said. There is bitterness and consternation among key educators, such as middle school and special education teachers at being forced to take several majors in order to be deemed “highly qualified.” And there is an overall resentment among educators about the lack of professional development opportunities in place.

The education community’s ability to end the so-called reading wars in instruction shows that consensus-building around NCLB is possible, Feldman stressed—if proven research strategies are allowed to direct efforts at all levels. Congress could take a big step toward keeping the law on track by convening a panel of independent researchers, and holding congressional hearings, to assess the soundness of key elements such as AYP and “highly qualified” educator requirements as they currently are being interpreted, she said.

“We shouldn’t be talking about derailing [NCLB], but we also shouldn’t be assuming that everything is fine when every school and every community know that it isn’t,” she cautioned.

AFT protects rights of teachers under NCLB

The AFT recently scored a victory in resolving an important implementation issue on the No Child Left Behind Act with the U.S. Department of Education. Under NCLB, some students in schools not making adequate yearly progress (AYP) are eligible for supplemental educational services: tutoring and academic assistance provided outside the regular school day.

The AFT had received reports from the field that states were misinforming districts that teachers in schools not making AYP could not work for supplemental service providers.

The AFT pursued this with the Education Department and received clarification from Secretary Rod Paige that, in fact, such teachers can provide these supplemental services. In a letter to AFT president Sandra Feldman, Paige reiterated that Title I regulations “clearly do not restrict highly qualified teachers who are employed by schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring from working for supplemental educational services providers.”

The comment section of the regulations, Paige noted, says that “even the lowest-performing schools may have teachers who have the experience and skill to provide high-quality supplemental educational services.”

The AFT continues to work with the department to resolve a broad range of NCLB implementation issues. A copy of Paige’s letter to Feldman is posted online at www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/secletter/031021.html.

Copyright by the American Federation of Teachers, AFL•CIO. All rights reserved. Photographs
and illustrations, as well as text, cannot be used without permission from the AFT.