Principals Want NCLB to Address Academic Needs

As the furor surrounding some of the more controversial elements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) swells, much energy is being directed towards improving the act. Because there is substantial consensus over the ideals that NCLB champions, closing the achievement gap while raising achievement overall, reforms are generally aimed at fixing the technical aspects and implementation of the law. The National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) has, to that end, released a series of recommendations designed by a panel of principals, assistant principals, and district officials, whose hands-on experience with administering the law adds serious legitimacy to their proposals for reform.

The 21 recommendations focus on three often-criticized areas of NCLB: 1) assessments and “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP); 2) teacher provisions; and 3) funding. NASSP drew on the expertise of administrators from middle and high schools across the country to ensure a diversity of experience and perspective. Their hope, in the words of NASSP, is to “make NCLB a more consistent, fair, and flexible law that builds schools' capacity to address the academic needs of their students.”

Reauthorization

NASSP, like many other education organizations, is focused on the reauthorization of NCLB slated for 2007. Many groups have pinned their hopes of reforming what they view as an impractical and punitive law on that congressional session. Dozens of national education organizations have signed on to a list of recommendations for reform similar to those proposed by NASSP, and already members of Congress have introduced numerous reform bills. The federal Education Department has also shown an increasing flexibility, and has convened a task force on using a growth-model assessment system. Clearly, there is much agreement over the need to reform NCLB; whether that reform meets the needs of schools and districts, as expressed by NASSP, remains to be seen.

NASSP's Proposed Reforms

Assessments and AYP

NCLB requires schools to test every student in grade three through eight annually, and judges schools and districts by the test scores. Arguably the most assailed element of the law, many practitioners question the reliability and usefulness of these assessments. The NASSP panel recommends measuring AYP through a variety of assessments rather than a single standardized test and using “state-developed growth formulas” to follow the progress of individual students instead of comparing one cohort with another. These recommendations are amongst the most popular recommendations for NCLB reform, and would add an element of validity that current AYP measurements lack.

The NASSP panel goes further, arguing that the “Safe Harbor” provision, which allows schools to make AYP by demonstrating significant progress short of the identified proficiency level, should be expanded. They also recommend that all schools and districts should be allowed to benefit from a regulated system of using subgroup sizes, confidence intervals, and the definition of a “full academic year” in calculating AYP. They argue that the test scores of English language learners should not be included in the calculation of AYP until they have reached a “research-based and state-approved” level of English proficiency. They recommend that graduation rate calculations expand to include students that finish high school in five years, as well as any special education students under the age of 22, who under IDEA are still eligible for public education.

The panel's recommendations on assessment come from the expertise of a group of veteran educators. It is clear that adjustments that make AYP a more accurate reflection of the progress students make in a particular school will be essential to maintaining the cooperation and support of educators and school administrators.

Highly Qualified Teachers

The highly qualified teacher requirements of NCLB are also controversial. Though it is imperative that every student be taught by a qualified professional, requirements placed on teachers must also strive to maintain their support and to help administrators who are struggling to recruit enough teachers. These goals are reflected in the recommendations of the NASSP panel, which suggests several financial incentives to encourage certified special education teachers to seek highly qualified status in academic subjects, and vice versa. They also recommend allowing special education teachers more time to meet the law's requirements and lessening those requirements, which are worsening the already difficult process of recruiting and retaining qualified special education teachers. Finally, they encourage the use of federal Title II funds to develop teacher mentoring programs, and recommended that parents be prohibited from suing over the highly qualified status of their child's teacher. The recommendations reflect the daunting realities of a small and underpaid teaching force, and offer solutions that make the law a more manageable burden for teachers and the schools in which they work.

Funding

The lack of funding for NCLB is one of the most widely invoked criticisms of the act. Though the NASSP panel makes no mention of the overall level of federal funding for NCLB's requirements, they do request increased flexibility for districts attempting to use federally directed funds. For example, they ask that funding for transportation be made separate from the Title I budget, so that schools with high transportation costs are not left with lower funding for academic programs. They also request more freedom for Supplemental Educational Services (SES) money. NCLB implementation creates unspent SES funds and returns them to the federal government on a very short timetable. They also ask that federal funds be directed towards professional development in the fields of adolescent literacy and the use of data to improve student achievement. According to the panel, these two areas are essential, but are currently left out of directed professional development funding.

The NASSP panel argues that the current system of sanctions is regressive, and reduces the ability of the neediest schools to improve their students' achievement. Most substantially, NASSP recommends that schools not making AYP should not lose funding, and instead should be granted “the right of funding transfer.” This right would allow them to use directed funds for other programs or interventions that they find useful.

Prepared by Nelly Ward, November 9, 2005