In the debate over the future of the No Child Left Behind Act, many educators say the federal government should ease the law鈥檚 accountability requirements by setting achievable goals and imposing reasonable sanctions on schools that don鈥檛 meet them.
But urban leaders鈥攚hose schools are most likely to struggle to reach the law鈥檚 current goals and most apt to face such sanctions鈥攁re urging Congress to be more aggressive in holding their schools accountable in the future.
鈥淚 think you should make it harder for people like me because it鈥檚 not about me, it鈥檚 about my kids,鈥� Joel I. Klein, the chancellor of the New York City public schools, told the House Education and Labor Committee at a recent hearing.
The message Mr. Klein and three of his peers gave the panel is consistent with the urban superintendents鈥� stances since President Bush first proposed linking federal funding to increasing student achievement at the beginning of his administration, said Michael Casserly, the executive director of the Council of the Great City Schools. The Washington group is made up of more than 60 of the country鈥檚 largest urban districts.
The city schools鈥� group is the only major organization representing educators that lobbied for the NCLB law in 2001 and remains one of its biggest supporters.
鈥淯rban schools are not afraid of accountability,鈥� Mr. Casserly said in an interview. 鈥淚t has helped us focus everyone on student achievement. It鈥檚 part of the reason why we came out in favor of NCLB in the first place.鈥�
Against the Grain
Other groups representing teachers, school board members, and administrators are at odds with the city schools鈥� group.
The law is 鈥渢oo badly broken to be fixed,鈥� Randi Weingarten, the new president of the American Federation of Teachers, said in a July 13 speech, the day she was elected to lead the 1.4 million-member union. (鈥淣ew AFT Leader Vows to Take Down NCLB,鈥� this issue.)
Other groups鈥攏otably the National School Boards Association and the American Association of School Administrators鈥攁re pushing to scale back the student-achievement goals under the law and to give local officials greater discretion when intervening to help struggling schools.
But urban leaders want more, not less, of such accountability. At the July 17 hearing before the House education committee, Mr. Klein and his counterparts from the Atlanta, Chicago, and District of Columbia school systems鈥攁s well as the mayors of New York City and Washington鈥攕aid they want Congress to establish a process to create national academic-content standards and to set up experiments for paying teachers based on the achievement of their students.
Those issues also remain controversial among education groups. Last year鈥檚 effort to reauthorize the NCLB law stalled when the AFT and the 3.2 million-member National Education Association lobbied against sections of a draft bill that would have created grants to allow districts to base teachers鈥� pay, in part, on the achievement of their students. (鈥淯nions Assail Teacher Ideas in NCLB Draft,鈥� Sept. 19, 2007.)
Urban leaders are embracing accountability under the NCLB law because it gives them leverage to force changes in schools that otherwise would be resisted by principals and teachers, said Charles L. Glenn, a professor of educational leadership at Boston University.
鈥淚t鈥檚 been remarkable ... that the bitching and moaning [about accountability] has been coming from the affluent suburbs,鈥� he said. But city leaders aren鈥檛 complaining, he added, 鈥渆ven though they鈥檙e taking a drubbing鈥� under the federal law鈥檚 accountability rules.
But many members of urban school boards aren鈥檛 as enthusiastic as their superintendents about the law鈥檚 accountability measures, said Reginald M. Felton, the director of federal relations for the NSBA, which is based in Alexandria, Va.
鈥淭hey have felt they are at a disadvantage in how [the NCLB law] measures accountability,鈥� Mr. Felton said in describing a common view among school board members. 鈥淢ost of the discussion [over accountability] has been about how to be fair about how you measure progress and achievement.鈥�
NCLB on Hold
Although the House panel called the city leaders to the recent hearing, the ideas discussed won鈥檛 become law anytime soon. With so much attention focused on the presidential campaign and pressing economic concerns, Congress has postponed debate over the future of the NCLB law, leaving it for the next president and members of the next Congress to decide.
But the urban superintendents鈥� statements reinforced the message that there鈥檚 no consensus among educators over whether the NCLB law鈥攚hich requires schools to make annual progress toward raising all students to proficiency in reading and math鈥攈as helped schools improve, or on what changes would fix the law鈥檚 flaws.
For analysis of the No Child Left Behind Act, read our blog .
The divisions among educators over accountability, national standards and tests, and teacher pay will likely remain hard to bridge once Congress resumes trying to reauthorize the NCLB law, which is the latest version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
National standards and tests would make it easier for educators to know how the achievement of their students compares with the performance of the rest of the country, the urban leaders said at the hearing.
鈥淭he fact that you have 50 different hurdles for our children to jump over, that doesn鈥檛 make any sense,鈥� Arne Duncan, the chief executive officer of the 408,000-student Chicago school system, said at the hearing.
鈥淲e need to have national standards and national assessments, so then everybody can understand that if you鈥檙e proficient in math in California, you鈥檙e proficient in math in New York,鈥� added Mr. Klein of the 1.1 million-student New York City system.
Democrats on the House panel questioned whether it would be fair to require all students to meet national standards if some attend schools that are inadequately financed.
鈥淲hen we talk about national standards, that鈥檚 great. But what about the inequity in funding?鈥� said Rep. Donald M. Payne, D-N.J., who represents Newark.
But the urban leaders responded that national standards would show how low student achievement is linked to inadequate spending and would buttress arguments that money needs to be redistributed from affluent areas to poor ones.
鈥淚f we went to national standards,鈥� Mr. Duncan said, 鈥渢hat would force the conversation about funding inequities that we skirt now.鈥�
Paying for Performance
Another Democrat on the committee questioned the feasibility of devising teacher-compensation systems tied to students鈥� achievement on tests.
It would be difficult to create a system that is 鈥渇air and objective and defensible,鈥� said Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 what it鈥檚 going to take to get all teachers to buy in to what will be in their best interests in the long run.鈥�
Finding a way to do that is important even though 鈥渢here鈥檚 an incredible amount of pushback to this,鈥� said Michelle A. Rhee, the chancellor of the 50,000-student District of Columbia public schools.
Many proposals would increase the pay of teachers who take jobs in schools where student achievement is lowest, but Ms. Rhee argued that such teachers need to be further rewarded if they succeed in improving achievement in those schools.
鈥淚t鈥檇 be incredibly important for the Democratic Party to step up on this,鈥� she said.
