No Child Left Behind – the ill-advised, one-size-fits-all federal education plan – needs a major overhaul when the new Congress convenes in January.
The law, widely described as having the best of intentions, won overwhelming approval in the shoulder-to-shoulder days after Sept. 11. But most states have struggled with its nettlesome mandates and unreasonable expectations, and actually played a waiting game this fall, hoping the new Congress would repeal the law before penalties for non- compliance kicked in.
But rather than smashing the cornerstone of President Bush’s education-reform plans, Congress should work with the White House on a slimmed-down, healthier version of the law.
Legislators should free the nation’s public schools from the unfunded mandates, unnecessary entanglements and impossible edicts of the law. Not one state out of 50 met the deadline for having “highly qualified teachers” in each classroom, and only a handful have been given full approval of their testing systems. All 50 states have made some attempt to fix or circumvent the law, ranging from legislatures demanding federal money to cover costs to requests for exemptions from certain elements.
This is what happens when the federal government meddles in what is traditionally a state and local matter. Congress should give local districts flexibility to determine what constitutes a “highly qualified” teacher. In much of rural America, it’s wholly unrealistic to expect every instructor to have specific credentials in each subject area they teach. Many teach more than one course (and in some areas, one person will teach all of the courses).
In 2004, responding to complaints from educators, Washington issued a new rule saying teachers in rural districts who are highly qualified in at least one subject would have three years to become highly qualified in the other subjects they teach.
The move was ample proof that the feds just don’t get it. A three-year extension won’t suffice. These teachers will be teaching during that time, not stockpiling credentials.
Instead, the law should allow local districts to decide for themselves what constitutes “highly qualified.” We’re guessing the answer will be simple: Any teacher whose students are learning and advancing. Skill, effort and commitment can often trump a Washington index of credentials.
Congress also should address the wildly optimistic goal of having all students proficient in math and reading by 2014, and drop the penalties for districts that don’t achieve what the law calls “adequate yearly progress.”
A bizarre provision actually penalizes schools that are making great strides but still aren’t meeting adequate yearly progress in reading and math. Each school not only has to hit a certain target of students who are proficient in the subjects, but each of the school’s subgroups, such as minority groups or low-income students, also must meet that standard. If even one subgroup falls short, the whole school fails and could face penalties.
The No Child law does require that testing data be provided for the sub- groups, which we think is important. That way schools can no longer hide behind high overall test scores led by a large, high-achieving group while another, such as a bloc of minority students, lags behind.
Colorado schools were ahead of the game when No Child was signed into law in January 2002, having already installed a program of standardized tests and school accountability. We think it makes sense for all states to have these assessment tools. (Not that our system has succeeded: Colorado has one of the worst records in the country for actually graduating its high school students and sending them on to college.)
By stripping away the top-down No Child Left Behind mandates, the remaining provisions for testing and standards will prove useful to local school boards and parents as they examine the successes and failures in their schools and classrooms.
That’s where education decisions should be made, not in Washington.
