It's time they take our test 

There has been a flurry of activity in recent weeks surrounding the No Child Left Behind Act. Much of it picked up steam in September, when the U.S. House of Representatives Education and Labor Committee released a "discussion draft" of proposed NCLB changes. This document was only intended to be a starting point in the process—but it did sharpen the debate on the issues surrounding NCLB reauthorization and increased the risk that Congress' next version of NCLB might be on the wrong track.

As American Teacher went to press, leaders in the House and the Senate had yet to introduce a formal NCLB bill in their key committees. The AFT was using this opening to persuade Congress to take the time needed to get the law right.

The union continues to build on months of work aimed at gathering and presenting members' opinions to Congress. Frontline members, part of the union's Activists for Congressional Education program, have engaged in NCLB discussions with senators and representatives at more than 60 ACE meetings since August. The union also has held NCLB town hall meetings in several states, distributed more than 1 million NCLB postcards for members to send to Congress, generated more than 25,000 e-mails and messages to Congress, and held a Sept. 20 NCLB legislative action day on Capitol Hill (see page 16). More than 800 educators have offered feedback on the special NCLB section of AFT online www.aft.org/fixnclb.

Certainly, the union and its members are deeply troubled by many of the proposals House leaders included in the discussion draft. Not only does it fail to address fundamental flaws in the current law, it also contains contradictory proposals that could place too much focus on testing. And it could deepen other problems tied to NCLB.

These concerns are shared by the public at large. A recent Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll reveals that most parents believe there is already too much testing in public schools. And only 16 percent of parents believe that the best way to measure schools is through the percentage of students passing state-mandated standardized tests.

Although NCLB has resulted in dangerous "teaching to the test," that problem is not addressed by the draft bill, which is more than 1,000 pages. There are many components that require our attention, and a few tweaks aren't enough. It's time for Congress to take our NCLB test.

Multiple measures
The idea behind multiple measures is simple—provide a clearer picture of how schools are doing by moving away from a single high-stakes test. Congress is considering plans that would change adequate yearly progress (NCLB's accountability formula) to include multiple measures—but not in a way that provides that clearer picture. In fact, it could make problems worse. For example, one proposed indicator allows states to measure AYP by adding even more tests to the mix. It could lead to even more time spent on test prep and more high-stakes tests, even though most parents say public schools are testing too much already.

When it comes to multiple measures, the AFT urges Congress to act thoughtfully and carefully. A single, high-stakes test often provides an incomplete picture of how well schools are performing. But new measures must be accurate, they must not take time away from learning and teaching, and they must be aligned to standards and curricula in place for each school. Above all, they must not put pressure on schools to pull yet another exam off the shelf, or encourage schools to teach to the test, in order to meet AYP.

Growth models
Students and schools should receive credit for their progress. That's why many groups have called for new formulas that allow schools to make AYP when their students are showing solid academic growth. But many ideas floating around Capitol Hill, including those contained in the House discussion draft, offer only limited help in this area. They only consider growth when students already are close to reaching proficiency. Schools that started further behind would not get credit—even though their students are making solid progress—unless they are able to show bigger gains than higher-scoring schools.

Congress must do more to provide an AYP growth model that actually lives up to its name, AFT leaders and members are telling Congress. The model must overhaul AYP into a system that sets challenging, yet attainable, goals to measure student progress. It must measure the progress made by the same students over time—judging progress by factors that are not out of educators' control. And the growth model must maintain reporting on student achievement by subgroup, without giving schools dozens of ways to be declared "failures."

Pay based on test scores
The AFT opposes federal mandates that would force local schools to make decisions about teacher pay based on test scores. It's not fair to teachers—or to students. One such idea is included in the House draft, which ignores the problems with standardized tests. It applies more pressure to teach to the test rather than to provide a well-rounded education that gives students the tools they need to think and solve problems.

The AFT and its affiliates have been directly involved in the development and implementation of alternative compensation systems for more than 15 years. In every case, the success of these systems has depended on teachers and school staff having an active say in shaping them. Congress needs to learn this lesson. It must guarantee that teachers have a voice in the process so that incentives don't become a "pay to the test" system—one that prizes standardized test results above outstanding teaching.

School sanctions
NCLB hasn't provided schools with the funding that Congress first promised. Yet millions of scarce NCLB dollars continue to be wasted on supplemental educational services (SES) that lack any real accountability, transparency or independent evidence that they actually raise student achievement. To make matters worse, schools that are in restructuring have limited options available to them: closing the school and reopening it as a charter, replacing the school's leadership or staff, or entering into an agreement with an "intermediary or nonprofit" to run the school.

Congress shouldn't waste resources on unproven options like SES or allow only a limited range of options for restructuring. Instead, NCLB should give districts the flexibility to adopt research-based interventions and tailor them to school needs, including professional development, instructional strategies, and materials and curricula aligned with standards.

Qualified teachers
Every student deserves to have fully qualified teachers. No one can argue with that point. Many districts offer pay bonuses to teachers to work in their most challenging schools—only to see that the extra money goes unclaimed because the teaching assignments are in schools with terrible building conditions, unsupportive school leadership and few, if any, professional supports.

Some proposals, including those contained in the discussion draft, ignore these facts. The draft attempts to force changes in the distribution of experienced teachers, but turns a blind eye to the real conditions that make it difficult to attract teachers to struggling schools and then retain them. In fact, the draft offers a simple approach that could easily make matters worse. It could lead to forced transfers, which would simply drive teachers out of the district—or out of an underpaid profession.

The draft also eliminates the High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE), which takes into account teachers' classroom experience and professional development when determining who meets NCLB's highly qualified teacher requirement. HOUSSE is a vital tool, particularly for teachers who teach more than one subject, and for secondary school science teachers, and it should be preserved.

The AFT is urging Congress to be bold in addressing these concerns. More energy, attention and resources should be focused on providing true incentives to attract teachers to hard-to-staff schools. Congress should require states to develop a "learning environment index" for all schools, an indicator showing which schools do not have adequate facilities, safe conditions, incentives to retain teachers, and the financial and professional supports necessary to succeed. Finally, Congress should not impose rigid rules under the "highly qualified teacher" provision that would prevent teachers from including their classroom experience in meeting this requirement.

Collective bargaining
The discussion draft retains provisions of the current law that protect the voice of teachers and school staff through collective bargaining when schools are identified for school improvement or redesign. Under the current law, this protection only extends to the school improvement/redesign section of the proposal. However, the draft bill includes several new provisions in various sections of both Title I and Title II that relate to teaching assignments and compensation, many of which are not covered by the current language protecting staff involvement. For example, the draft would allow extra financial incentives to be paid to some types of teachers working in schools—without any guaranteed input from teachers in developing the system.

The collective bargaining protections provided under current law wisely acknowledge that efforts to reform low-performing schools are much more likely to be successful with the input of teachers and other school staff who are in the classroom every day. These same protections should be extended to the rest of the legislation, to ensure that staff have a say through their unions about the terms, wages and conditions of their employment. These are areas covered under state and local law, and the federal government should not intrude. NCLB should keep educators involved in every stage of the process and follow its own precedent by maintaining collective bargaining protections throughout the bill.

All of the above
The answer to fixing NCLB is: All of the above. The AFT is working daily with Congress to make sure that happens and is urging lawmakers to tackle other key issues as well. Congress must finally deliver on funding levels promised when the law was enacted almost six years ago. Lawmakers must make sure that English language learners and students with disabilities are included appropriately in assessment and accountability systems. Above all, the AFT and the union's members on the frontlines are urging Congress to slow down and really listen to voices that deserve to be heard—the people who learn and teach under NCLB every single day.