States and Congress Discuss What’s Ahead for No Child Left Behind Reauthorization
NCLB
Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Priyanka Dayal
Boston University Washington News Service
April 26, 2007
WASHINGTON, April 26 – As the landmark federal law overseeing the country’s education system comes up for reauthorization this year, the debate on accountability and the federal government’s role in local schools is resurfacing.
President Bush first talked about a No Child Left Behind law when he was running for the presidency in 2000, and a year later Congress passed it with backing from both sides of the aisle.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., who disagrees with Mr. Bush on many other issues, sponsored the original bill in 2001 and is working to reauthorize it now.
As chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Mr. Kennedy has held several hearings and roundtable discussions on No Child Left Behind this year, and he will continue to hold meetings for the rest of the spring, said spokeswoman Melissa Wagoner.
Mr. Kennedy has called No Child Left Behind “a national commitment, inspired by our fundamental values and aspirations,” but he said it will not be successful without a boost in funding. Democrats led by Mr. Kennedy say Republicans have hurt schools by underfunding No Child Left Behind, but they have not signaled how much they want to increase spending.
Some Democrats say the law’s testing requirements are too constraining. And some Republicans say education policy should be left to the states. House and Senate Republicans have filed legislation that would limit the federal government’s role by letting states opt out of testing requirements but still receive federal money.
The earliest a bill might come to the floor for full debate is in the summer, Ms. Wagoner said, but it is too soon to predict what form the bill will take.
The Senate and the House must agree on the terms of reauthorization before sending a bill to President Bush for approval. The current law expires at the end of this fiscal year, on Sept. 30.
The long-term goal of No Child Left Behind is to make every child proficient in math and English language arts by 2014. But the definition of proficiency varies greatly from state to state, raising questions about the validity of state aptitude tests.
Although education standards in Massachusetts are among the highest in the country, many of the state’s schools have been identified under benchmarks set by No Child Left Behind as needing improvement.
To make sure schools are working toward the 2014 goal, they must achieve “adequate yearly progress,” which is defined at the state level. In 2006, the federal government tagged public schools in Worcester as needing improvement in English and needing corrective action in math, because many students did not meet “adequate yearly progress” goals.
Massachusetts defines proficiency by its flagship Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, which is among the most rigorous state education tests in the country. Many other states, such as Mississippi, set their standards much lower, so that on paper their students appear to be performing better. But education experts say the way No Child Left Behind ranks schools does not represent student progress accurately.
No Child Left Behind divides the student population into various subgroups based on factors such as race, skill level and income level. If a vast majority of students perform proficiently, but even one subgroup does not, a school does not meet its “adequate yearly progress” target.
The law does not distinguish between schools where only one subgroup is not performing proficiently and schools where most subgroups are not performing proficiently, which some educators think is unfair.
“Nobody can really argue with the goal that we want all children to be proficient,” said Paul Toner, vice president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association. “That broad goal is something all of us can embrace.”
The Education Commission of the States, a nonpartisan policy group, projects that Massachusetts is on track to achieve 100 percent proficiency by 2014.
Like most major reforms, No Child Left Behind could not have passed in Congress without bipartisan support and compromise.
But compromise brings problems, too. No Child Left Behind attempts to give states autonomy by letting them design their own methods of assessment. At the same time, it authorizes the federal government to oversee states more broadly than ever before. It also lets the federal government penalize schools that don’t perform up to standards.
“The only thing that’s federal in this is 100 percent proficiency by 2014. The federal government gave a nod to state supremacy,” said Amy Wilkins, vice president for government affairs and communications for the Education Trust, an advocacy group.
The differences in how states define their learning standards and how they design their tests can be confusing, according to Michael Cohen, president of Achieve, an education group that promotes high academic standards in states.
“We don’t know what proficiency means from state to state,” he said. “Massachusetts has rigorous but appropriate standards. It is probably among the states that is providing a more accurate and honest picture of what’s happening. In other states, students are being misled into thinking they’re doing better than they really are.”
Achieve calls the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System test one of the best in the country because it measures a broad range of standards in challenging ways.
The only accurate way to compare student performance across states is through the National Assessment of Education Progress, a nationwide test administered by the U.S. Department of Education and often called the nation’s report card. In many states, students who perform well on state exams scrape by with much lower scores on the national test.
But data from the department’s National Center for Education Statistics show that average math scores in Massachusetts on the national test are consistently higher than the national averages for fourth- and eighth-graders.
No Child Left Behind rates school performance over time, but it does not track same-student performance over time. For instance, it compares how fourth graders perform in 2005 with how fourth graders perform in 2006. But it does not compare how fourth graders perform in 2005 with how they perform as fifth graders in 2006.
“We all realistically know that every child is not going to be proficient in 2014 – or any year – but if we look at the growth that we’re having and comparing them to themselves, that’s certainly a better way to see if we’re closing the achievement gap,” said Cheryl A. DelSignore, president of the Educational Association of Worcester, the local teachers’ union.
There also is some friction between state-based education initiatives and No Child Left Behind mandates, according to John F. “Jack” Jennings, president of the Washington-based Center on Education Policy, an advocacy group.
“Massachusetts law is more geared to getting students to pass a state test to graduate from high school, whereas with the federal test, there’s annual accountability,” he said.
Whether or not they support the No Child Left Behind law, educators seem to agree that the goals are unattainable without a hike in funding.
About 50 percent of the money for No Child Left Behind comes from the state and about 40 percent comes from school districts, according to Mr. Jennings. Less than 10 percent comes from the federal government.
James A. Caradonio, superintendent of Worcester public schools, said the federal government and the state are “giving us less money to [achieve] higher standards with more kids.”
State education dollars have been dwindling in Massachusetts. Mr. Caradonio said the district’s budget has been cut six years in a row, while the costs of running the school system have skyrocketed.
He said he supports No Child Left Behind because without such a goal, “we would never change.” But he also called the law “a hodgepodge of ideas thrown together because of compromise” rather than research.
In addition to increasing accountability for student performance, the law is designed to close the achievement gap between privileged and underprivileged students, improve teacher quality, increase parental choice and reduce bureaucracy in the education system.
“The law is extremely ambitious,” Mr. Jennings said. “Yet the resources are less today than they were 10 years ago, and most districts in the country are getting the same or less money than they got last year.”
Even though the law stresses the importance of educating children with disabilities or other challenges, educators in Worcester say those students are getting left behind.
Schools strapped for cash have had to increase class size, so students with disabilities or limited English skills are not getting the attention they need, said Ms. DelSignore, who represents Worcester teachers.
Mr. Toner, who also represents teachers, agreed that the federal law is “too constraining.”
“More and more teachers report that all they’re doing is testing,” he said.
Schools are forced to put their resources into teaching math and English education, which are monitored by No Child Left Behind, while art, science and physical education programs have suffered, he added.
But Ms. Wilkins, of the Education Trust, said if educators are struggling to have all students reach proficiency, it’s because they are “conditioned to expect failure” from students with disabilities or from disadvantaged backgrounds.
The goals are “absolutely realistic,” she said, but “some principals and teachers are making bad decisions about how to get kids there.”
###
