A recent survey of the effectiveness of supplemental services offered under NCLB found little return on huge sums spent. “Between $200 million and $300 million have been spent in these 91 districts [surveyed] with almost no scientific evidence that this spending has contributed to academic achievement,” reports the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and the American Institute for Social Justice in their report “Accountability Left Behind.”

Similarly, districts around the country are spending scarce Title I dollars for transportation and other costs associated with school choice intervention with no assurance that the remedy is producing results—and anecdotal evidence suggests that the students using the choice option are not the lowest-achieving. These two options, choice and supplemental services, are the initial remedies for schools that fail to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) under NCLB. Neither option is backed by research attesting to its effectiveness in boosting achievement, and both lack appropriate accountability measures.

 AFT executive vice president Antonia Cortese says that struggling schools need broader, proven intervention strategies rather than strict sanctions. These should include research-based programs and professional development for school staff that are aligned to curriculum and classroom-based. This changes “the onus of ‘you’re failing’ to ‘how can we help?’”

The problem is compounded by how AYP is interpreted under the law when determining which schools are in need of improvement. Too many effective schools have been identified as “in need of improvement” under the current AYP formula—a flaw that drains resources from schools that truly need assistance.

The timing of interventions also must be fixed: NCLB directs district resources to supplemental service providers and to transporting students to other schools before those schools labeled as needing improvement have time to develop and implement an adequate school restructuring plan. And NCLB does not promote a thorough, first-year analysis of the problems leading to low performance; nor does it offer the time and resources needed to fashion and execute a comprehensive plan to address these issues.

Lessons learned
The AFT has a long history when it comes to redesigning schools to raise achievement. The union is currently identifying both school improvement “success stories” and the conditions that enabled them to succeed—information that can help guide Congress toward getting school improvement right when NCLB comes up for reauthorization. Starting with its partnership in New York City’s nationally acclaimed Chancellor’s District and continuing with its 10-year-old Redesigning Schools to Raise Achievement (RSRA) initiative, the AFT and its affiliates have been partners in some of the most effective school improvement efforts around the nation. Currently, the AFT’s No Child Left Behind task force is analyzing many of those projects, looking for lessons learned and common threads that underpin success.

Many of these initiatives emphasize a team-building approach within the school—one that offers ongoing opportunities for data driven planning for curriculum and instruction. Showcasing these programs will be a big part of the AFT’s lobbying effort for NCLB reauthorization. The emphasis will be on offering an intensive planning year when a school is first identified as “in need of improvement,” so the school can develop an improvement plan that addresses its needs and relies on research-based, proven strategies.

The union has already catalogued some successful initiatives in “Redesigning Schools to Raise Achievement,” a DVD produced by the AFT in cooperation with the UFT Teacher Center. Limited copies are available. For details, contact Kathy Buzad, kbuzad@aft.org.