Vantage Point: ‘Fix’ NCLB so schools can succeed 

In my March column, I relayed my concerns about federal funding. This month, I want to make it clear that full funding will not cure all of our issues with No Child Left Behind. That law remains fatally flawed.

During our two recent visits to Washington, D.C. (the National School Boards Association’s Federal Relations Network in February and CSBA’s Federal Issues Council in March), CSBA officers, members and staff shared the association’s concerns regarding the implementation of NCLB with members of Congress, the Department of Education and other administration officials. Although we all agree with the goals of this law, radical change is needed if we are ever to achieve these goals. One would think that practical input from the field would be of great use to policy-makers and lawmakers. If Washington officials truly wish to improve schools and increase student achievement, then they should work with us to develop constructive public policy.

To begin with, it is statistically impossible for any institution to ever achieve perfection. By the year 2014, any school containing one child who has not reached the proficient level will fail to make “adequate yearly progress.” We informed our leaders that as educators, we have found it demoralizing to set unrealistic goals and then to punish people for not achieving them. Indeed, we would like to see every child succeed, so we provided suggestions on how to work toward a reasonable definition of that goal.

First, it would be useful to distinguish between the needs of various schools. In California and across the nation there are very successful schools that are missing their AYP goals due to one factor, such as the special education participation rate. These schools should not be lumped together with schools that are truly struggling. Schools that are struggling to meet the needs of their students should be provided with assistance and the financial resources to make desired improvements. Identifying schools in need of improvement and then taking away 20 percent of their Title I funding so that they are unable to make those improvements is not only punitive, it is counterproductive. Perhaps, instead of applying sanctions, we should be helping schools improve.

Next, we reaffirmed the need to use a growth model, such as our own Academic Performance Index and the necessity of using multiple measures to evaluate schools. We suggested that the criteria outlined in an Individualized Education Program should be used to determine the success of special education students and that more flexibility is needed when evaluating the success rate of English language learners. This is especially true given the high transiency rate at many California schools.

These suggestions met with a variety of responses. Most of the people with whom we met admitted that they have heard these concerns from other groups. Some took notes and others disputed our points. NCLB is up for reauthorization in 2007. It is important that our voices be heard. It is quite likely that those in power will want to tweak the law around the edges and not make any substantive changes. I urge each of you to communicate your concerns to your congressional representative. Share stories about your own schools. Let Congress know of the much-needed changes. Ask them to help us make every child and every school succeed.