Will the promise be kept?
Making the tough call--AFT and No Child Left Behind Act

The AFT has long understood that the right path and the path of least resistance are not always the same. Fifty years ago, the union took the tough-but-necessary step of expelling segregated locals, even though it decimated AFT membership at the time. In the 1980s, the AFT shunned fashionable knee-jerk protests that greeted the landmark A Nation at Risk report--and helped spark a candid, long-overdue dialogue about education and society's shared responsibility for its improvement.

Another watershed moment may be unfolding right now.

It involves the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the latest installment of the federal government's centerpiece law for preK-12 education. Also known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the law has drawn fire for imposing underfunded mandates, heavy burdens and sometimes counterproductive remedies on public schools. At the same time, NCLB has staunch defenders who say the law, which includes Title I, may be the nation's best hope for bringing high expectations, challenging content and true opportunity to all children. It's a climate that lends itself to side-picking, posturing and politicking.

And that's precisely the path that the AFT will not follow as the law is implemented in districts across the nation, says union president Sandra Feldman.

NCLB "poses yet another test of our ability to be constructive, responsive and creative while simultaneously fighting and protecting against the indefensible. And I know that, together, we can meet that challenge," Feldman told a packed room in her keynote address to the AFT's Quality Educational Standards in Teaching (QuEST) conference in Washington, D.C., in July.

"This union and its members have also always understood that some criticisms of public education are legitimate," Feldman said. "Often, in fact, we're the first to point out problems and the first to propose solutions--and we're going to carry on that proud tradition."

Why stake out a middle ground in such a polarized environment? The reason is simple, Feldman explained. The current, corrosive climate is--in and of itself--a much bigger threat than most people realize. At risk is the nation's commitment to public education, to standards-based school improvement and to the education lifeline known as Title I.

"When anxiety over Title I gets whipped up into a generalized, simplistic 'down with the law' mantra, it jeopardizes Title I," Feldman warned. "On the other hand, when even legitimate criticism of the law is met with the accusation that the critic is against accountability, or doesn't believe that poor children can learn, or is guilty of 'the soft bigotry of low expectations' --that also jeopardizes Title I.

"Either way, that kind of criticism puts at risk the largest and most important federal commitment there is to the education of poor children, the law on which our most vulnerable youngsters and resource-starved public schools depend. That is an unacceptable risk."

WHERE CREDIT IS DUE

Working within the law is difficult and will demand resourcefulness at all levels. The problems with NCLB in its current form are many and serious, Feldman said. Of particular concern is NCLB's measurement of annual school improvement, known as "adequate yearly progress" (see sidebar on page 7). The law calls for 100 percent of students in general and in several subgroups (low-income, racial and ethnic minorities, special education and English language learners) to reach a "proficient" level on tests of reading and math (and soon science) in grades 3-8 and at least one grade in high school. By 2014, virtually 100 percent student proficiency must be reached. Each state has to figure out a starting point--its percentage of proficiency--and each district and school has to make regular progress from that starting point to 100 percent proficiency by 2014.

Any Title I school that fails to reach AYP for two consecutive years will be put on a "needs improvement" list and be subject to certain sanctions, beginning with technical assistance in forming school improvement plans and Title I set-asides at the district level to give public school choice options to those students attending "needs improvement" schools. Sanctions ratchet up for each consecutive year that a school fails to meet AYP. A Title I school that does not make AYP for four or more years could face restructuring sanctions, state takeovers or reopening as a public charter school.

Complicating matters even further is the Education Department's lack of clear guidance on public school choice provisions in the law. Many districts incorrectly believe that students can transfer into a higher-performing school--even if that school is filled to capacity. Such a move could easily overwhelm accepting schools and put in jeopardy gains they may have made through reforms such as smaller class size.

"This AYP formula staggers the imagination and maybe even human capacity," Feldman said. "Furthermore, this formula could put a large number of good schools on the 'failing' list--which, since states are then required to help them, could result in even less money to help schools that are really in trouble."

These problems have long been recognized by the AFT, which lobbied vigorously for AYP changes when Congress first considered the law. Although some gains were won--for example, states can use three-year averages in AYP calculations rather than more volatile annual data--much more needs to be done to get the formula right. In its current form, AYP is stacked against schools whose students come from diverse backgrounds, and

it demands that poorly funded, high-poverty schools achieve an unprecedented rate of academic progress--gains that not even the most advantaged schools have been able to meet. "And, despite its name, the [AYP] formula doesn't really give credit for progress," Feldman explained.

