The Fix The hue and cry over the landmark federal education law has only gotten more fervent in the two years since its passage—and some of the loudest voices are coming from the very lawmakers who crafted it. Is there hope for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the so-called No Child Left Behind law? Can it be repaired to live up to the spirit of its name? More...

Also in this story... ESEA Repair Log Take Action! Make your voice heard to improve ESEA Mad Cows Special Legislator More Money? Hold Your Breath Shrunken Commitment

Photo by David Smith

No question. In just the last few months, in fact, the Bush Administration has succumbed to enormous pressures from a hosts of interests, including NEA, by making notable changes to the law's regulations—changes activists hope will work in the interest of students and teachers, not against them. But such fixes have come in fits and starts. And the unpredictability, not to mention the pace, of the reform is now testing the patience of many who have been demanding it since the law was signed in 2002.

Not only have congressional lawmakers introduced a rack of NEA-backed bills aimed at making the law more flexible (see "Take Action," page 35), more than a dozen state legislatures—some with Republican majorities—have passed bills and resolutions from at least one of their chambers urging immediate repairs. And more states join the protest almost every week

Rochester, Minnesota NAME JOB SUBJECT Lynette Lenoch-Craft Eighth-grade Teacher Mathematics One of my math units has a mystery built about it, and I've always taken time for that. The children have to discover who this thief is—it's such a great thing, but we have to drop it. We can't do the things we have to do for testing and still keep those kinds of thought-provoking activities for students. Part of me thinks, quite honestly, that it's an attempt not to let children become thinkers, but just rote memorizers.

"The debate over whether ESEA needs to be fixed is over," says NEA chief lobbyist Joel Packer. "The issue now is how it to fix it—and whether those changes will be meaningful and timely." So far, Packer adds, "we've made lots of headway. But we have a long way to go, and mobilization will be the key to more success."

Why mobilize? What makes this law with the noble-sounding name still so problematic?

Simply put, say educators, many of its provisions turn great ideas into bad practice. Consider the requirement that test scores be reported separately for several categories of students who often do poorly. Many welcomed this move, yet because the law is so underfunded—President George W. Bush is recommending appropriation levels more than $9.4 billion below the law's authorized amounts—the opportunity to give focused attention to low performers is becoming a pipe dream in many districts. Still, if just one subgroup falls short of the progress mark, educators must live with the demoralizing mark on their school as deficient—a "failure" in the mind of the public.

Denver, Colorado NAME JOB SUBJECT Candace Epperson Elementary Teacher Special Education My special education students have to take the tests, which makes me the chief torturer. I had a student who was suicidal, so our team exempted him. And every day for two months, my principal said, "Don't you think he's feeling better today? Oh, I think he can take it." And I said, "No, he was self-mutilating in the cafeteria today, I don't think he's going to take the test." Literally every day. But I won. I would not let him take the test.

In addition, while the law aims to put quality teachers in every classroom, its definition of "highly qualified" leaves out thousands who are not only competent, but leaders of their profession.

And it puts new, often confusing demands on education support professionals aiming to fulfill their own puzzling "highly qualified" requirements. Many have expressed frustration over not having the time—or financial means—to legally continue the work they love. (See "Para Quality: Not So Simple Anymore").

The problems have not escaped lawmakers, who were once big boosters of the law. "Clearly, we have encountered some unintended consequences," wrote U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, a Republican from Connecticut in a letter to Department of Education Secretary Rod Paige last year. "If we are not able to restructure the law...," he added, "we run the risk of losing [its] worthwhile goals."

Milwaukee, Wisconsin NAME JOB Tommie Lee Glenn Education Assistant I make $11,800 a year. That's not conducive to going to a two-year university to hurry up and get in compliance. I've been competent according to the teachers and parents I work with for six or seven years, but now all of a sudden I am deemed unqualified.

A series of studies from the Harvard Civil Rights Project came to the same conclusion and raised concerns about the law's ability to help those needing it most. The researchers found that:

Fewer than 3 percent of students eligible for Title I-funded transfers from "low-performing" schools took advantage of them in the 10 districts studied, and those transferring usually went to schools not so different from the ones they left.

Supplemental services such as tutoring, mandated under the law, siphoned money from school improvement and required little accountability from organizations rendering those services.

