Public schools should represent a social safety net that provides all students with access to a high quality education. This is the premise behind the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act signed into law by President Bush in early 2002. NCLB directs states to insure that all students have access to highly qualified teachers. It also calls for all schools to demonstrate “adequate yearly progress” and “improved test scores” or face a series of penalties.
Unfortunately, critical parts of NCLB are flawed. This federal mandate for annual testing in multiple subjects will not lead to improved student performance. The extreme emphasis on standardized testing promotes a narrow, test-prep curriculum that does not focus on student intellectual development. In addition, the testing costs are excessive. States will have to pick up the estimated $1 billion not funded by the federal government.
A New Federal Role and a New Role for Teachers
The democratic imperative compels teachers to take our concerns to Washington rather than letting Washington impose its policies on teachers. On November 14, I joined a hundred educators around the country to share our concerns about NCLB with congressional representatives and aides for the national meeting of the Coalition of Essential Schools. I was one of eight Californians who visited the offices of Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Representative George Miller to discuss the negative implications of NCLB.
How did we prepare?
Prior to arriving in Washington D.C. we had done our assigned homework of reading articles and researching about NCLB. Once in Washington, the Coalition of Essential Schools had speakers from the U.S. Department of Education, the American Federation of Teachers, and the National Conference of State Legislatures review the positive intentions and negative implications surrounding NCLB. Then advocacy consultants coached us on ways to know our audience and hone our message.
What was our “honed” message?
The educators in our group agreed with the intent of NCLB to encourage a national commitment to all children and to closing the achievement gap. Yet we shared a number of grave concerns about the negative consequences this act will have on teaching and learning. We spoke about NCLB’s overemphasis on standardized testing and the ways in which such testing undermines teacher flexibility and creativity. We also addressed the unrealistic timeline for implementation that leads to large numbers of schools (as many as 60-90% of all schools) being designated as failures and hence open to sanction. Finally, we pointed out that NCLB provides grossly inadequate funds to truly leave no child behind.
What questions did we ask?
What should states do as rising student enrollment, state education budget shortfalls, and costly new testing infrastructure requirements leave insufficient funds to meet the act’s requirements? Is there a place for alternative assessments within NCLB? What can be done to convince the Department of Education that such assessments are valid, proven, and an important tool in ensuring that no child gets left behind?
What were some office responses to our educator voices?
These ranged from polite listening to solicitation of information. One aide asked us about other, non test-driven forms of assessment that have proven effective. We were asked to email samples to her. Another aide wanted to know whether we had reached out to our district field representatives to invite them to visit successful school sites. Only a few out of the eight of us had ever done so, but we will now think about extending these invitations in the future.
What is possible? What can educators accomplish?
Educators can and must share our experiences locally in an on-going manner that gets relayed throughout the state and federal chain of politicians. Do we support flawed legislation by remaining silent? Or do we voice our knowledge about the ways this “reform” fails in the details? NCLB leverages enormous power over state educational and fiscal policy, yet, the federal government provides only 7% of annual K-12 funding. Educators must give politicians examples of how our schools have successfully used alternative assessments and examples of problems in the classroom that result from standardized testing requirements. We must share the actual effects of budget shortfalls. “Horace on the Hill” was a reminder to me that educators need to engage policy makers.
