NCLB Let's Get It Right

Subject:

Dear [ Decision Maker ],

I am writing to express my concerns about the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). I believe in high standards for students, but believe that flaws in the law are undercutting its worthy goals.

For example, the adequate yearly progress (AYP) formula does not fully recognize gains in student achievement that schools starting furthest behind are really making, and labels them as failures for not reaching arbitrary proficiency levels.

Many of these schools are labeled as in need of improvement but often are making progress, although not at the arbitrary level set by states. When reauthorizing NCLB, Congress should implement an accountability system that gives credit for progress and/or proficiency. These goals should be set at ambitious but attainable levels. Congress also should require states and districts to audit their testing programs to prohibit them from layering unnecessary and duplicative tests on schools. Too much instructional time in classrooms is taken up by testing that is redundant or fails to yield timely or useful information.

Additional flexibility should be provided so that students with disabilities and English language learners can be appropriately included in assessment and accountability systems. The law should allow individualized education programs to determine how students with disabilities participate in state assessments, and allow English language learners to receive English instruction for a period of time before their test scores are included in AYP. Funding should be provided to develop appropriate assessments and accommodations for these groups of students.

Although NCLB prescribes interventions for struggling schools as the solution to raise student achievement, we have no evidence that current sanctions are effective. Instead of punitive sanctions, schools and districts need resources and the flexibility to implement research-based interventions. NCLB's current remedies--school choice, supplemental educational services and other "school improvement" provisions--are punitive, and are neither research- nor evidence-based. The first response to a struggling school should be systemic supportive interventions tailored to the needs of the school and its community. Struggling schools need a broad range of researched-based interventions--such as summer school, extended school day, reduced class size, and access to early childhood programs--in order to turn around and raise their achievement.

Every student deserves to be taught by teachers who know their subject matter and how to teach it, and supported by well-trained paraprofessionals. NCLB requires teachers to demonstrate that they are "highly qualified." In reauthorizing the bill, Congress should not impose additional requirements on teachers but should instead focus on providing them with the supports and professional development they need to succeed in the classroom. Paraprofessionals should also receive appropriate training and professional development.

Finally, NCLB should be funded at the level promised in the 2001 reauthorization. Since the law's passage, the gap between the amount that Congress promised for NCLB programs and what it has actually provided has grown to $55.7 billion. Current funding is not enough to serve all eligible students, and many of the students who are being served are not being served sufficiently--particularly in districts with the greatest concentrations of poverty.

(Edit Letter Below)