Teaching Left Behind
By Edward J. McElroy

In my travels around the country in recent years, I've heard teachers express frustration and discontent the likes of which I haven't heard in a long time, if ever before. I hear it from experienced teachers at the top of their game and from fresh-faced newcomers whose excitement is dimming all too quickly. The cause of their dissatisfaction is the way the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has been implemented and some of its provisions.

Good intentions, troubling results
AFT -- and every teacher I know -- support the underlying goals of NCLB: to raise standards for all children and, in particular, meet the needs of disadvantaged children; to ensure there is a well-qualified teacher in every classroom; to provide extra support for low-performing students; and to provide incentives for turning around schools in need of improvement.

Unfortunately, with the way the law is being implemented, those good intentions have given way to unintended – and unacceptable -- consequences. Teachers have told me that they regard "accountability" based on the results of a single test to be a punitive and inaccurate way of determining performance. Teachers know that assessments are an important gauge of student comprehension and accomplishment, but they object to the unremitting focus on tests, test preparation and test-taking skills. And they resent that NCLB has, in many places, derailed reforms or programs that were producing positive results. Add to all of this the fact that the promised funding has not materialized.

(In)adequate yearly progress
It has been widely acknowledged that the central provision of the law, the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) measure, doesn't necessarily give credit for progress. Many schools that have made commendable progress have been targeted for NCLB's escalating sanctions because some of their students started further behind and didn't reach the law's arbitrary benchmark. Ineffective schools should be identified, but there's reason to believe that many so-called "failing" schools are being identified for statistical rather than educational reasons.

Lower standards sanctioned
Many teachers worry that the law will simply be ineffective at truly raising student achievement. Some have pointed out that, while supplemental educational services (such as tutoring) and conversion to a charter school are among the sanctions for schools that do not make AYP, standards for these providers are lower than those for regular public schools. For example, teachers in many charter schools are not required to meet all the conditions of the "highly qualified" teacher definition. The standards are even lower for supplemental service providers (SSPs), who are supposed to help students most in need of academic assistance. These providers do not have to hire "highly qualified" or even state-certified staff. Nor are they required to use research-based instructional strategies, or serve students with disabilities or who are English-language learners. Many fear that providers will choose to serve the "easiest to educate" children, while those with the greatest needs will be left behind.

We realize that the goals of NCLB cannot be met without changes in the law, proper implementation and the necessary funding. AFT will continue to work with members of Congress and others to ensure that NCLB's promised benefits reach every child. We cannot simply stand by while the unintended consequences of a far-reaching law demoralize and drive out excellent teachers.

Edward J. McElroy is the President of the American Federation of Teachers.