What Can You Do?

If you only have five minutes:

Sign up for the ESEA/NCLB Update , a biweekly email newsletter, to stay on top of the latest news on NCLB and our efforts to improve this law. Send an email to ESEAinfo@nea.org.

Sign up to become a cyber-lobbyist. NEA's online Legislative Action Center (LAC) has links to your members of Congress and concise updates on the status of bills on ESEA and other issues of concern to the Association. Forward LAC alerts to local friends of public education and encourage them to make their voices heard.

Tell your story. Use NEA's online form to tell us how NCLB is affecting you, your students, and your school. Personal observations and stories are key to getting members of Congress to understand how these federal mandates are playing out in the real world.

Write a letter to the editor of your local paper about a specific concern you have about NCLB. Be sure to include your proposal for change. We have some facts you may want to use in your letter. A collection of facts, other information in this Guide, and more news and background information about NCLB/ESEA that may help you write a letter.  

Reauthorization 101

NCLB… ESEA… Which is it?

NCLB, the No Child Left Behind Act, is the eighth and most recent version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the landmark federal law that was first passed in 1965. This law, which includes such basic programs as Title I, is reviewed and rewritten every five years.

NCLB/ESEA -- What's next?

NCLB, signed into law in January 2002, is now before Congress for renewal. As part of the renewal process, called "reauthorization," Congress will review and revise the law.

Given the flaws in the law and the many problems, why doesn't NEA call for repeal of NCLB?

The underlying legislation, the ESEA, provides basic and needed services and programs including Title I, after school programs, teacher quality initiatives, and many more. NCLB has retained these programs which bene?t our neediest students, and it includes some important additions, such as strengthened rights of homeless children to attend their local public school. NEA has long supported these federal programs and would not want to risk having them repealed.

Shouldn't we at least support a repeal of the excessive NCLB testing provisions?

Testing is an important part of the teaching process. NEA supports tests that diagnose problems and guide instruction, but testing under NCLB is not being used that way. NEA opposes the excessive testing under NCLB and the lack of commonsense flexibility for assessing students with disabilities and students who are English language learners. NEA also opposes these high-stakes tests because the results are used inappropriately to identify schools "in need of improvement." NEA wants fundamental changes made to the testing provisions of NCLB.

What is NEA's position on NCLB/ESEA reauthorization?

NEA strongly supports the stated goals of the law -- to raise student learning, close achievement gaps, and ensure that every child is taught by a highly qualified, caring teacher. But, simply put, the law is not working. After five years' experience under the law, NEA members, America's frontline educators, have identified many flaws, problems, and student needs that must be addressed. To make NCLB work for students, we need changes in its accountability, testing, and teacher quality provisions. NEA's goal is to improve the law by substantially correcting its flaws and adding positive provisions.

Why does NEA see NCLB/ESEA reauthorization as an opportunity?

Reauthorization also opens the door to a broad national discussion on education, not only about the changes and improvements that must be made to ESEA but also about how to transform education so that every child can attend a great public school.

Real-World Effects of NCLB

The 27-member NEA ESEA Advisory Committee, charged by President Weaver with planning NEA's efforts to change and improve NCLB/ESEA, started out by listening to members around the country. Here's a summary of what they heard:

What HURTS our ability to educate kids?

• Measuring school success exclusively by test scores narrows the curriculum by making schools teach to the test-"If it's not on the test, kiss it good-bye."
• Testing that crowds out learning.
• Failure to acknowledge educators' success, when they take on the tough work of helping students who start out below grade level and whose students make significant academic gains-"NCLB punishes teachers working in at-risk schools."
• One-size-fits-all formulas that do not recognize the individual needs of students-"Our school's goal was to help only those who may be able to pass."
• Inflexible "highly qualified" teacher and education support professional provisions hinder the recruitment and retention of quality educators.

What would HELP us educate kids better?

