Bills to Amend NCLB Pile Up

Though NCLB's premise - that we can close the achievement gap and that all children can and should reach a level of proficiency on state tests - is widely praised, many elements of its implementation have sparked opposition, notably from state legislatures, national education groups, teachers, and local school districts. Members of Congress have heard these criticisms from all corners, and a number of them have introduced bills that attempt to tweak many of the law's numerous dimensions.

“Highly Qualified” Teachers

NCLB addresses teaching quality by requiring that all teachers meet state standards for qualification by the close of the 2005-2006 school year. The rigor of state standards varies immensely, and numerous exceptions may undermine efforts to get quality teaching into all classrooms. Many critics also complain that the law ignores the unique challenges of veteran teachers, middle school, special education, or rural school teachers. As a result, several bills seek to moderate the law's “highly qualified” provisions.

Amongst the most prominent of the bills to reform NCLB is that proposed jointly in the Senate by Senator Kennedy (D-MA) and in the House by Representative Miller (D-CA), two of the primary original authors of NCLB. Their bill, the Teacher Excellence for All Children Act, would fund a substantial grant program that would improve salary incentives for teachers and principals in hard-to-staff schools, as well as a number of initiatives aimed at improving teacher induction, retention, and career advancement patterns.

Other bills that address teacher requirements are the State and Local Education Flexibility Act of 2005, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act (NCLBR), the Quality Education for All Act, the No Child Left Behind Improvement Act of 2005, and the No Qualified Teacher Left Behind Act of 2005. Unlike the Kennedy-Miller bill, which puts in place proactive teaching policies, these bills would address constituent complaints by reducing requirements by which teachers achieve the “highly qualified” designation and building flexibility for specialized teachers into the act.

Adjusting Assessment and Accountability

One of the law's most substantial and controversial elements is its program of testing students yearly and sanctioning schools for the scores of their students, both as a whole and disaggregated into demographic groups. Lawmakers have numerous suggestions for improving the current system, which relies primarily on a student's score on math and English exams, as well as their exam attendance rates. Those suggestions include:

The No Child Left Behind Reform Act, which would allow states to use multiple measures of academic achievement; implement a “growth-model” method of measuring academic achievement; and would provide grants for improving NCLB data systems.
The No Child Left Behind Flexibility and Improvements Act, which would extend the deadline by which all children should be at a proficient level on state tests; allow the Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) of students with disabilities to replace statewide assessments; allow growth-model measurements; and allow states to use local rather than statewide assessments.
The Comprehensive Learning Assessment for Students and Schools (CLASS) Act, which would allow states to use multiple measures of academic achievement; give more credit to schools for score growth over time; and make more accurate and fair assessment systems for limited English proficient (LEP) students and students with disabilities.
The State and Local Education Flexibility Act of 2005 would allow states to replace statewide tests with local tests; to use IEPs in place of statewide assessments for students with disabilities; and be more flexible in testing LEP students.

Several bills are aimed at moderating the sanctions that face schools and districts once they have missed Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) on any of about 40 criteria. Many states have sought waivers from these sanctions from the federal Department of Education in order to mitigate the often stark challenges to schools of offering students transfers or providing Supplemental Educational Services (SES). Federal bills that would ease these requirements include the Quality Education for All Act, which would demand that SES providers employ “highly qualified” teachers and award grants to increase schools' capacity to accept transfer students; the Rural School Geography Act, which would exempt districts for which the provision of transportation for transfers is prohibitively difficult or expensive based on geographical barriers; the No Child Left Behind Reform Act and the Comprehensive Learning Assessment for Students and Schools (CLASS) Act, which seek to target sanctions to those subgroups that miss AYP; and the Comprehensive Learning Assessment for Students and Schools (CLASS) Act, which would allow districts “In Need of Improvement” under the law to provide their own SES.

Thorough Reform

The list of legislation goes on, and includes bills to increase awareness of eating disorders, bullying, and school violence; to improve funding for mental health counseling in schools; and to end the provision of NCLB that requires schools to submit student information to military recruiters unless their parents opt out of that requirement. Other bills focus on raising graduation rates, a critical issue, and reducing class sizes.

Finally, some legislators have attempted to address what many complain is insufficient NCLB funding not through the courts or the budget process, but by creating laws demanding its full funding. The Keep Our Promise to America's Children and Teachers Act (Keep Our PACT Act) would guarantee full funding for NCLB and IDEA, while the House Bill HR 1853 would freeze Title 1 funding (a mainstay of NCLB funding) at no less than 2003 levels.

Improvement and Reauthorization

It is too early to tell whether many of these bills will pass Congress and go on to impact the way NCLB is being implemented in the states. However, many expect a backlash to emerge in the 2006 state legislative sessions, which, if it does, will create a groundswell for reform that will be great by the time the Act comes up for reauthorization in 2007. It is clear that many legislators are listening to the frustrations and criticisms that surround the law in the education community and in local communities; some, at least, are committed to improving it. Given the breadth and depth of reforms that are already on the table, it seems possible that achieving a fully acceptable version of NCLB may result in a serious overhaul of the law.

Prepared by Nelly Ward, October 11, 2005