NCLB: My Thoughts

The House Committee on Education and Labor began the hearings this week regarding the re-authorization of the No Child Left Behind Act.

There are a few key points that I would like to address.

I am pleased to report that the discussion draft includes a provision that if passed would allow states to use multiple indicators as opposed to a single test for accountability purposes. These indicators include such things like graduation rates, dropout rates, college enrollment rates and the percentages of students who successfully complete end of course exams for college preparatory classes. This has been one of my biggest "beefs" with NCLB. How can one test be the single determinant of accountability? While adding these other indicators to the mix seems to make sense, it does raise the possibility that things such as graduation rates could be inflated by the states to serve the purpose of making Adequate Yearly Progress. The draft also allows for states to get partial credit towards their Annual Measurable Goals for increasing the numbers of students who move from below basic to basic and proficient to advanced.

One of the major concerns I have with the draft is in the area of the testing procedures of English Language Learners. As it stands now, ELL are tested in their native language for up to three years. The new draft increases the length of time to seven years. This means that a student who entered the country in second grade could potentially make it all the way to ninth grade before being tested in English. Three years seems more than enough time for a student to learn the language. One point that I do agree with in this regard is that this draft allows states to exclude the assessments of early ELL (those here for less than one year) when determining AYP.

Under the current law all schools, regardless of their circumstances are treated the same and are subject to the same interventions. The new plan would create two separate improvement systems: one for "Priority Schools" that would include those schools that miss AYP in one or two student groups and need only minor interventions and another for "High Priority Schools" which would include those schools that miss AYP in most, if not all of their student groups and need more substantial assistance. Again this makes sense to me. If one school is doing worse than another, why should they have the same "penalties?"

The draft also calls for bonuses for "excellent teachers." It seems fair to me, but, the question "What is an excellent teacher?" comes to mind. Someone can not claim to be a "good teacher" just because they have a Masters' Degree, appropriate licenses and experience, and while I am big proponent of seniority and the like, it seems to me that things like tenure should be earned, and if it is earned it should not mean lifetime job security if teachers cease being competent.

Anyway, there you have it. It should be interesting to see how this turns out when all is said and done.