The law's sanctions are falling disproportionately on the very low-performing schools ESEA is supposed to help most.

"It's as if you were to take the temperature of everybody in a hospital waiting room, and then take away the medicine from those with the highest temperatures and threaten to hit them," said Project Co-director Gary Orfield. "That's supposed to be the cure: They will cure themselves if you punish them enough."

Orfield says the irony is huge. "We're dismantling desegregation, sending kids back to highly impoverished schools, and then we slap a big F on them," he notes. "All of a sudden, instead of the problems being blamed on discrimination and inequality, they're blamed on whoever happens to be in that school—both the staff and the kids."

It is no wonder that as the number of schools labeled "in need of improvement" swells to 30 percent of all American schools, many people inside and outside education are putting the law itself on the list. And they are asking: Are the claims the law promised to fulfill being met?

Cheltenham, Pennsylvania NAME JOB SUBJECT Richard Bioteau High School Teacher Chemistry No Child Left Behind scares the living daylights out of me. As a student, I did not in any way, shape, or form score well on standardized tests. But because a couple of teachers wouldn't leave me behind, I got to major in chemistry, and then I got a master's. The fact that I did not score well on tests did not hold me back. But put a kid like me in our school district right now and he'll never achieve.

Here's an NEA member assessement, promise by promise:

ESEA Repair Log

After more than a year of proposals, petitions, and pounding on the door by NEA, other organizations, and state legislators, the Department of Education recently took several steps that make the Elementary and Secondary Education Act more workable—for some students with disabilities, middle school teachers, and English-language learners. At press time it announced its intentions to offer more flexibility on still other rules—those involving attendance requirements and rural teachers. It's all a start, but much more needs to be done to fix and fund the law so that its focus will no longer be on measuring and imposing sanctions based just on two test scores. The successes so far:

Achievement Standards for Students with Disabilities
Up to one percent of students can now be evaluated according to "alternative standards." That means students with significant cognitive disabilities who cannot compete with most of their age-mates in reading and math can be assessed according to standards designed for them. This will affect roughly 1 out of 11 special education students, says NEA staffer Patti Ralabate, who was in the thick of the massive lobbying campaign that brought about this change. She says the new rule will help although it's not enough.

Other special education students must still meet the state's academic standards for their grade level, but they may qualify for accommodations in the way they are assessed.

"Many states don't have the variety of ways to assess students that kids with disabilities need in order to show what they really know," says Ralabate. "That's our next push."

Counting ENglish-Language Learners
States no longer have to drop English-Language learners (ELL) from their subgroup when they become proficient in English. These students' scores can count toward AYP for two years after they achieve proficiency. Previously, these students triggered a catch-22 provision in the regulations: Once they became proficient, they were eliminated from the group, so the group could never meet yearly proficiency targets. In addition, states can now exempt immigrant students in the United States for less than a year from the reading test, though they still must take the math test.

Highly Qualified Middle School Teachers
States can designate middle school grades or specific subjects as elementary level for the purposes of the highly qualified teacher provision of the law. That way, a middle school teacher explaining the fine points of fractions and decimals won't have to pass a test designed for high school calculus teachers.

Highly Qualified High School Special Education Teachers
Special education teachers who co-teach with academic subject teachers or who provide consultation to them need not have degrees in each subject area. That will help many teachers, but not those who work in self-contained special education classes.

Take Action! Make your voice heard to improve ESEA

NEA has proposed a comprehensive set of changes to fix the new law, and many of these have been filed as bills in Congress. E-mail your senators and representatives in support of these proposals—and find out important details about the law and what particular provisions mean to you.

Congress is beginning to listen to the voices of America's front-line educators, but we need to keep the pressure on!

The NEA Government Relations Department (GR) also suggests that members participate in "town meetings" held by congressional representatives and senators in their states and districts to express your views.

Invite legislators to your schools. Engage parents in discussions about the law. And, says GR staffer Norma Kacen, don't forget to say "thank you" when a member of Congress takes action in support of your position.

Mad Cows

When No Child Left Behind is applied to farming, the results are udder-ly preposterous.

The proponents of No Child Left Behind draw the unmistakable conclusion that testing students is the way to bring about improvements in student performance.

