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 were 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 were 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 tes-timony.

On adequate yearly progress. Any discussion of NCLB should begin by addressing the flaws of the adequate yearly progress (AYP) system. AYP fails to distin-guish between successful schools and unsuccessful schools, and between schools that are underperforming in just one area and schools that likely will need a com-plete overhaul. AYP is a flawed measurement system because it does not give credit for student growth toward a high standard. In our town hall meetings, AFT mem-bers said repeatedly that schools which are improving should not be penalized. That is why the law needs to be changed to give credit to schools making progress in student achievement, and to establish AYP levels that make a distinction between struggling schools and those needing only limited assistance.

On NCLB’s interventions for struggling schools. The law must be changed so that it doesn’t recommend the same one-size-fits-all solutions for schools that need intense, multiple interventions and those that need only limited help. The current law’s “assistance” for struggling schools is punitive and based on ideology rather than evidence. As Congress works to reauthorize NCLB, lawmakers should make sure they provide resources and flexibility so schools and dis-tricts can implement research-based interventions. We also need to change the law so interventions are targeted to the students who are not proficient.

On testing. State tests must be aligned with state standards and curricula used in classrooms. Logic dictates that states should align standards, tests and curricula, but the AFT recently found that only 11 states had tests aligned with strong content standards. Lawmakers need to be told that AFT members are concerned that instruc-tional time is being replaced by drill-and-kill test preparation, and that NCLB’s focus on math and reading has led some schools to place less emphasis on other impor-tant subjects. The current law uses tests primarily to sort students and rate schools. The next iteration of NCLB should focus on providing teachers with specific, timely test results they can use to improve instruction.

On supplemental educational services (SES). For-profit SES providers are not being held accountable for results and for the way they use tax dollars. 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, five years later, proposals are being put forth that would require teachers to jump through an additional hoop—based on statistically unreliable formulas involving student test scores—to prove they are worthy of teaching our nation’s children. Committee members heard, in no uncertain terms, that it is unacceptable to impose an-other unfair accountability measure on teachers.

On funding. Fully funding NCLB is important, but our testimony focused on other areas. The AFT will not accept seriously flawed federal education 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 peo-ple who deal with the law passed by Congress. 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 are included in our recommendations (www.aft.org/nclbrecs.pdf). We delivered them to all members of Congress earlier this year and continue to call on lawmakers to use our recommendations as a blueprint for reauthorization.

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