Leaving No Local Child Behind

washingtonpost.com
Monday, September 10, 2007 6:42 PM

With House hearings on the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act beginning this week, The Post asked educators, lawmakers and others for their views of the legislation and what might improve it.

In name and concept, the No Child Left Behind Act aligns with what I believe. I took office this year facing the unfortunate reality that public schools in the District of Columbia were leaving too many of our children behind. When the schools came under mayoral authority this summer, I chose leaders who will bring accountability into the system.

Like the rest of the D.C. government, the school system should employ people who are responsible for delivering measurable results. The educational regime imagined in No Child Left Behind does this.

But such a regime must focus on what is most likely to improve prospects for students on a path toward failure. We know teachers are the single biggest educational factor in determining student success. For that reason, the law must value teachers for their impact on students, rather than simply the credentials on their résumés.

We must also measure the academic growth of students so that teachers and schools get credit not just for where students end up but for how far they have come.

Adrian M. Fenty

Mayor, District of Columbia

The purpose of the No Child Left Behind Act and the mission of the D.C. Public Schools are the same: to better serve the needs of students in the classroom.

Teacher standards were improved by NCLB with strong qualification standards. However, an emphasis on classroom results is also needed. We should use the data to measure effectiveness in the classroom to improve the quality of our educators.

In the District, we are focused on developing students into lifelong learners who are continually progressing. I would urge lawmakers to redefine the way we measure success to recognize the progress of individual students and schools rather than using a single benchmark. Focusing on the growth of individual students and schools would give us a clearer, more complete picture of improvements.

Michelle Rhee

Chancellor, D.C. schools

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was based on the principle that, in an America genuinely dedicated to equal opportunity, a quality public education must be the birthright of every child. The Act embodied a national commitment to provide that kind of education to all children, and it delivered a substantial investment to our neediest schools.

Over three decades later, the No Child Left Behind Act advanced the commitment to giving every child the opportunity to learn to his or her full potential. The law is intended to be a blueprint for educational opportunity, and as Congress reauthorizes it this year, we must renew its noble purposes and make changes to ensure that it works better.

We need to invest in better assessments of student performance and expand the law's definition of progress to measure student growth. Instead of relying solely on tests, we must meet the demands of our low-performing schools with intensive assistance and support. We must support, especially, the social, emotional, and intellectual needs of students and find innovative ways to engage parents in the education of their children.

We need a national commitment to attract and keep our best teachers in the neediest classrooms and more rigorous and relevant standards that expect more of students and schools.

Our nation's founders relied on the powerful principles of equality, justice and opportunity for all to shape and guide our nation in its early years. Those principles begin in our public schools, with a solemn commitment guaranteeing opportunity for all children.

Edward M. Kennedy

The writer, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, was a co-sponsor of the original No Child Left Behind Act.

As No Child Left Behind turns five years old, it is increasingly evident that the nation's boldest reform of federal education policy is both living up to the promises of its strongest proponents and encountering the pitfalls forewarned by its harshest critics.

The promise of NCLB rests in its pledge to close achievement gaps and attain academic proficiency for all students, goals that galvanized support from the nation's urban schools. The law has brought attention to students that schools historically overlooked, required greater transparency in public reporting and held school officials accountable for results. These are important and positive developments.

But the law has also devolved into a paper chase that has little to do with student learning. Instead, considerable effort has gone into specifying who should provide what services, how teachers should be credentialed, when sanctions should be levied, and what data should be reported. Unfortunately, precious little attention has been given to the instructional strategies and supports schools need to attain the goals the legislation rightly set.

Congress needs to steer the law away from its overbearing and largely ineffectual procedural rules, streamline its requirements and return to NCLB's foundation in the standards movement. Most important, the reauthorization should direct the law's resources toward instructional practices that solid research indicates actually boost student achievement rather than toward costly activities that demonstrate little promise of success. Then No Child Left Behind really could meet the grand intent that its authors so boldly envisioned.

Michael Casserly

Executive Director, Council of the Great City Schools

In Washington, slogans sometimes take priority over substance. Case in point: "No Child Left Behind."

All of the 50 million children who attend our nation's public schools deserve a well-rounded, high-quality education. For a variety of reasons, they don't all get one. Our job as educators, public servants, parents, union leaders and community leaders is to work, constantly, to change that. We won't do it by making a slogan our answer or by making unrealistic requirements our substance.

We have a chance, with NCLB reauthorization, to get the law right. Not that all of it was wrong. The American Federation of Teachers supports NCLB's disaggregation of student information, which sheds light on the achievement of disadvantaged and minority students. We also support the law's goal of ensuring that students graduate ready for work and post-secondary education.

But if we are going to help all students, we need an accountability system that correctly identifies schools in need, research-backed assistance for struggling schools and a more rational approach to testing. Right now, we don't have that. We have a definition of accountability that overidentifies and misidentifies struggling schools, making it difficult to target resources to schools truly in need of intervention. We have one-size-fits-all solutions and, in some cases, a narrowing of the curriculum to math, reading and test preparation.

A bad law won't change our members' commitment to their students, but a good law -- one that puts students ahead of slogans -- will make a world of difference in our nation's classrooms.

Edward J. McElroy

President, American Federation of Teachers

The No Child Left Behind Act has led to dramatic improvements in teaching and learning in all Prince George's County public schools. This law has made the previously invisible visible and every student count. But, if we are to enable even greater progress for all children, the reauthorization of NCLB must address several critical issues.

Current testing methods do not gauge or quantify growth over time. To make sure students are keeping up, we must track their progress as they move from grade to grade and provide support when needed.

The revised NCLB should also address issues specific to multi-lingual and special education populations. Students who join us speaking little or no English don't necessarily have problems with math, but they may have trouble reading the English version of a math problem. NCLB should hold us accountable for these students and their subject mastery, but first it should give us time to work on their English proficiency. Similar challenges exist among our students with learning disabilities. NCLB must align itself with the Individuals with Disabilities Educating Act and allow for individualized learning programs before labeling students as "failing."

Finally, NCLB is correct to mandate that all students be taught by a "high quality" teacher. Accountability does not end at the K-12 schoolhouse. But the pool of teaching candidates is shrinking, particularly in special education, math and science. NCLB should be careful not to limit our ability to recruit adequate numbers of qualified instructors in these critical need areas.

Reauthorize NCLB, but with the changes needed to continue ensuring that all children learn at high levels.

John Deasy

Superintendent, Prince George's County Schools