ESEA Reauthorization Part I: What is this all about?

You all have heard about No Child Left Behind, so you will know what I am talking about in the next few paragraphs. Commonly referred to as NCLB, or “nickel-b,” among educators, it is actually the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that was signed into law in January of 2002 by then President George W. Bush. A lot of controversy has accompanied this law and its implementation, but in reality, it has served a purpose that has moved education ahead in our country, drawing attention to some shortcomings and forcing educators to make changes in the best interests of our students. One of the interesting things about this law is that it was supposed to be reauthorized, or “re-upped,” four or five years ago, and yet here we sit waiting, and waiting, and waiting.

In reality, when President Bush signed the Bill in 2002, that was a reauthorization of a previous ESEA bill. What happens is once some bills are passed, there is a certain period of time built in that requires Congress to look at is, determine if it is working, make changes if deemed necessary, and then reauthorize it. As NCLB was unfolded a little over nine year ago, there was quite a bit of criticism from some sectors, yet people rolled up their sleeves and began working toward meeting the goals that were established. Like a lot of new laws, as people start working with them, strengths and weaknesses emerge, and one of the things that stood out very early on with NCLB was the goal that 100% of our nation’s children would be proficient and on grade level in reading and math by 2014. Anyone, and I mean anyone that knows anything about education, child development, and statistics can tell you that was a pipedream. There is no way that is going to happen. Would that be great and should we challenge every student to reach his or her potential? Heck yes! But there is a difference between dreams and reality.

As a lot of education reforms have been put in place, there are parts of this country where significant gains have been made in regard to improving reading and math, and about three or four years into NCLB, you heard educators and politicians start talking about growth models. You see another part of NCLB that caught a lot of criticism was the punitive nature of the law directed at schools, teachers, and administrators when the students do not meet trajectories or targets on the way to 100% proficiency in 2014. There have been some great stories of schools that have turned around, and even here, we have seen growth among some of our students. Yet according to the law, it isn’t good enough unless you are at a certain level.

What has evolved over the past four or five years is a more realistic perspective on NCLB, with educators and politicians from both sides of the aisle in agreement on a number of things that need to be changed, yet our leaders in Washington, DC have not been able to get it done. Growth models rather than 100% proficiency is almost universally agreed upon, yet the law has not been changed and 2014 is staring us right in the face. Outstanding literacy programs have been put in place, yet funding to continue them has for the most part run out. States like Iowa have undergone, or have initiated significant changes in their educational programs, with most of them raising expectations and implementing a common core of standards. President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan have initiated some new programs designed to move our country back to the top in regard to the education our children receive. But, without the reauthorization, the old goals are still there and public education faces a potentially cataclysmic situation in 2014. Why are we at this point? I’ll address that in my next entry!