In case you missed it, the Twin Falls
Times-News published an op-ed from Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna this month about the good, the bad, the ugly of No Child Left Behind and what needs to change when Congress reauthorizes the law. Here’s the op-ed in full:
Reauthorizing No Child Left Behind to Improve Student Achievement
By Tom Luna
“No Child Left Behind” invokes different ideas depending on whom you ask. For me, it reminds me of the old Clint Eastwood movie The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. It has a little bit of all that in there.
The Good: It holds states, districts and schools accountable for every student reaching grade level or higher in reading and math.
The Bad: It only measures the number of students who reach grade-level proficiency at the end of the year, but doesn’t give educators credit for the academic growth students may demonstrate during a given school year.
The Ugly: It doesn’t provide enough flexibility for rural states, like Idaho, to best meet the needs of students.
While the law, originally passed in 2001, has accomplished its goals of providing accountability and improving student achievement over the past decade, it has now become a stumbling block to further progress. The No Child Left Behind Act is nearly three years overdue for reauthorization. For these reasons, it’s time Congress reauthorized the law and finally make the changes necessary to improve student achievement. Many ideas are already on the table. The president has released his blueprint for reauthorization.
In 2009, I was appointed to serve with a few other chief state school officers across the country in advising the White House and Congress on reauthorization. Our recommendations were released earlier this year. As it stands right now, the president’s blueprint has its good, bad and ugly parts.
Let’s start with the good.
First, it pushes schools to ensure every student is college or career ready. We must continue to raise the bar and graduate students who are prepared to enter the workforce or college without needing remediation.
Second, it measures student academic growth, as well as grade-level proficiency. Ultimately, we want all students to reach grade level or above, but we also must recognize schools for students’ academic progress during a year. A student could show up at the beginning of the school year behind three years academically. By the end of the year, this student may not have reached grade level yet but has gained two years’ worth of academic progress. That’s amazing progress and deserves recognition.
I am excited about these aspects of the proposal. But the president’s blue print has its bad and ugly parts, too.
Under one part, some of the federal funds Idaho receives would be converted into competitive grants. This would be a huge step backward for our state. If we are forced to compete for funding to help keep kids safe and drug-free, for example, then Idaho students will most likely lose out to large urban areas, like Chicago and Los Angeles. Another part of the president’s plan looks like No Child Left Behind on steroids. The president’s proposal is even more restrictive for struggling schools. It will give schools in the bottom 5 percent of student achievement scores just four options: Close the school, convert to a charter school, fire half the staff, or reassign the building principal.
These models ignore what may be the real problems behind a struggling school. They also do not take into account the rural nature of some schools. In Idaho, for example, many schools are the center of their communities and face challenges recruiting teachers due to their remoteness. How could they close an entire school or fire staff? It’s unrealistic and will not benefit students.
Instead, congressional leaders should look at Idaho’s successful school improvement model. We’ve led the nation for two years in a row in the increase in the number of schools making our academic goals, from 26 percent in 2007 to66 percent in 2009.Idaho’s teachers and students didn’t make this kind of improvement by closing schools and sending students over the mountain to a different school. We did it through systemic change at the school and district levels. We did it by working directly with the parents, teachers, principals, superintendents and school board members to improve student achievement. I recently returned from a trip to Washington, D.C., where I met with key congressional staff who will be writing the new law and shared my recommendations.
As a fiscal conservative, I believe every tax dollar must be spent effectively or efficiently, or not at all. Accountability is important at all levels of government. However, the federal government cannot prescribe specific solutions to Idaho’s schools. It’s wrong and will not be successful. With these changes I have recommended, we can build on the progress No Child Left Behind has helped us make for all students and move student achievement further forward in Idaho and across the country.
~ Originally published in Twin Falls Times-News on July 18, 2010