The union will deal with these issues publicly and head-on. The AFT currently is working with leading statisticians to evaluate whether annual AYP targets set for various districts and schools are attainable, and whether a school is being identified for sanctions because of statistical blips or for real academic reasons. "We're working with the experts to be able to determine whether a school that gets nailed for failing to make AYP is actually succeeding in making a rate of academic progress that is as great as, or greater than, the statewide average or in schools that do make their AYP," Feldman reported.

And the union will go public with these results. "We will provide that evidence to you and take it to parents and the public, whom we need to have on our side. We will organize and mobilize to get a congressional hearing, and work with members on both sides of the aisle to make the necessary changes," Feldman vowed.

A TIME AND A PLACE

Given the real problems with NCLB, why not just pressure lawmakers to pass a new law?

The argument is simple, straightforward--and totally misguided when one considers the current political climate and the legislative history behind NCLB. When the law was first deliberated, many of the proposals on the table were nothing short of catastrophic for students, staff and schools. Elimination of paraprofessionals from Title I, mandated testing for veteran teachers, wholesale rollbacks of collective bargaining rights, and wide-ranging voucher programs were just a sample of attacks that the AFT lobbied against successfully. Reopening the law in what has proven to be a dangerous climate in Washington, D.C., almost guarantees that these threats will be revisited.

And success a second time around is not guaranteed.

Reopening the law would be difficult at best and carries the real possibility of being "thrown back into legislative fights over the value of paraprofessionals, or collective bargaining, or veteran teacher testing, in this dangerous political climate," Feldman warned. Beyond that, there are some exciting, positive prospects in the current law that must be preserved, she said.

"The law is built around goals we've long supported: high academic standards and achievement; eradicating achievement gaps between the haves and the have nots; making sure that every teacher in every school is qualified; and, yes, accountability," Feldman said.

NCLB also requires states to provide every classroom with a "highly qualified teacher" by the 2005 school year. The requirement is a direct challenge to the "anyone can teach" mentality and a check on administrators who systematically waive qualifications and assign teachers out-of-field. Instead, it puts the pressure on school systems to provide the salaries and working conditions necessary to attract professionals. "Now, for the first time," Feldman said, "each state is being forced to develop real standards for the skills and knowledge that qualified teachers should have, as well as a system for seeing whether these standards have been met."

The law also spells out qualifications for paraprofessionals working in Title I programs, and AFT leaders from New Jersey to New Mexico are using NCLB as a springboard to long-held goals of better preparation and certification for PSRP members.

And, once again, the AFT is working with federal, state and local authorities to ensure that these quality provisions are implemented fairly and constructively. The union is pressing federal regulators to ensure that those who provide after-school tutoring and other supplemental services included in NCLB meet the same definitions of "fully qualified" that public school teachers do. The AFT also is seeking guarantees that fully licensed special education teachers are considered fully qualified under NCLB; the union is asking for similar provisions for veteran middle school teachers and vocational education teachers.

And for all groups, at all levels, the AFT is seeking adequate time and resources to enable educators to meet these requirements.

TOOLS TO BUILD ON

One of the greatest lobbying victories behind NCLB is a provision that prevents the law from superceding collective bargaining agreements between unions and districts. Far more than just a "rear guard action," this language opens up a chance for AFT locals to deal with major NCLB considerations--staff qualifications, school improvement plans, professional development to name a few--directly through the negotiated contract.

The national union's acclaimed Educational Research and Dissemination (ER&D) program has been harnessed by leaders in many states and districts as an avenue for helping teachers and paraprofessionals meet NCLB quality provisions. And, for schools and districts directly affected by the accountability provisions under NCLB, the AFT's Redesigning Schools To Raise Achievement (RSRA) project offers a time-tested, effective model for systemic school improvement.

And to ensure that quality doesn't end when the 3 p.m. bell rings, many affiliates are taking the lead on supplemental educational services offered through NCLB. For example, the Dial-a-Teacher program offered by the AFT's Rochester, N.Y., affiliate was recently approved by state education officials as a provider of NCLB supplemental services.

These types of creative, often courageous, solutions should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the history of the AFT, its concept of professional stewardship and its commitment to the institutions where members work.

"It is as much our obligation to seize and create the opportunities for the kinds of changes that will improve our schools and our profession as it is to be ready, willing and able to fight those who would use these same opportunities to hurt public education," Feldman stressed.

Sidebars:

• Will the promise be unbroken?

• AFT joins effort to combat failing school smear

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.