NCLB's unintended consequences

by Edward J. McElroy
AFT President

In my travels around the country in recent years, I have heard teachers express frustration the likes of which I haven’t heard in a long time, if ever. I hear it from experienced teachers at the top of their game, from fresh-faced newcomers whose excitement is dimming all too quickly, and from all sorts of teachers in between. A major cause of their dissatisfaction is the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the way it has been implemented.

Lest anyone think that this is merely sour grapes from teachers who want to stick to “business as usual,” let me set the record straight. Some of the most compelling and cogent concerns about the effects of NCLB have come from teachers who by any measure hold themselves and their students to high standards.

The AFT—and every teacher I know—supports the underlying goals of NCLB: to raise standards for all children and, in particular, meet the needs of disadvantaged children; to ensure there is a well-qualified teacher in every classroom; to provide extra support for low-performing students; and to use fair and accurate accountability measures in our public schools.

Unfortunately, what I hear more and more is that, the way the law is being carried out, those good intentions have given way to unintended—and unacceptable—consequences. Teachers understand how important it is to focus on literacy and math, but they are concerned that other content areas may be getting short shrift. They resent that NCLB has in many places derailed reforms or programs that were producing positive results. The promised funding for the law has not materialized, despite its many new requirements. And many teachers have told me that the accountability measures are unfair and inaccurate ways of determining student and school performance.

It has been widely acknowledged that the central provision of the law, the adequate yearly progress (AYP) measure, doesn’t necessarily give credit for progress. Many teachers report feeling that, on the basis of AYP, their schools have been wrongly identified as “failing.” Many schools that have made commendable progress have been targeted for NCLB’s escalating sanctions because some or most of their students started further behind and did not reach the law’s arbitrary benchmark. Ineffective schools should be identified, but right now there is reason to believe that many so-called failing schools are being identified for statistical rather than educational reasons.

Many teachers worry that the law simply will fail to help raise student achievement. Some have pointed out that, while supplemental educational services (such as tutoring) and conversion to a charter school are among the sanctions for schools that do not make AYP, standards for these providers are lower than those for regular public schools.

For example, teachers in many charter schools are not required to meet all the conditions of the “highly qualified” teacher definition. The standards are even lower for supplemental service providers (SSPs), who ostensibly are supposed to help students most in need of academic assistance. These providers do not have to hire staff who are “highly qualified,” according to the law, or even to be state-certified. And they do not have to serve students with disabilities or who are English language learners. Many of us are concerned that providers will choose to serve the “easiest to educate” children, while those with the greatest needs will be left behind.

One of the effects of these shortcomings is that many teachers are considering leaving the profession, at least sooner than they would have otherwise. Already, nearly half of new teachers quit within the first five years, and fully half of those hired in urban school districts leave within just three years. For many of them, a significant part of the reason is the effect of some federal regulations. We cannot simply stand by while the unintended consequences of a far-reaching law demoralize and drive out excellent teachers.

The AFT will never back away from high standards and accountability, but it is important to get the regulations we place on teachers and schools right. We applaud the good that has come out of various provisions of federal law, such as the disaggregation of data, which has helped focus attention on students in need of more help. However, where provisions work against—not for—students and schools, the AFT is working to change them. Indeed, the goals of NCLB cannot be met without changes in the law, proper implementation and necessary funding. We will continue working with Congress, the U.S. Department of Education and others to ensure that NCLB’s promised benefits reach every child and to help reverse the dissatisfaction with teaching that its flaws have produced.