Educators left behind.

The landmark No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which President George W. Bush described when he took office as "the cornerstone of [his] Administration" and subsequently signed into law on January 8, 2002, provided the framework for bipartisan education reform from kindergarten through high school. NCLB, which reauthorizes the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), was designed to improve the achievement level of America's elementary and secondary schools and to ensure that every child in public school has equal access to a high-quality education--so that no child is left behind.

The 2006-07 school year is a milestone, marking the fifth anniversary since NCLB was enacted and the first year that all of the various provisions of NCLB go into effect, intended to correct perceived shortfalls in public education. This is a good time, I think, for all ACEI members in the United States to reevaluate the effectiveness of NCLB and to share their opinions. The NCLB Act is founded on four underlying principles or objectives:

1. Increased accountability for states, school districts, and schools, holding them responsible for student learning/achievement results. School districts and schools that do not meet state academic standards or proficiency goals in reading and mathematics and also fail to show improvement from one year to the next are subject to corrective action or restructuring. NCLB requires annual testing of all students in grades 3 through 8 in reading and math.

2. Greater flexibility in terms of public school choice for parents and students, particularly for students attending Title I schools that failed to meet state standards for three of the past four years. School district report cards enable parents, teachers, principals, and others to evaluate and identify those school districts and schools whose students are making adequate yearly progress (AYP) as defined in NCLB. Students attending "low performing schools," that is, schools that fail to meet state goals for reading and math, are afforded the opportunity to transfer to a higher performing public school. This provision helps to ensure that no child is trapped in a failing school. Low-income students are also eligible for free transportation to another school and supplemental services, including free tutoring and extra help with homework. With NCLB, the very real possibility of losing student enrollment and the associated funding become strong incentives for low-performing schools to improve.

3. NCLB also gives states, school districts, and schools more control as well as the flexibility to decide how best to use Federal education funds awarded in recognition of strong state test results. States and local educational agencies under NCLB are authorized to transfer funds to supplement state grant programs, which include Teacher Quality State Grants, Educational Technology, Innovative Programs, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools. The money also can be transferred to support Title I programs.

4. Finally, NCLB promotes the President's new Reading First initiative, which substantially increases Federal funding available to help children learn to read by the end of the 3rd grade. States and many school districts receive money to help maintain high-quality reading instruction programs that are research-based and proven to work--programs designed to give children the fundamental knowledge and reading skills they will need to succeed in school and beyond.

The ambitious goals of NCLB are impressive indeed. Serious problems surface, however, when the expectations for every child are unrealistic--the "one-size-fits-all" mentality. Problems abound because of poor implementation, far too much emphasis on testing and reporting provisions, and inadequate funding. A growing number of state legislators, school administrators, and teachers are seriously questioning the mandates of NCLB, which many see as intrusive. The NCLB Act, they believe, is actually hurting teacher preparation programs in some states and putting undue strain on classroom teachers who are struggling with compliance issues on a daily basis.

NCLB has led to higher academic standards for school districts and schools across the nation and to improvement in student performance, but many ACEI members believe that too much emphasis is on sanctions for school districts and schools that fail to show improvement. I recently had an opportunity to ask Jacqueline Blackwell, ACEI President 2003-05, to share her thoughts about NCLB and this is what she had to say:

I am very worried about public education, achievement gaps, and federal dollars. Currently, I see a significant emphasis on change, reform, and accountability linked to a punitive approach with regard to making or not making adequately yearly progress (success) and federal support for public education. Missing and excluded from these discussions, at the highest levels, are the voices of educators who are working to help children and youth achieve success while keeping their eyes on ways to close the achievement gaps and be accountable.

In order to ensure that children and youth will have access to high-quality public education at their chosen schools. I urge ACEI leaders and members to share their concerns with the ACEI Executive Board and Congress (senators and representatives) as well as with the Commission on No Child Left Behind at www.nclbcommission. org. Remember, all children deserve a high-quality education, and their families are depending upon us to step forward. Our voices, linked with other association voices, can make the "difference" needed to get the attention of legislators as they consider revisions for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Perhaps these revisions will focus on support rather than punishment, thus enhancing and increasing the quality of public education For all children.

It is important that ACEI members continue to voice their shared concerns about No Child Left Behind, as well as other key issues that affect children and their families. Most of the attention has focused on testing and accountability, but we also need to look at the other provisions of NCLB. What is working well and what do you think can be done to improve the effectiveness of NCLB? The voices of educators and others concerned about children need to be heard. I would welcome your thoughts. Thank you.

--Jerry Odland, Executive Director