• Measuring school success based on assessment of student learning over time using multiple indicators.
• Small class sizes to improve student achievement and close achievement gaps.
• Assessments that measure higher-order thinking and problem-solving skills to help students prepare for life in the 21st century.
• Tools and resources such as relevant professional development planned with the input of educators that broadens and deepens knowledge, skills, and abilities and provides continuous professional growth.
• Mentoring that provides time for new teachers to meet and work with their mentors.
• Programs that foster parent involvement and community engagement.

Read the personal stories and observations from NEA members in Voices From the Classroom.

Priorities for Changing NCLB:

Quality Educators in Every Classroom and School

What is NEA's view of the highly qualified teacher provisions of NCLB?

NEA absolutely supports the requirement that every child be taught by a qualified, certified, caring teacher. There are serious problems, however, with the "highly qualified" provisions.

The one-size-fits-all definition -- a characteristic of this law --  fails to recognize the structure of certain teaching assignments. For example, fully certified special education teachers who teach multiple subjects are required to demonstrate that they are highly qualified in every academic subject that they teach. A similar challenge faces some middle school and rural school teachers.

The NCLB teacher quality mandates are overly focused on "content" knowledge -- what teachers know about their subject -- and overlook the importance of knowing how to teach, of presenting information effectively and connecting with an increasingly diverse student population. Effective teachers have both content knowledge and instructional skills.

The rigid "highly qualified" requirements force too many teachers and paraprofessionals to clear a succession of hurdles, and they are driving some out of the profession, making it even more difficult to recruit and retain quality educators. They also include loopholes that exempt some charter school teachers and those going through alternate routes to certification from the requirements.

How would NEA change the law on teacher and paraprofessional quality?

The best way to ensure that all teachers and paraprofessionals are effective is to provide them with the tools and supports they need, such as mentoring programs, quality professional development, improved working conditions, support from other professionals such as school counselors, increased time for collaboration and planning with colleagues, and smaller classes.

NEA's priorities on teacher quality include:

• Allowing states reasonable, needed flexibility in deeming teachers and paraprofessionals highly qualified, and deeming National Board Certified teachers as highly qualified, to help schools retain talented educators.
• Increasing funding for the Teacher Quality State Grants. The grants support ongoing professional development for teachers and paraprofessionals to deepen and broaden content knowledge and hone teaching skills.
• Offering incentives to attract and retain teachers in high-poverty and other hard-to-staff schools, so that students are not taught disproportionately by inexperienced and/or out-of-field teachers.
• NEA strongly opposes proposals that student test scores should dictate who is deemed qualified to teach.

NEA's Positive Agenda for ESEA Reauthorization:

An Action Plan

The Issue:

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is the current version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the fundamental federal law governing K-12 education. NCLB is not working to achieve its stated goals: improving student achievement and closing achievement gaps.

It's Time for a Change:

The law has been in effect for five years and is now up for reauthorization by Congress, that is, for review, revision, and renewal for another five to seven years. Reauthorization offers an optimum opportunity to overhaul the law. NEA is ratcheting up its efforts and concentrating its resources to persuade Congress to make fundamental changes in the law so that it works for children.

With five years' experience under NCLB mandates, members have seen close-up the real-world effects of the law on students and schools, and they have shared their ideas on how to deal with the unintended consequences of the law. Their vision frames the NEA Positive Agenda for Reauthorization of NCLB/ESEA.

Our Core Belief:

NEA affirms that all children have a basic right to great public schools -- schools that improve learning for all students, close achievement gaps, and ensure that all educators have the resources and tools they need to get the job done.

The Priorities:

Accountability  Revise the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) accountability system that is overly focused on labeling and punishment based solely on standardized test scores. Put in place an accountability model that gives states flexibility to use multiple measures and to develop growth models to measure gains in student performance.

Class Size   Restore a class size reduction program -- with an optimum class size of 15 students -- to improve student achievement.

Quality Teachers and Paraprofessionals   Revise the definition of "highly qualified teacher," allow states flexibility in deeming teachers and education support professionals "highly qualified," provide grants for professional development for all educators, stipends for mentor teachers, and incentives to attract and retain caring, qualified educators in hard-to-staff schools, so that all children are taught by highly qualified professionals.

