Benchmarks fail reality test
AYP: Unfair and unworkable

More than a few eyebrows were raised in Robbinsdale, Minn., when the state issued its preliminary list of “needs improvement” schools last summer. Making the list was Lakeview Elementary, a highly regarded public school in the district. The problem, it turns out, was that a clerical error dropped the test participation rate from 96 percent to 94 percent—landing the school on the list under strict student test participation cutoffs specified in the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law.

Even though a district appeal succeeded in removing the school from the state’s final list, that doesn’t necessarily mean the problem has been fixed, says Cheryl Videen, director of research, evaluation of assessments for the district. “Generally speaking, people read the newspaper, they see the headlines, and they don’t necessarily see [which schools] got pulled off later.”

Not so fortunate was New Hope Elementary, a Robbinsdale school that was once hailed as a federal Blue Ribbon School of Excellence. The school has seen a surge in its immigrant student population in recent years. Despite the school’s intensive, successful efforts to bring these students’ English skills quickly up to par, despite meeting every other measure under AYP, the school will wear the “needs improvement” label for at least a year because it fell a few points shy of the state cutoff score in reading for its Limited English Proficiency population—a group of 21 students, more than half of whom have been in the district for no more than two years and come from six different language backgrounds.

The AYP results will certainly come as no surprise to the district or school staff: They were the ones who designated these students as Limited English Proficiency students in the first place. “At some point, the logic of AYP becomes circular,” Videen notes. Schools get nailed for less-than-proficient results among students identified by a staff as needing extra help to move beyond less-than-proficient results.

Robbinsdale is only one community that has felt confusion and consternation in the wake of “adequate yearly progress” reports issued by states under the terms of NCLB. Consider Florida, where sky-high cutoff scores set by the state have led to what can only be deemed “shock and awe” school reform and accountability: A staggering 87 percent of schools fell onto Florida’s needs improvement list in 2003. Or consider Delaware where 10 out of 12 districts landed on the needs improvement list (this despite the fact that Delaware schools made headlines recently for dramatic gains on the National Assessment of Educational Progress).

“The public is seeing that something is skewed here,” says Bella Rosenberg, assistant to the AFT president. “They’re seeing all these good schools ending up on lists, schools that people would die to get their kids into, and asking, ‘What’s going on here?’”

Compounding the problem, she says, is that “states are all over the map when it comes to interpreting the reporting requirements” under NCLB. Very few states are reporting on districts, some states are only reporting on Title I schools, others are detailing what specific AYP areas each school missed, while still others are including all schools in their reporting. Some of the problems are tied to AYP weaknesses that the AFT has long pointed to: AYP’s failure to give credit for improvement, for example, or its failure to state whether schools missed cutoffs by a fraction or a mile.

Several independent research groups are examining these problems, and the AFT will disseminate those findings to policymakers and the public in the months ahead, Rosenberg says.

Union contracts are key to NCLB success

"Nothing in the school improvement section of the law shall be construed to alter the terms of collective bargaining agreements, memoranda of understanding, or other agreements between employees and their employers."

Preserving that small section in the 669-page No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was no easy feat and a key lobbying priority for the AFT—for good reason. More than just boilerplate, Section 1116 (d) spells out a pivotal role for union-negotiated contracts and agreements in NCLB implementation. From public disclosure of teacher qualifications to use of school improvement funds for professional development under NCLB, the union-negotiated contract can hold great sway in keeping the process fair, constructive and tuned to the law’s worthy goals.

For several months, AFT staff have met with state and local leaders to explore ways to fully harness the power of the contract under NCLB, reports AFT educational issues department deputy director Rob Weil.  “People are very appreciative that someone has focused on the bargaining aspects of this law,” he adds.

Among the issues he urges AFT affiliates to consider when bargaining contracts or memoranda of understanding:

• The union should approve all letters required by NCLB that are sent home to parents.

• Because NCLB contains provisions requiring many teachers and paraprofessionals to be “highly qualified,” unions and districts should work together to develop comprehensive job descriptions, good professional development options and fair evaluation procedures.

• For schools that don’t make adequate yearly progress under the law, the union should secure the right to review school-level data and to provide supporting evidence if it feels the identification was wrong.

• Unions should try to secure language specifying that the district will use certified teachers to offer tutoring and other supplemental services under NCLB.

The demands of the law were recognized and addressed at the bargaining table by the Chicago Teachers Union, which is working to negotiate new supports and incentives for classroom paraprofessionals covered under NCLB.

These improvements will not happen by accident says CTU treasurer Maureen Callaghan, a member of the bargaining team and a former school clerk. “We have been pushing for it all year long during strategic bargaining.”

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.