The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) "tookit"—school choice, supplemental educational services, and school restructuring—isn't the only thing Congress ought to consider changing when the law comes up for reauthorization. Just ask the 13 educators and policy experts who testified last fall before the Aspen Institute's Commission on No Child Left Behind.
The group sought a diversity of opinions on what would make NCLB more effective. Here's a sampling.
Fair Accountability Measures
American Federation of Teachers (AFT) President Edward J. McElroy: "The AFT wants what you want: an accountability system that is fair and accurate. NCLB's AYP [adequate yearly progress] system needs to be refined to give schools credit for the meaningful progress they make with students. The AYP system must make the distinction between schools that need intense and multiple interventions and those that need only limited help. This will ensure that faltering schools get help when they need it and schools that are improving will not be unfairly penalized."
Flexibility to Innovate
Delaware Secretary of Education Valerie Woodruff:"States are ready to move beyond NCLB. We are working to build more valid, reliable accountability systems that include growth as well as status; develop individual student identifier data systems that can follow student progress through school and into college; more accurately define graduation rates; align high school standards with college and work expectations and establish default college ready curricula; appropriately connect teacher compensation and advancement to student achievement; establish early warning systems regarding student and school performance; promote individualized instruction and individual learning plans for underperforming students; and more."
Multiple Measures of Student Achievement
National Education Association President Reg Weaver:"During the debate on No Child Left Behind, we suggested two ways to craft a more workable, accurate, and fair accountability system. First, we suggested the use of multiple measures and methods to gauge student achievement and school quality to determine school effectiveness. Second, we suggested creating accountability systems that not only required certain proficiency levels but also measured growth in student achievement over time. We supported, and continue to support, these polices because, while we know that all children can learn, we understand that not all children learn at the same rate or in the same way."
More Charter Schools
Education blogger and Education Sector Codirector Andrew J. Rotherham: "Federal policymakers should take steps now to increase the supply of high-quality public schools in currently underserved communities. The most effective lever to accomplish this is already present in No Child Left Behind through the Public Charter School Program (CSP). . . . Policymakers should use the CSP as a lever to ensure quality while expanding the supply of public schools in underserved communities, not simply create more schools. This can best be accomplished by at least doubling the annual appropriation for the CSP."
Full Funding for NCLB Mandates
Polaris K–12 School (Anchorage, Alaska) Principal Denise Greene-Wilkinson: "To their credit, many states are beginning to recognize the importance of adequate funding for high standards, but that recognition needs to trickle up to the federal level. A March 2006 report issued by the Center on Education Policy found that in 2004 and 2005, nearly two-thirds of the states did not have sufficient funds to provide technical assistance to schools in need of improvement. In addition, many school districts said that some NCLB administrative costs were not covered by federal funds or that federal dollars were not sufficient to cover the costs of NCLB-required interventions such as implementing public school choice or providing remediation services for students performing below grade level. We request that the federal government increase administrative funds associated with this law."