Parent/Family Involvement   Support strategies such as parent education programs and expanded Parent Information Centers to boost parent/family involvement.

Funding   Fully fund ESEA so that states, districts, and schools have the resources to meet the federal mandates and to implement proven programs to help close achievement gaps and to improve the health and well-being of children outside the classroom.

The complete version of NEA's Positive Agenda for ESEA Reauthorization is available online. 

What People Say About NCLB

The Public

Does the public think NCLB is working? No. Phi Delta Kappan International conducts an annual poll of the public's attitudes about education. In the 2006 poll, which included questions about NCLB, seven out of 10 of those who said they had some knowledge of the law said it is either making no difference in the local schools or hurting them.

Classroom teachers and education support professionals

Our members' opinions about NCLB are in sync with those of the public. They say that NCLB has not improved public education because of inadequate funding, the punitive nature of the law, and the sole reliance on standardized testing to measure student achievement.

Key findings of June 2006 poll of 1,000 NEA members:

• 69% disapprove (49% strongly) of NCLB vs. 29% approve.
• 57% want major changes to the law, 21% want minor changes, 17% favor repeal, and 4% want to keep it as it is.
• 95% want the Association to be active in working to change the law.
• 85% believe there is too much reliance on standardized testing.

Proposals to improve NCLB rated highest by our members (% strongly favor):

• Use multiple measures instead of just tests (71%)
• Measure student achievement over time instead of just the day of the test (70%)
• Ensure that employee rights under contracts and laws are respected (65%)
• The federal government should fully fund the mandates (64%)
• Restore the class size reduction program (63%).

Voices From America's Classrooms

Association members are speaking out passionately, some with anger and sorrow, about the real impact that NCLB is having on them, their students, and their schools.

You can read these compelling personal observations in "Voices From America's Classrooms."

The bottom line: There is widespread agreement that NCLB is presenting real obstacles to improving student learning and closing achievement gaps.

Priorities for Changing NCLB:

Engaged Parents, Families, and Communities

No "if's, and's or but's" -- effective schools need engaged parents, families, and communities. In rewriting NCLB/ESEA, NEA places a high priority on programs that boost parental, family, and community support for schools.

What does NEA propose to promote parent involvement?

In today's complex society, promoting parent involvement can be challenging. There is no silver bullet. Schools need strategies that take advantage of parents' concern for their children. For example, research demonstrates that parent education programs, offered by Parent Information and Resource Centers, increase the likelihood of parental involvement.

For parents unfamiliar with the education system in the United States, programs that enhance their understanding of what is expected of them and their children, how to access assistance, and how to become engaged in their children's schools are especially helpful.

Programs and resources can help make schools the hub of the community. Tapping public and private organizations to provide a range of services and opportunities before and after school helps students and also draws parents to the school.

What does NEA propose to promote community involvement?

Schools and communities need a mutually supportive relationship. To thrive, communities need good schools and good schools need a strong and supportive community.

Schools need strategies for reaching out to local government, neighborhood organizations, social service organizations, civic organizations, professional organizations, minority group organizations, the business community, the labor community, and the medical community. Schools need to think broadly and strategically about how to build ties to the community and how schools and communities can support each other.

NCLB Factoids

Drowning in paperwork:

The U.S. Department of Education has admitted that it will take state and local educators almost 6.5 million hours per year to complete the paperwork required by the law, costing states and schools $136 million.

Source: Notice in the Federal Register: October 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 202)

The cart before the horse:

A loophole created by the U.S. Department of Education allows teachers in alternate certification programs to be declared highly qualified for up to 3 years before they complete their program.

Source: Guidance from the Department of Education on highly qualified teachers.

The big squeeze:

Since 2002, when NCLB was passed, 71 percent of the nation's 15,000 school districts have reduced time spent on subjects like art, social studies, and history.