Since testing is the key to improving performance, I don't see why this principle shouldn't be applied to other businesses that are not performing up to expectations. In Vermont, we've been troubled by the problem of falling milk prices, and I was just thinking: Wouldn't testing cows be an effective way to increase milk production, since testing students is going to bring up test scores?

The federal government should mandate testing all cows every year starting at age 2. Now I know that it will take time out of the farmers' necessary work to do this testing every year—and that it may be necessary to spend inordinate amounts of money on the testing equipment—but that should not distract us from what must be done.

I'm sure there are plenty of statistics to show what good milk producing performance looks like, and volumes written on the characteristics of cows who achieve this level of performance. So we'll begin our testing by finding out which cows now meet the standard, which almost meet the standard, which meet the standard with honors, and which show little evidence of achievement. Points will be assigned in each category and it will be necessary to achieve a defined average score. If this score is not achieved, the Department of Agriculture will send in experts to give advice for improvement. If improvements do not occur over a couple of years, the state will take over the farm or even force its sale.

Now I'm sure farms have a mix of cows in the barn, but it is important to remember that every cow can meet the standard. There should be no exceptions and no excuses. I don't want to hear about the cows that just came to the barn from the farm down the road that didn't provide the proper nutrition or a proper living environment. All cows need to meet the standard.

Another key factor will be the placement of a highly qualified farmer in each barn. I know many folks have been farming for many years, but all farmers will need to be certified. This will mean some more paperwork, and farmers will need to be tested on their knowledge of cows, but in the end everyone will benefit.

It will also be necessary to allow barn choice for the cows. If cows are not meeting the standard in certain farms, they will be allowed to go to the barn of their choice. Transportation may become an issue, but it is critical that cows be allowed to leave their low-performing barns. This will force low-performing farms to meet the standard or simply go out of business.

Some farmers may be upset that I claim to know what is best for cows, but I certainly consider myself capable of making these recommendations. After all, I grew up next to a farm and I drink milk. I hope you will consider this advice in the spirit it is given, and I hope you will agree that the NO COW LEFT BEHIND law will be just as successful in dairy farming as No Child Left Behind promises to be when applied to our schools.

—Kenneth Remsen is principal of Underhill I.D. School in Jericho, Vermont. A version of this article originally appeared in the Burlington Free Press.

Special Legislator

This state official with a national role has a classroom view of ESEA.

Photo by Steve Wilson

NEA President Reg Weaver often speaks about politicians who "couldn't last half an hour in your classroom," but he readily agrees that here's one who could—and does. He is Kory Holdaway, a Republican state representative in Utah who chairs the National Conference of State Legislatures' education committee. He's also an NEA member who teaches severely disabled students at Taylorsville High School near Salt Lake City. He spoke with NEA Today's Alain Jehlen about the revised Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

How does classroom experience affect your view of ESEA?
HOLDAWAY: It's a huge effect. No Child Left Behind requires that 100 percent meet the proficiency level. But many of my students, as wonderful as they are, physically don't have that ability. So we're castigating them and saying, you are the reason our school didn't make adequate yearly progress.

Was your school among those that did not make AYP?
HOLDAWAY: Yes. One-third of Utah schools did not meet AYP and we were one of them. Our special needs group was one group that did not. It breaks your heart. They're expected to pass the test, and they go away feeling so badly about their inability to do it. And by 2014, unless things change, we're going to have 100 percent of schools on that needs improvement list. One hundred percent proficient is just not a reasonable goal. But I don't want to say we should leave students behind. I'm just saying, let's work at a level that's reasonable for each individual child.

The new regulations allow 1 percent of students not to meet the grade level standards. Is that not enough?
HOLDAWAY: It's too low. Many more than 1 percent of students are going to demonstrate an inability to reach grade level.

Is there a conflict here between ESEA and IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act?
HOLDAWAY: Under IDEA, you must not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. But No Child Left Behind says all students must be at grade level by 2014. Those requirements compete: You'll measure students at grade level, but by definition, they are not at grade level. Otherwise, they wouldn't be in special education. The federal government lets states set the threshold for proficiency. But to set it at a level all students could pass, we would have to set it at second or third grade.

What do you think might happen to these kids?
HOLDAWAY: I don't know, but it frightens me. There may be an attempt, in some schools, to close access for students with disabilities.

