NCLB Responses Coming In

Last month, the House Committee on Education and Labor requested comments on its No Child Left Behind (NCLB) discussion draft of Title I by September 5th. On September 6th, the results largely became public. Given the complexity and breadth of the draft, most of the public comments were targeted to particular issues. Almost all have been very critical of the work. Criticism of the draft was, of course, expected, but the scope of disapproval is notable. The following is a small sampling of the feedback we reviewed (there are many comments that we have not yet seen and that are still being sent):

The American Association of School Administrators, which provided a detailed page-by-page response to the draft, expressed a concern shared by most of the responses, that the draft has too many “onerous new prescriptive mandate[s] that will cause nightmare regulations and drive up the costs of the program beyond the federal investment.”

The National Education Association (NEA) echoed this onerous concern. The NEA, for example, found the multiple measure section “too limited and restrictive,” placing too much weight on current reading and math results and, generally, too focused on test results. Regarding the improvement and redesign sections, it commented that the “options required in the redesign phase are too limited... and are not supported by research that they will improve student learning and close achievement gaps.”

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) expressed similar worries. While it applauded certain parts of the draft, it generally found many problems with the adequate yearly progress indicators and the interventions. The AFT noted that the proposed growth model is “in reality a trajectory model and does not fully give credit for the gains in student achievement that schools are making.” It also expressed concern that the multiple indicators, if allowed, could “simply lead to additional testing on top of the other testing provisions in the bill.” Both the NEA and the AFT disagreed with the comparability provisions of the draft.

The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) also stated that the draft is too restrictive in many regards. “Achieving our shared education goals will require that we make room for sound education judgment and encourage continuous improvement across the states.” That sound judgment, according to CCSSO, includes allowing states to define the universe of multiple measures, allowing states to define alternative and viable growth models, and providing more discretion to states and local education agencies throughout the school designation and school improvement process.

The Education Trust, a staunch advocate of NCLB over the last five years, stated that the draft bill dumbed down the definitions of student academic progress and school success. “Transparency is a ‘must’ in accountability, but what the committee staff has proposed is a system that’s a statistical fog, obscuring the true picture of achievement in our schools,” said Amy Wilkins, Vice President of The Education Trust.

Yet, the criticisms were expected. Most of the advocacy groups have been, for one reason or another, unhappy with the law since it was signed in 2002 and they now have an incentive to slow the process down in order to better influence the outcome. It was the administration’s criticism of the draft that was most surprising because the administration has strong incentive to pass this as a part of President Bush’s legacy. Yet, even for the administration, the draft was far too complex and it lacked sufficient transparency.

In her September 5th letter to Chairman George Miller, Secretary Spellings outlined five issues of critical concern for the administration. First, the draft is too complex. The approach of multiple measures, growth models and a performance index is “far more complex than the current law,” and that would make it more difficult for parents to understand whether their school are doing a good job. That the US Department of Education (ED) finds this too complex cannot be understated.

Second, the inclusion of non-academic indicators in determination of student progress in reading and math “creates a greater potential for masking student’s and schools’ true performance.” According to ED, it offends the law’s central tenant, which is to close the achievement gap.

Third, the draft would reduce school choice and supplemental educational services, which would “significantly restrict the opportunities for children in schools that fail to make AYP” and schools might never be held accountable for real change or be required to provide real options for parents.

Fourth, the draft’s expanded flexibility for students with disabilities and with limited English proficiency would result in the exclusion of more students from the state accountability system. The practice could “allow them to be held to lower standards.”

Fifth, the draft’s new Graduation Promise Fund expands accountability into high schools, but the administration “believes that this can be best achieved by expanding the existing Title I program rather than creating a costly new high school program.”

By the close of Thursday, it was apparent that the draft’s criticism spanned the political spectrum and it places Chairman George Miller in a difficult position. He does not have the support of the administration, does not have the support of the unions, lacks key support from the chief state school officers, and certainly lacks the support of Republicans in the House, not to mention the Senate. To be fair, this was a “discussion draft” and it will change over time, but the strong criticism stands in sharp contrast to his claims that he would like to move this language through the House by the end of September. It begs the question, what is his strategy? The answer is not yet clear, but it is evident that this will be a contentious matter and the likelihood of completing this bill by the end of the year is not good.

Regarding the next steps, the House Committee on Education and Labor will hold a hearing on the discussion draft next Monday, September 10. The witnesses have not yet been announced but we know there will be 30 to 40 panelists. What we do not know is how many members will be there, as most members of the Committee have not had the time to review and properly prepare for the event and because the hearing will compete with General Petraeus’s testimony before Congress on the status of the “surge” and his recommendations moving forward in Iraq. After the hearing, Chairman Miller will likely introduce the bill. It will go directly before the full Committee, skipping the subcommittee, and then Chairman Miller has said that he will try to bring it to the House floor on the week of September 24th. Whether this will happen is uncertain and will depend on how Monday’s hearing goes. There is a great deal of skepticism among the education policy advocates and among the Members of Congress regarding the timing and the substance of this discussion draft. However it works out, we will be covering the matter with an unblinking eye.

Author: DAD