Sources: Two reports from the Center on Education Policy: Is NCLB Narrowing the Curriculum?; From the Capital to the Classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act

The experts agree:

Studies by a mix of researchers, think tanks, and foundations have all reached the same conclusion: between 75 percent and 99 percent of all schools eventually will be labeled "failing" under NCLB's ill-conceived AYP measure.

Here are the estimates: CA: 99%; CT: 93%; IL: 96-99%; IN: 94-99%; LA: 75%; MA: 74%; MI: 96-99%; MN: 81-86%; OH: 85-88%, PA: 77%; WI: 85-94%.

Sources: "Projecting AYP in Connecticut Schools" by Edward Moscovitch, Cape Ann Economics; "The Impact of the Adequate Yearly Progress Requirement of the Federal 'No Child Left Behind' Act on Schools in the Great Lakes Region" by Edward W. Wiley, William J. Mathis, David R. Garcia, Education Policy Studies Laboratory, "NCLB: A steep climb ahead: A case study of Louisiana's School Accountability System" by the Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana; "Facing Reality: What happens when good schools are labeled 'failures'?" by Mass Partners for Public Schools.

A broken promise:

NCLB promised that schools labeled "in need of improvement" would receive school improvement funds to help address their supposed shortcomings and authorized $500 million per year for this purpose. For the first five years of NCLB, the total amount provided in school improvement funds? Zero dollars. Nada. Zilch.

The funding gap:

The gap between what was written into the law (authorized levels) and what has been funded (appropriations) comes to $56.1 billion over six years. In Title I alone, the cumulative shortfall is at $43.6 billion, and more than 3.5 million children will be left behind. (See enclosed charts on NCLB and Title I funding gaps.)

A chance for change:

Ownership of NCLB by Congress is declining. Of the 381 House members who voted for NCLB, 126 are no longer in Congress; of the 87 senators who voted for NCLB, 25 are no longer in the Senate.

Priorities for Changing NCLB:

Commonsense Accountability

Where does NEA stand on accountability, testing, and standards?

NEA welcomes public accountability. NEA opposes invalid, inappropriate, and unreliable accountability that destroys morale and sucks the energy and joy out of teaching and learning.

Accountability that makes sense keeps its eye on the goal --  supporting student learning. It uses test results to identify student needs and guide instruction. It includes multiple measures of student learning and school effectiveness. It values the role of teachers and other classroom educators. It provides resources for improvement and technical assistance to schools that need help.

Standards that fail to recognize that students learn at different rates and fail to acknowledge progress set students up for failure. Tests alone cannot raise student achievement. Tests should be not be used to stigmatize students or schools or educators.

Where does NEA stand on NCLB's  accountability, testing, and standards provisions?

Accountability under NCLB is an exercise in misleading measures. Students and schools are labeled based upon a single snapshot, two fill-in-the bubble test scores. They alone determine whether a school has met the required proficiency in reading and math. They do not provide a realistic picture of student achievement or what is happening in a school.

The Adequate Yearly Progress measure (AYP), in fact, does not measure progress. AYP does not recognize student growth. It particularly fails to reflect accurately the needs and academic growth of special education students and English language learners.

In the real world, teachers must take students from where they are and help them grow. Students who may have started far behind are not given credit for marked gains in achievement, and the school's efforts are not recognized.

More and more schools are being labeled "in need of improvement." Why?

AYP sets 37 benchmarks against which schools are ranked. A school must achieve each of the 37 benchmarks to meet AYP. Schools that fail to meet even one benchmark are labeled "in need of improvement."

The student body as a whole, as well as each sub-group of students, is held to the same standard. A subgroup is made up of students who share certain characteristics (students who are economically disadvantaged, students of color, students with disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency). This rigid formula does not recognize that students learn at different rates and in different ways.

This "failing" label is applied in the same way to schools that miss only one of the 37 fixed markers as it is to schools that miss all 37. AYP fails to differentiate between effective and ineffective schools. It is inevitable that under this ill-conceived formula, the number of schools labeled "in need of improvement" will continue to go up.

What is NEA doing to support an accountability system that makes sense?

