No Child Left Behind

Utah is bristling over inflexible requirements in the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act, as are many other states. A good overview of the issue was presented on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer last Thursday.

Though the Act's intentions are good, Utah's complaint with NCLB is that it is not realistic. NCLB requires that each school make annual yearly progress (AYP), so that ALL STUDENTS will be "proficient" by 2014. Okay. Sounds lofty and wonderful. What does it mean?

It means that each group of children who can't speak English, each group of children with learning disabilities, each low-income group, and dozens of other groups have to march toward "proficiency" by 2014. A better way, according to Utah, is to individually measure the annual progress of each student (the "growth model approach"). Rather than expect second-language learners to master English within 6 months or expect children with learning disabilities to miraculously shed those disabilities within a few months, we want to make sure that those individual students make at least a year's progress each year.

To this idea, we get the statement of Ross Weiner of the Education Trust: "If you're a student who either comes to school behind or falls behind, that proposal would mean you would never catch up to your peers in terms of learning." Mr. Weiner, come to West Elementary School someday. I'll arrange for you to spend a few minutes with kids whose parents are in jail, others who can speak a handful of words in English, others who have tremendous learning disabilities. You can explain to their parents (in some cases, through the visitation room glass) how achieving a year's progress every year simply won't cut it for them; they should be branded failures -- and their whole school, too -- if they don't catch right up to grade level.

Better yet, I'll let you sit down with my wife and explain to her how her youngest daughter, who started behind because of a disability, is a failure if she only progresses one year at a time. Oh, man, would I love to watch that! You'd be gagging on your "Ultimately what Utah is asking for is to not have to take responsibility for educating their students" all the way back to D.C.

What is the reality here? My youngest daughter (who has the same parents and teachers as her older siblings who are doing very well) will not test "proficient" for some time. Her teachers and administrators love her dearly. But what happens down the road, as she and other students with unique challenges drag down their school's aggregate test results, no matter what efforts the school makes? People are responsive to rewards and punishments. Will administrators later discourage her and those other students from attending school? Will other parents resent that she and those other students jeopardize funding?

The Lehrer report talks about Amelia Earhart Elementary. It is a tremendous school, with proud and driven parents. How will those parents respond to the fact that the special education students dragged the whole school into the failing category? That's a harsh way to speak about special education students; but that's the dollars-and-cents perspective of NCLB -- those students failed and, because of that, their school failed. Will this situation increase the understanding and support those students and their parents need. Or will they feel they should apologize when they show up to school as members of "that" subgroup? What if Hispanic kids fail to meet AYP; how will they be greeted? What if members of the "low-income subgroup" fail to meet AYP; how will those kids be greeted?

Utah is at the forefront of this issue, and I'm sure the other states will be quick to follow. NCLB presents an interesting issue for the Bush Administration, which highlights NCLB as one of its major accomplishments, and for federal legislators who voted for the act (intending to show support for education) and now face constituents increasingly curious why their legislators turned so much control of local schools over to the federal government. Though I don't think a middle ground would be too difficult to find on this issue, it has been elusive so far. I would bet that nervous Congressmen and Senators who voted for NCLB will desperately seek solutions before the next election-cycle.