By Fritz Edelstein
April 11, 2005

During the last month, four important education reports were issued. All have implications for cities and the mayoral role in education. Three of these focus on implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the other on the education progress being made by students in over 65 cities in 38 states.

The three NCLB reports take different positions on the Act, but have several similar conclusions. Each report speaks to a different constituency as well as to the Administration and Congress. NCLB reports were issued by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Public Education Network (PEN), and Center for Education Policy (CEP). They all make a series of recommendations for immediate changes to the Administration of the law and the legislation so it works as it was intended and can be implemented fairly.

NCSL's report — Task Force on No Child Left Behind — is the most critical of the legislation. It is a result of an intensive ten-month bi-partisan task force that held eight federal hearings. The report suggests legislative and administrative changes, but also raises fundamental questions about the Act's underlying philosophy and the amount of funding available to implement the statute. In the first chapter, the report questions the constitutional underpinnings of the law based on the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers to the states. Obviously, this is a concern of state legislators.

It questions, as do the other reports, a key part of the legislation, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). While the Task Force supports the premise and objectives of AYP, it believes it needs to be modified to become more valid and accurate, and a more effective tool in measuring student achievement. Basically, the report states that AYP is overly prescriptive and rigid, and that labeling schools "in need of improvement" as a result of not making progress, creates a stigma for the school and its students. Often these schools have been labeled "failing schools," which is not necessarily correct. Other important issues raised in the report include concerns for students with disabilities and limited English proficiency, highly qualified teacher and paraprofessional requirements, and the costs of closing the achievement gap. The report can be found on the NCSL website — www.ncsl.org.

PEN's — Open to the Public: Speaking Out on No Child Left Behind — is a summary of nine hearings held from May to October 2004. PEN is the national organization of local education funds (LEFs) working to improve public schools and build citizen support for public education in low-income communities. The report recognizes that NCLB was indeed groundbreaking legislation and it provides powerful tools to demand more of our public schools. But PEN also believes there is significant evidence of deep problems with the law's implementation due to various provisions of the statute. The report states that the voice of the public, particularly those from disadvantaged and disconnected communities, is not being heard during the growing debate.

Interestingly, PEN found strong support for the goals of NCLB while still voicing a concern over the stigma attached to schools and school systems labeled "in need of improvement." Across the board, concerns were voiced over the tests because they assess only a limited amount of skills and the potential lowering of standards by states if too many schools are identified as not making AYP. The report can be found on www.publiceducation.org.

CEP's report on NCLB — From the Capitol to the Classroom: Year 3 of the No Child Left Behind Act — is the Center's third annual report on NCLB. The report found both hopeful signs in its implementation as well as several warning signs that require fixing the legislation.

States and districts are reporting that scores on state tests are on the rise, but this can not be totally attributed to the statute. CEP also found that the law has focused greater attention on the needs of lower-achieving groups of students. This includes the provision of extra instruction to struggling students and utilizing test score data to help determine pedagogical strategies and collaboration among teachers.

CEP found through its interviews and case studies that the districts continue to struggle with implementing key aspects of the law. Concerns and frustrations were voiced, as in the other two studies over the NCLB testing requirements for students with disabilities and English language learners. They also doubt the fairness of AYP and the unrealistic nature of the goal of 100 percent of the students performing at proficient levels by 2014. This is especially true for districts in cities and then there is the concern of the impact of not meeting this goal. CEP lists eight legitimate concerns that require immediate attention by the current Administration in the regulation changes or waivers, as well as in legislative action.

The Council of Great City Schools (CGCS) annual report entitled Beating the Odds V provides an up-to-date snapshot of how urban school districts are doing with state assessments required by NCLB. The report shows substantial progress by 65 of the nation's urban school systems in reading and math. The gains appear to be growing since first reported in 2001.

CGCS acknowledges that the districts still have a long way to go to reach the NCLB goals and only a handful of the 65 districts are performing at state averages which is much less than 100 percent proficient. The report also indicates that achievement gaps continue to be wide, but not wider than before. Also, gains are being made in elementary schools but the progress in middle and high school remains fragile and uncertain. In the end, the report says that more work really needs to be concentrated in secondary schools. A complete report can be obtained at www.cgcs.org and the report does contain city-by-city data.

While everything in the reports is not positive, it does signal improvement in test scores and academic achievement in urban school districts across the country. The three reports on NCLB all emphasize the need for mid-course corrections prior to reauthorization of the Act to help districts successfully implement the statute. Without short and long-term adjustments, it will be very difficult for urban students and city school systems to meet the goals of NCLB, and this has significant implications for mayors and cities across this country.