Election of March 5, 2002

Passive Opposition to "No Child Left Behind" as Negotiations Begin

Washington, D.C. can seem very far away at times. But it's always closer than one thinks. One year following the passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), education leaders are finally grasping the full impact of the law. In late January, state educators submitted their plans for implementing NCLB to the federal department of education. While most education leaders affirm the spirit of NCLB, few are eager to bring the letter of the law to life. Some higher-ups responsible for implementing NCLB, including some in the California Department of Education, are taking an attitude of passive opposition. This "refusenik" response is indicative of the broader resentment of state and local educators to federal involvement. State and local folks want federal funds, but with no strings attached. The tradition of local control of education is longstanding. As federal enforcers review each state's consolidated application for implementing NCLB, expect more disagreements to surface.

What follows is a survey of conflicts over substantial parts of NCLB: expanded parents' rights, determining schools that need improvement, defining highly qualified teachers. Links in each section will take you to news stories that report on these conflicts more fully.

SCHOOLS THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT

Determining schools "in need of improvement" is central to any state's accountability program. Some states, like California, already have a system in place for just this purpose. However, the federal method for determining these schools under NCLB is different, as well as questionable. NCLB devised a statistical test to determine schools "needing help" (dubbed Program Improvement), but it unfortunately lumps together schools that are abysmal with those that may be doing fine academically. NCLB provides for no gradation here. A school is either on the Program Improvement list, or it is not.

Educators are claiming NCLB's statistical test is flawed, and predict that the dreaded label of "Program Improvement" is likely to be affixed to far too many schools as a result. One of its several flaws is NCLB's insistence on year-to-year progress, rather than on a more forgiving rolling average that spans several years. Woe be to those schools that gain too much in one year. Already in California, one out of eight schools is on this list.

Michael E. Ward, president of the Council of Chief State School Officers and the superintendent of schools in North Carolina, offered this dire prediction:

"This formula will generate some staggering statistics, because it doesn't distinguish between schools that fall short by just a little and those that miss the mark by a mile. I support the legislation, but I don't want it to collapse of its own negative weight."

The New York Times, in mid-February, ran a fascinating examination of how states are identifying schools that need help. Bracher Elementary school in Santa Clara is one of the schools featured in the article, which notes that its students' scores are higher than 80 percent of those other elementary schools in the state. For this reason, it is a case study of a school snagged by the statistical barbs of NCLB's methods.

PARENTS' RIGHT TO KNOW WHETHER TEACHERS ARE QUALIFIED

NCLB requires that districts notify parents when their kids are not being taught by a "highly qualified" teacher for more than four consecutive weeks.

Here in California, Public Advocates and Californians for Justice sued the State Board of Education for trying to deem almost all teachers "highly qualified" by edict. This game of semantic magic proved to be an embarrassment to the board, and president Reed Hastings later admitted that the resolution had been a mistake. But not before Congressman George Miller (D, Martinez), one of the co-authors of NCLB, ripped into the board, calling their vote " an audacious and reckless action that suggests a lack of regard for students, parents, and taxpayers."

The right of parents to know is the point of the law. When the state and federal officials are done wrestling over definitions, the right to know will be a new standard. Interestingly, California almost had its own right-to-know law passed last session, a teacher quality index sponsored by Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg (D, Sacramento). Although the bill passed the legislature, the governor vetoed it. So the creator of the index, CSU professor Ken Futernick, ploughed ahead and published it himself. The story of the TQI index can be found in the Sacramento Bee of February 5. The TQI index itself is well worth reviewing online.

PARENTS' RIGHT TO TRANSFER THEIR KIDS TO ANOTHER SCHOOL

Under NCLB, when a school receiving federal funds doesn't improve for two consecutive years, parents must be notified that they have the right to transfer their child to another school in the district, or get free tutoring. This is a potentially huge shift in the balance of power between parents and the districts that serve them.

When New York parents discovered that their districts failed to inform them of these options, they sued. In their suit, they wanted the New York City and Albany districts to do exactly what the federal law required. With 3.5 million students nationally in 8,600 schools deemed to be "underperforming," this could have a big impact.

UNCERTAIN SUPERINTENDENTS AND THE CONFLICT TO COME

Paul Houston, executive director of the American Association of School Administrators, said many school superintendents are still unsure of their obligations under the new law. "There is a lot of confusion, a lot of frustration and a lot of a sense of not knowing what it is they are supposed to do." But Jeanne Allen, president of the Center for Education Reform, has a more critical interpretation. "First, school districts tried to skirt their responsibility because they didn't buy into it. Now, it seems, they are trying to do the least possible to comply."

More conflict of this sort is likely. If you want a closer view of the action, try these resources:

Chester Finn's "Gadfly" weekly newsletter. It's a combination of extraordinarily informed opinion and summaries of key events. Chester Finn was a leader inside the Federal Dept. of Education from 1985 to 1988. He is the author of 13 books on education and head of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

The Doyle Report. This is the newsletter of policy maven Denis Doyle and colleague David A. DeSchryver. This particular issue points to NCLB's invitation to civil litigation, certainly a wake-up call for slumbering superintendents.

Education Commission of the States. ECS is an information resource and clearinghouse for state education leaders, but any informed parent or educator can make sense of their policy reviews. In January they launched a service that monitors the status of each state's compliance with NCLB requirements.

Council of Chief State School Officers. This council advises those who lead each of the 50 states' departments of education. Their policy advisories are helpful, especially in the area of adequate yearly progress and accountability reporting.

TOP OF PAGE