How can this be fixed?
HOLDAWAY: We need more latitude in the requirement to meet pro-ficiency. They need to look at that seriously in the reauthorization of IDEA.

How can we have rigorous academic standards and yet not put kids in a position where they can't succeed?
HOLDAWAY: IDEA is the perfect example. You set goals based on an individual child's abilities. You meet in a team that includes a parent, an administrator, a teacher, and whoever else is needed. And everybody signs off and says, this is what we think Billy can achieve in the next year.

What about other subgroups with larger numbers? Under IDEA, there's a team meeting to set goals for each student. But for limited English or low-income kids, what's the solution?
HOLDAWAY: It would probably be a similar solution. The strength of the law is that disaggregating the data draws attention to those groups. Shining a light on the problem certainly helps. But I have yet to hear anyone admit that there's going to be a cost to bringing these students up. How can we not expect that it's going to cost a lot of money?

You are affected by another controversial part of this law, the "highly qualified" teacher provision. What's the problem there?
HOLDAWAY: Well, I teach history. I teach math. I teach science. I teach English. And I certainly don't have a bachelor's degree in each of those areas. So, strictly, I would not meet the "highly qualified" definition. And there's the same problem with rural teachers teaching multiple subjects.

What should be done about that?
HOLDAWAY: Let the individual states define "highly qualified" teacher.

What do you hear about ESEA from other legislators you work with in the National Conference of State Legislatures?
HOLDAWAY: There's a lot of frustration with what we see as a federal directive on a state responsibility.

Nowhere does the federal Constitution talk about education. But the Utah constitution says that we will provide a free, appropriate, public education for every child. We have that obligation, whereas the federal government does not. And yet, they continue to dictate to states what their education system should look like.

More Money? Hold Your Breath

"Fix and fund"—it's been the chant of NEA and its supporters since the revised Elementary and Secondary Education Act became law. To date, though, the message has fallen on deaf ears. Congress's appropriation for implementation of ESEA has never reached anywhere near the amounts called for in the law itself. But they have beat out the funding levels requested by President George W. Bush every time—by a total of $6.6 billion over the last three years. Why does the president insist on squeezing states already strapped by mounting budget crises? It's hard to know for sure, but the reality play is making a repeat performance in the current battle over the proposed 2005 education budget. Bush is requesting $9.4 billion less than the law demands. Back to the drawing board.

Missing Moola

States tell feds to put their money where their mouth is—or take their law and go play.

How much will it cost to carry out the law called "No Child Left Behind"?

Enormous sums, say state legislators and education officials.

No more than we're already giving you, say U.S. Department of Education officials.

And the debate grows more heated as the new law's sanctions take hold amid rapidly growing lists of schools deemed "in need of improvement."

The law requires that schools make all children "proficient" in reading and math by 2014. "We have no way of knowing how much that would cost because nobody has ever done it," says NEA Student Achievement Director Stephanie Fanjul.

"Any serious effort even to get close to the goal would have to include money for smaller class size, teacher mentoring, paid time for teachers to plan together, programs to help parents do their part—a whole array of programs that can help children learn. Realistically, even that would be unlikely to make every child proficient, but it would certainly move us in that direction."

Probably the most extensive cost study so far was carried out for the Ohio Department of Education. The Ohio researchers estimated that the costs would grow rapidly, reaching nearly $1.5 billion a year in 2010. Of that, they said, federal funding covers only $44 million. To make up the shortfall, state and local governments would have to boost their own school spending by 11 percent.

What's the money for? Seven percent would go for the testing and for meeting the highly qualified teacher and paraprofessional requirements of the law. The remaining 93 percent is for summer school, extended school days, and other efforts to boost student achievement. Ohio's own standards call for 75 percent of students to perform successfully. Going from 75 percent to the federal 100 percent, the study notes, will cost plenty.

But is $1.5 billion a year realistic? Ohio released comments on its study from 10 experts. Some said it was on target. Some said the estimate was too low or too high. And some said it's impossible to tell.

What's easy to tell is that the federal money comes nowhere near the promises made when the law passed. The law authorizes large increases in federal dollars. But those funds have not turned up in the federal budgets passed since then. And the gap between promise and reality keeps growing. (See "How a hole became a chasm," page 38.)

