New President – New Ideas? What is the Fate of No Child Left Behind?

“ No Child Left Behind Left the Money Behind: The goal of the law was the right one, but unfulfilled funding promises, inadequate implementation by the U.S. Department of Education and shortcomings in the design of the law itself have limited its effectiveness and undercut its support. As a result, the law has failed to provide high-quality teachers in every classroom and failed to adequately support and pay those teachers.”
-Barack Obama, Blueprint for Change: Education

by Malik Russell

Key among President-Elect Barack Obama’s many campaign issues was his promise to reform the much-maligned No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. He joined a cascading chorus of those who may have originally detested most aspects of NCLB and still desired reform while touting the need to retain the law’s demand for accountability and student progress.

The arguments against NCLB haven’t changed that much since its implementation in 2001 as a right-wing semi-caustic response to a failing education system. It’s still seen as a major unfunded mandate with unfair and often unrealistic ways of assessing school progress while setting nearly unattainable goals.

For many teachers and advocates, the accountability aspect is great, but there’s still a lot to complain about in a law that expects every child in every school to pass state requirements (that differ widely by state) by 2014. If schools don’t reach the 100 percent rate in different areas, they can be punished through a variety of hard-hearted means including forcing staff to reapply for jobs or a takeover by the state or an independent body. Under NCLB schools can make continual progress and still be labeled as bad or failing if the predetermined levels are not reached. According to data from the National Education Association, up to 15 percent of schools in most states don’t meet the requirements, and in some states in recent years the number has risen to around 50 percent of schools failing with the benchmarks gradually getting tougher each year.

It’s highly likely that the new president’s most pressing concerns will be to address the economy and foreign affairs issues. The hope is that sometime not too late in the year he can turn his attention to reforming NCLB.

Obama in speeches before educators often noted that NCLB promised to leave no child behind but instead “left the funding behind.”

“We must fix the failures of NCLB,” he said in a pre-election address to the National Education Association (NEA). “We must provide the funding that was promised, give our states the resources they need, and finally meet our commitment to special education. But that alone is not an education policy. It’s just a starting point.”

NEA poured tremendous support and dollars into Obama’s candidacy and sees his approach to education as a major victory for its members. New NEA president Dennis Van Rokel noted “Sen. Obama gets it. He knows that reform cannot take place overnight or by using quick fixes.  Obama wants to invest in comprehensive strategies, both immediate and long-term, which will pay dividends for our children, our economy and our country.”

NEA argued that schools have been forced to narrow curriculum and to focus more on “filling in bubbles” on standardized tests than expanding education opportunities.  Obama’s plan on paper creates better assessment tools, more parental involvement, and increases the number of students in college-level and advanced placement classes by 50 percent by 2016.

A good many advocates and teachers see Obama’s election signaling a shift away from dysfunctional policies of the Bush Administration and serving as a catalyst in transforming NCLB into something mirroring its original promises.

This is all good news for most teachers and schools, as they anticipate a White House education plan geared less toward political objectives and more towards actual improvements in student learning and education. The question many ask is how will campaign promises translate into actual policy and more importantly, since funding the law remains of key importance, how should additional funding be used most efficiently?

For District of Columbia Teachers Union president George Parker, funding is an important aspect of NCLB reform – but only part of the picture.

“Clearly funding is one (issue), but beyond that NCLB needs to have a focus not only on testing but also on teaching,” Parker said. “Right now it’s focused primarily on what I consider a punitive philosophy –that is just simply set the standards and requirements that school districts must meet then identify them as poor school districts if the test scores don’t measure up. I think that it is important that there is a component in NCLB that also addresses the teaching and learning and not focused only on the test scores. Instead it should be focused on the kind of resources and support that need to be in place in order for there to be successful teaching and learning that results in the high test scores.”

Parker argues for a balanced approach to reforming NCLB that maintains a balance between accountability and a clear idea of how access to resources, funding and support for underperforming schools is a necessary component for comprehensive reform that actually breeds enthusiasm and support as opposed to opposition.

“There has to be a focus on low-performing schools and what type of resources and support is needed to motivate these low-performing schools successfully.”

Generally unquestioned, the need for additional funding, as well as the need to address various aspects of assessment, and measures of progress are reform priorities and yet for some, more money could mean more problems if the inequitable way in which schools are funded is not changed prior to the additional billions that Obama has promised starts pouring into the system.

According to Amy Wilkins, vice president for government affairs and communications for the non-profit policy group Education Trust, while pushing for the additional funding needed to fully implement NCLB, educators must also address the disparities in the funding formula for the additional dollars to make a real difference.

“There are several things we’d like to see,” said Wilkins. “We would like to see a reauthorization of the law resulting in higher standards because even when the kids hit the proficiency level they are still not prepared for college. We need to improve the assessments and we need to approve a reauthorization so that poor kids and kids of color get their fair shake of the funding.”

Wilkins argues that educators should challenge the way funding under NCLB would be dispersed. She noted that the wealthy schools tend to get a disproportionate share of the money allocated to states and school districts.

“Title I money is supposed to buy extras for poor kids. We recognize that the poor kids have higher hurdles to climb, and the funding is supposed to buy extras. Its not supposed to be used to close funding gaps,” added Wilkins.

She believes that one of the things that could occur under an Obama Administration is subtle changes to the funding formula by way of changes made to the Equity Funding Initiative Grant (EFIG). She argued that by funneling more of the Title I money through EFIG, more money could be funneled to those states or districts doing a better job of providing equitable funding for poorer schools.  “It wouldn’t cost a dime,” Wilkins added.