Hoo-boy. I’m an attorney whose full-time job is writing on the No Child Left Behind Act. I can’t address everything here, but there are several misconceptions.
Dead wrong. As it stands right now, a huge percentage of schools are being “identified for improvement” because they’re not making adequate yearly progress. Each year, the AYP targets get higher, so these numbers will increase. That’s a big problem with NCLB - it’s overinclusive, because a miss is as good as a mile.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Currently, the only two tested subjects are reading/language arts and mathematics. By 2007-08, science will join. Some states add more, but that’s up to each state individually and not required under NCLB. Furthermore, students are tested in the content areas each year from grades 3 through 8, and once in grades 10-12.
More correct. For AYP, it’s usually eight subgroups - five racial/ethnic, plus English learners, disabled, and economic status.
One of the big problems is that a school where one subgroup barely misses the target is treated no differently from a school where all students miss the target by a lot. But there’s nothing prohibiting states from explaining this to parents, and some states - I believe North Carolina is one - are already doing this.
And remember that there’s a reason for this “disaggregation” of data. The idea is that a school that’s doing well overall shouldn’t be able to hide that it may be seriously disserving its minorities, or ELL students, or disabled students.
But the school is not designated a “failure” - actually, it’s “identified for improvement” - until the school misses its targets for two consecutive years.
Actually, it’s after two years - when the school is “identified for improvement.” But the general idea is correct.
Sort of true. Most commonly, these schools will be offering tutoring services - which normally are required only after three years of not making AYP - a year early. An early draft of the statute would have explicitly required districts to accept students from other districts where schools were identified for improvement - but there were serious legal problems with that so it was dropped. ED would still like districts to at least try to persuade neighboring districts to take their kids in. In some states with “open enrollment” laws, this is actually a very viable alternative.
Wrong. That’s part of what Title II is for - for states and districts to set up incentive programs to pay teachers more for teaching in poor schools. Of course, getting unions to accept pay differentials is a major problem in some areas. Plus, state and district report cards must disclose the percentage of unqualified teachers teaching in low-income areas versus non-low-income areas.
Wrong again. Allocations for Title I, Part A, which is the part of NCLB that includes all of the requirements just discussed, have increased enormously in real terms over the last three years. It may still not be enough, but to describe increases from $8.7 billion in FY2001 to $13.3 billion in FY2004 (that’s in the President’s budget, non-final) - that’s a 53% increase over four years, folks - as “NO money” is ludicrously dishonest. The problem is that the states, largely through their own profligacy during the boom years, are finding themselves in serious budget constraints and are looking to the federal government to bail them out. But that’s never been what Title I, Part A (and its predecessors) was about - it was about providing extra money for the most needy students.
Now, there’s complaining that NCLB isn’t “fully funded.” But that’s not honest, either. Every time Congress approves a discretionary funding program, it slaps an “authorized allocation” figure on it. Those numbers are basically a ceiling on what Congress can spend for that program. They’re PR: a way that Congress can be seen as promising huge numbers without actually having to deliver them, because these “authorized” numbers aren’t actually binding on the budget. (And I don’t think constitutionally they can be binding on future Congresses, so it’s all unenforceable hokum.) It’s like saying, “I authorize myself to buy a Jaguar,” when your actual income is $50,000 a year. You can “authorize” it to your heart’s content, but can you actually spend it?
Congress does this with virtually every discretionary spending program. It’s a charade. And the interest groups protesting this charade were fully aware of it when the law was passed.
It’s a lot less than ideal, I agree. But it’s not impossible, and the goals are laudable.
Now, Wang-ka. I dealt with your “no funding” comment above, which leaves one large point:
This is actually not really the case. It’s still in regulatory limbo, but ED has come up with a proposed rule that will allow states to create separate assessments for students with “the most severe cognitive disabilities.” So that will cover most of the students you’re describing. You’re correct that most students with disabilities are required to take the same assessments as non-disabled kids - but that’s because most SWDs aren’t cognitively disabled. They may have dyslexia, or motor disabilities, or be deaf. Previously, few of these students were tested, even though there wasn’t much reason why they couldn’t be – other than the sad reality that many weren’t getting quality educations, and schools knew it.
Lastly, MaryEFoo, what are you addressing? None if it seems to relate to NCLB, other than in the most attenuated fashion.