The latest White House budget projections actually call for education spending to drop in 2006 and 2007.

The enormous budget shortfalls have led many state legislators to demand that Washington either pay up or stop telling states what to do. So far, one or both houses in more than a dozen state legislatures—both conservative and liberal—have called for full funding, major changes, or outright repeal of the law.

The Republican-majority Virginia House of Delegates voted 98 to 1 to ask Congress to exempt their state from the mandates, which they called "one of the most sweeping intrusions into state and local control of education in the history of the United States." They said the law would cost "millions of dollars that Virginia does not have."

Federal officials are criss-crossing the country trying to put out fires in one state after another. They made three visits to Utah when that rock-ribbed Republican state's legislature moved toward passing a resolution calling for Utah to use its federal aid to carry out the law but no state money.

"There's some disparity about whether it's fully funded, so as we implement the law, we'll find out," said Utah House Speaker Martin Stephens. "If it is fully funded, then we'll implement it. If there are requirements for which there are not enough federal funds, then we won't."

Although the Utah house passed the bill, the state senate put it in a study. But within days, new rebellions erupted in Indiana and Pennsylvania.

—Alain Jehlen with additional reporting by Sabrina Holcomb, Kristen Loschert, John O'Neil, and Dave Winans

Shrunken Commitment ESEA says states should get much more Title I funding in 2005 (column I) than the Bush budget calls for (column II). That means low-income children are short-changed many hundreds of dollars each (column III) in spending for their education.

State 2005 Title 1 Authorization 2005 Title 1 Budget Request Title 1 Shortfall Per Low-income Child Alabama $303,386,608 $197,289,856 $628 Alaska 54,176,642 35,230,632 $1,219 Arizona 381,009,137 247,767,158 $745 Arkansas 188,078,582 122,305,980 $646 California 2,996,791,026 1,948,788,950 $827 Colorado 187,047,116 121,635,226 $773 Connecticut 168,759,558 109,742,975 $963 Delaware 54,307,067 35,315,446 $1,179 District of Columbia 85,550,125 55,632,554 $1,199 Florida 981,619,916 638,339,487 $755 Georgia 629,472,155 409,340,648 $851 Hawaii 73,237,173 47,625,541 $884 Idaho 68,915,179 44,814,983 $682 Illinois 897,734,970 583,789,785 $973 Indiana 264,193,287 171,802,756 $732 Iowa 99,027,806 64,396,981 $635 Kansas 128,551,724 83,596,146 $795 Kentucky 270,657,667 176,006,490 $661 Louisiana 444,216,633 288,870,481 $678 Maine 72,774,256 47,324,510 $879 Maryland 278,794,025 181,297,498 $960 Massachusetts 354,472,512 230,510,606 $961 Michigan 662,714,622 430,957,955 $926 Minnesota 158,267,733 102,920,226 $634 Mississippi 258,174,191 167,888,587 $606 Missouri 296,341,292 192,708,344 $665 Montana 66,947,118 43,535,169 $762 Nebraska 78,351,627 50,951,429 $711 Nevada 111,542,595 72,535,247 $835 New Hampshire 48,774,258 31,717,505 $1,013 New Jersey 415,003,000 269,873,092 $881 New Mexico 189,856,399 123,462,080 $738 New York 2,145,738,564 1,395,356,422 $1,133 North Carolina 446,723,651 290,500,775 $722 North Dakota 50,541,366 32,866,641 $1,149 Ohio 641,065,401 416,879,642 $799 Oklahoma 227,413,224 147,884,979 $670 Oregon 209,245,252 136,070,494 $875 Pennsylvania 696,328,868 452,817,027 $797 Rhode Island 75,178,717 48,888,111 $902 South Carolina 266,522,720 173,317,568 $691 South Dakota 58,547,447 38,072,931 $862 Tennessee 327,419,935 212,918,534 $665 Texas 1,858,808,336 1,208,768,017 $779 Utah 81,336,477 52,892,453 $597 Vermont 46,640,630 30,330,024 $1,346 Virginia 317,229,286 206,291,637 $741 Washington 275,764,544 179,327,451 $681 West Virginia 150,738,678 98,024,142 $763 Wisconsin 257,657,059 167,552,300 $847 Wyoming 49,583,823 32,243,959 $1,358