NEA is waging an intensive campaign -- working with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle -- to make fundamental changes to AYP. We are pressing Congress to shift from the one-size-fits-all accountability model to one that:

• Stops measuring schools based on just two test scores
• Uses multiple measures and methods (such as local assessments, teacher-developed tests, student portfolios, graduation/dropout rates, college enrollment rates, and percent of students taking advanced classes and AP exams) to assess whether schools have improved student learning
• Uses growth models instead of the current snapshot method that compare this year's 3rd graders with last year's 3rd graders. Students learn at different rates and in different ways. Growth models acknowledge the progress that students make over time and recognize significant academic gains.
• Shifts from labeling and penalizing schools and teachers to acknowledging success and using growth results to guide instruction and professional development.

Priorities for Changing NCLB:

Funding

Congress says it has provided "unprecedented funding" for education. Educators talk about a funding gap. What's the real story?

It is true that Congress has increased the amount of money it is spending on education. However, the actual costs of meeting the mandates under NCLB far outstrip the small increase in funding.

When NCLB was enacted, Congress promised to provide the funds needed to meet the law's many mandates. But each year since the law was enacted, the gap between the funding written into the law and the funding actually provided has grown, with a cumulative six-year shortfall of over $56 billion. See the enclosed national funding gaps chart. Find information for your state online at NEA's Legislative Action Center.

Is Congress asking schools to do more with less?

Yes. Title I, the key federal program to help our neediest children, is funded at roughly half the level written into the law. And now, under NCLB, school districts are mandated to pay transportation costs for school choice and to pay for supplemental services out of their Title I funds (up to 20 percent of the funds), siphoning off dollars from classrooms. Two-thirds of all school districts had their Title I funds cut this year.

When Congress passed NCLB, it promised $500 million each year to help schools "in need of improvement." To date, NO funds have been provided for school improvement state grants. And teacher quality state grants are funded at less than the level provided three years ago.

Is NEA asking Congress to "throw money at the schools?"

No. NEA is lobbying Congress to provide the funding needed for proven programs and services that help increase the achievement of all students and close the achievement gaps. Funding is essential to support programs that do help children learn, such as:

• Improved assessments for students with disabilities and English language learners
• School improvement programs for schools labeled "in need of improvement"
• Teacher Quality State Grants for ongoing professional development for teachers and paraeducators
• Important related programs and services not included under the law, such as Head Start, IDEA, and children's health care.

Congress should fund all programs under the law at the levels written into the law and ban unfunded mandates.

Priorities for Changing NCLB:

Class Size

A federal class size reduction program is an NEA priority in rewriting NCLB.

Didn't we have a class size reduction program a few years ago?

Yes. The class size reduction program, which provided $4.1 billion used to hire some 37,000 teachers to reduce class size, was eliminated under NCLB. NEA supports restoring the class size reduction program. NEA's goal is to win funds specifically for class size reduction.

Does research support what teachers know- that class size has a direct impact on student achievement?

Yes. The research shows that learning increases as class size is reduced, especially in the early grades. NEA considers 15 students to be the optimum class size, especially in kindergarten (K) and ?rst grade. Researchers have documented benefits from class sizes of 15-18 students in K and of fewer than 20 students in grades 1-3. Studies show that students in smaller classes continue to reap academic bene?ts through middle and high school, especially minority and low-income students.

Does NEA support smaller classes in the upper grades as well as the primary grades?

Yes. Even in the upper grades, teachers can be more successful in increasing student learning when they can provide more individualized attention. Closing the achievement gaps requires opportunities to work with students who need greater assistance.

Does NEA have a specific class size reduction target?

NEA recommends an optimum class size of 15 students in regular programs, especially in the early grades, and a proportionately lower number in programs for students with exceptional needs, including children with disabilities and English language learners.

What about space to accommodate smaller classes?

NEA has taken space needs into account and supports a combination of federal programs-both grants and tax subsidies to states and school districts -- for school modernization to accommodate smaller classes, as well as allowing for two teachers in one classroom to reduce the student-teacher ratio.