By LEON LEVESQUE

Superintendent of Schools

In January 2002, President Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation. This unprecedented legislation directs public education in every state to perform to a federal proficiency level. Failure to do so results is school penalties.

The promise was to bring high standards of education to all students; the federal government would help schools reach high standards by providing financial resources and research on best practices while demanding more accountability. In its enthusiasm to set high expectations, Congress decided that every student must meet state standards in reading, math, and science by the year 2013-14. (Charts 1 and 2 show the annual increases that will have to occur in the numbers of Maine 11th graders achieving the standards in mathematics and reading in order for 100% proficiency to be achieved by 2013-14.) The intent to raise learning expectations for all students, including subgroups of the student population that may be underserved, is admirable and desirable. The law falters, however, in its reliance on questionable test data, use of penalties, and its insistence on the 100% proficiency mark.

Bear in mind that each state has set different proficiency levels. Some states, such as Texas, set standards low so that few students will fall short of the mark. Several years ago, Maine set high standards; proficiency in Maine is not the same as in Texas, Alabama, or California. Yet the federal legislation requires all students to achieve 100% proficiency regardless of how difficult it may be to reach that goal in the different states. Having all 50 states use different standards to produce individual sets of annual tests at various grade levels, and then holding schools accountable for 100% of students achieving proficiency, does not make sense. If Congress wishes to require 100% proficiency of all students, then it should accept responsibility for defining for everyone what is required to achieve proficiency. Additionally, using the data from one annual test to brand and sanction schools is inherently unfair.

The thinking behind the law is that school improvement will not be driven by classroom teachers, school principals, or central office staff, but by parents who are given a choice of schools if their children are not achieving. Allowing the parents of underachieving children to change their children’s schools will help those children achieve more, according to this belief. Contrary to that belief, however, reports published in Education Week reveal that this practice in New York City has brought such large class sizes and other incredible challenges to formerly successful schools that these schools will end up being identified as failing as well.

The monitoring requirements in the law are so complex that, after two years, Maine is still trying to determine exactly what the law means. In addition to reporting whole school results, the law requires that schools break out achievement results by subgroup populations. Maine schools are held accountable for these subgroups performing to the same standards as the whole school: black students, native American students, multiethnic students, students with limited English proficiency (LEP), economically disadvantaged students, and students with an identified disability. Failure of one subgroup to achieve the standard is sufficient for a school to be identified as failing, or not making the federally mandated adequate yearly progress (AYP).

Holding whole schools accountable for the same achievement standards both schoolwide and for individual subgroups fails to take into consideration individual student or family circumstances. For example, if students with disabilities are achieving the goals and objectives identified in the individual education plans (IEPs) created for them, why should a school be declared failing if those students don’t achieve the state’s proficiency targets? With this new law, it is likely that schools with highly mobile, impoverished, and diverse populations will be identified as failing.

The problems with the monitoring requirements are exacerbated by the fact that our state’s capacity to produce reliable data for this requirement is questionable. The data recently issued was highly inaccurate and, after one week, it was revealed that some 50 schools were incorrectly identified as failing. How many more errors still exist in this high stakes identification scheme?

The Lewiston School Department, a typical K-12 school district in Maine, can be identified as not making adequate yearly progress in 2002-03 for 87 different reasons. In addition, a school can also be identified as not making adequate yearly progress if less than 95% of its total student body or any of its subgroups takes the Maine Educational Assessment (MEA). If a school that receives Title 1 funds does not make adequate yearly progress for two consecutive years, progressive sanctions will be imposed. Sanctions include implementing school choice and transportation, supplemental services, school improvement action plans, school restructuring, assistance from outside sources, and replacement of the school’s staff and administration.

Congress has set lofty goals and promises but placed the burden for meeting the law’s requirements upon local schools. Congressman Allen estimates that Congress has underfunded its promise to support its mandate by eight billion dollars. (Chart 3 shows how small a portion of public education in Maine is funded by the federal government.) Congress has clearly underestimated the cost and the magnitude of changes that are needed to achieve the bar it has set. Since students spend only 175 five-hour instructional days in school, many districts such as Lewiston will be challenged to meet the performance targets without adding full-day kindergarten, programs for four year olds, and year-round schooling for many of its students. With our community already facing a heavy tax burden, who will help fund these programs? Is No Child Left Behind just another federal burden that will fall completely upon local taxpayers?

Hopefully our Congressional delegation understands the plight that NCLB places upon public education and local communities and takes appropriate action to seek substantive changes to the law.