What Congress needs to hear about NCLB

by Edward J. McElroy
AFT President

When congress reauthorized the 40-year-old Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 2001, the law acquired a new name: No Child Left Behind (NCLB). This year, Congress is preparing for the next reauthorization, and I testified in March before the U.S. House and Senate education committees about needed changes to NCLB. I harbor no illusions that the members of Congress are eager to hear my personal views, but I know they pay attention when I speak on behalf of more than 1.3 million AFT members.

Our testimony emphasized that the AFT’s views are shaped by people on the frontlines of education—teachers and paraprofessionals and school employees. We spoke about our NCLB task force, our town hall meetings and our recommendations, which grew out of our communication with members.

Our goal was to use your experiences and your views to inform committee members about what it will take to get NCLB right. Here are a few key points of the testimony.

On adequate yearly progress. Any discussion of NCLB should begin by addressing the flaws of the adequate yearly progress (AYP) system. AYP fails to distinguish between successful and unsuccessful schools, and between schools that are underperforming in just one area and schools that likely will need a complete overhaul. AYP is flawed because it does not give credit for student growth toward a high standard. In our town hall meetings, AFT members said repeatedly that schools which are improving should not be penalized. The law needs to be changed to give schools credit for making progress in student achievement, and to establish AYP levels and interventions that distinguish between struggling schools and those needing only a little help.

On NCLB’s interventions for struggling schools. The current law’s “assistance” is punitive and based on ideology rather than evidence. Congress should provide resources and flexibility so schools can implement research-based interventions. We also need to change the law so interventions are targeted toward the students who are not proficient.

On testing. State tests must be aligned with state standards and curricula, but the AFT recently found that only 11 states had tests aligned with strong content standards. AFT members are concerned that instructional time is being replaced by drill-and-kill test preparation, and that NCLB’s focus on math and reading has detracted from other important subjects. The current law uses tests primarily to sort students and rate schools. The next iteration of NCLB should focus on providing specific, timely test results that teachers and paraprofessionals can use to improve instruction.

On supplemental educational services (SES). For-profit SES providers are not being held accountable. Private tutoring firms in Illinois spend just 56 cents of every NCLB dollar to tutor children who are behind, according to the Chicago Tribune. Forty-four cents goes to profit and overhead. We doubt that other states differ very much. With billions in SES dollars at stake, the money must be used to help children catch up, not to help adults get rich.

On some proposals to remake NCLB’s “highly qualified” requirement. The last reauthorization introduced a “highly qualified teacher” requirement. Now, proposals are being put forth that would require teachers to prove they are worthy of teaching our children, based on statistically unreliable formulas involving student test scores. It is unacceptable to impose another unfair accountability measure on teachers and paraprofessionals.

On funding. Fully funding NCLB is important, but our testimony focused on other areas. The AFT will not accept seriously flawed policy just because more money is added. We need more money, but more money alone will not fix NCLB.

On hearing from our members. It was important for committee members to understand that our union represents those who actually do the work—the people who deal with the law Congress passed. So I told them about a town hall meeting with our members in Boston, where a fourth-grade teacher told us, “The entire reputation of our school hangs on one test. It’s not about balanced curriculum, enrichment or learning anymore. It’s all about avoiding that failing school label.”

Rather than just identify problems with the law, we also need to offer solutions, which appear in our recommendations (www.aft.org/nclbrecs.pdf). We delivered them to Congress earlier this year and continue to call on lawmakers to use them as a blueprint.

We plan more town hall meetings—this time with members of the House and Senate education committees—and I hope you will let us know what you think. For my part, I will continue to solicit your views and work to make this law better for you and your students.