No Child Left Behind?

It may have sounded good to some, but this law is heading down the wrong track. What it means to you--and what NEA's doing about it.

Photo by Nancy J. Pierce

A little over a year ago, President George W. Bush sat at a worn, wooden desk in the gymnasium of Ohio's Hamilton High School and put his signature to a massive federal law called the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

Here, the President declared before a foot-stomping crowd, was the symbol of a "new era" begun. And it was true. Not in four decades had Washington served up such a sweeping overhaul of federal education policy. Passed in Congress with bipartisan support, the 1,100-page bill--the latest incarnation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965--markedly expanded the federal government's role in education, prescribed mandates to the states, and along the way touted goals almost nobody could dispute: Close the student achievement gap, make public schools accountable, set standards of excellence for every child, put a qualified teacher in every classroom.

So noble were these goals that even Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Bush's political nemesis, stood by the President's side to hail the bill as a legislative tour de force.

That was then.

Today, as educators and policy makers continue to pore over the bill's long-awaited regulatory details, the reality of its implementation is slamming against the rhetoric.

The bill is being funded at levels dramatically below what Congress intended, analysts say, and it's rife with flaws that undermine the very goals it set out to achieve. As NEA President Reg Weaver put it, "Washington has built a house of cards and is now blowing those cards down on top of the very students it claims to shelter."

Indeed, the bill's myriad requirements (many ambiguous still) have thrown state officials into a confused frenzy as many face the stark possibility that most of their schools will be deemed failing--even schools that improve. Even schools like Hart Middle School in Rochester Hills, Michigan, which was lauded as a Blue Ribbon school by the U.S Department of Education last May only to be rated "low-performing" four months later.

"It's like saying everybody in the country is sick," notes Joel Packer, an NEA lobbyist. "How do you figure out how to focus your resources, especially if what you want to do is help those who are really sick?" The challenge is made all the more onerous as many states grapple with their most debilitating fiscal crises in decades.

So troubling has been the turn of events that Kennedy, a key sponsor of the bill, has warned that the success of the law "is now greatly imperiled." He's called for "fully funding the reforms outlined in the law" and for reconsidering "regulations that contradict the plain language of the law."

The problems come as no surprise to NEA leaders, who two years ago lobbied successfully to have the most egregious parts of the then-evolving law removed. Vouchers, testing of current teachers, across the board hiring freezes of paras--all were jettisoned.

To combat many of the remaining flaws, NEA has created the Great Public Schools for Every Child action plan (see "Making Noise Close to Home"). Here's what you need to know:

You can get involved. Talk to people in your community about what's wrong with the law. Invite elected representatives to your school to see firsthand the challenges you face. And get colleagues who aren't NEA members to join--and to join the fight!

Stay tuned. NEA has marshaled forces to influence state implementation plans, educate members on the law, and help them fulfill its current mandates. National leaders continue a full-court press for amendments and congressional hearings.

Read on. This third NEA Today Special Report on the No Child Left Behind Act offers a critical look at the law, gives voice to member concerns, and details what NEA has been doing, and will do, to help minimize its burdens.

The law aims to do a lot--that's clear. But will it close the student achievement gap, or build a quality teaching force? That's a lot murkier.

The law requires testing, and plenty of it. Annual tests in reading and math in grades 3-8 and once in grades 10-12 begin in 2005-06. Testing in science once in elementary, middle, and high school will begin in 2007-08. School and district progress targets must be met each year, and by 2014, every student in America must have reached state-defined proficiency.

What about a quality education for all children? What about attracting the best to the profession? What about instilling a love of learning in students? That's what's being left behind. Consider these other inconsistencies in the law.

Show Me the Money

The law says: NCLB programs should be implemented fully and effectively.

Glitch: There's not enough money. Funding for 2003 fell $8 billion short of authorized levels, and the President has proposed a 2004 allocation at $11 billion below target. Even more disturbing: Title I--the fiscal savior for tens of thousands of disadvantaged students the President says he most wants to help--would fall short by $6 billion.

Consequence: States already battling budget crises will be under increasing strains to find money to meet the demands presented by the law: development of costly tests, teacher training and recruitment, books, and building construction and expansion. In addition, more than 48,000 schools that have disadvantaged students--that's two-thirds of all elementary schools--will be severely shortchanged. Title I funds pay for teachers, paraeducators, pre-K and after- school programs, and a range of supplemental services in these schools, many of which are in the high-poverty districts the law was supposed to help most. But already because of funding shortages, only 40 percent of eligible students are being fully served.

The fix: Fund NCLB and its Title I component at congressionally authorized levels.

Wanted: Only the Highly Qualified

The law says: All teachers should be "highly qualified" by the end of the 2005-06 school year by having state certification and demonstration of competence.

Glitch: Federal education department regulations permit teachers who are providing supplemental services, who are at charter schools, or who are in preparation programs that skirt state certification standards to be deemed highly qualified. At the same time, it labels not highly qualified special education teachers who teach several subjects--but who are not certified in each of those subjects. The law also makes not highly qualified those teachers who were certified as fifth- or sixth-grade elementary teachers--but whose schools were then re-designated middle schools, or vice versa.

Consequence: 1) Some teachers with little experience and training still get to teach children, undermining the purpose of the law. 2) Teachers who have already proven themselves to be highly qualified must prove again that they are qualified to teach. Indeed, the requirement worsens the acute shortage of teachers, particularly in special education, as tens of thousands of NEA members--many of whom have been teaching for years--will be affected.

The fix: Close the loopholes and clarify the law.

Yearly Progress--Measured Fairly

The law says: The student body in each school, as well as students from each of the school's major subgroups--racial and ethnic minorities, English-language learners, low-income, and special education students--must show steady improvement on standardized exams in order for the school and the district to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) targets.

Glitch: The law doesn't give schools similar credit for other important measures of progress, such as increased attendance and graduation rates, student work samples, or percentage of students taking Advanced Placement exams. While those measures can be used, they cannot put a school in compliance with AYP. To the contrary, the regulations allow schools to meet their progress targets even as graduation rates for their lowest performing students decline.

Consequence: Schools have little incentive to keep at-risk students from leaving school, since those students are more likely to get lower test scores. "Progress" ends up hinging on one test, on one given day, and frustration levels among students soar.

The fix: Allow states flexibility to use other measures.

Special Education Set-Up

The law says: Special education students must be tested on grade level so they can be compared with their peers.

Glitch: Many special education students with learning disabilities find it difficult to read and understand tests developed for their grade levels. And when students do take these tests, some states prohibit the use of special accommodations, such as keyboards or electronic devices, that assist them during their classroom work.

Consequence: Frustration among these students is high, and testing on grade level is likely to be useless. Because these students are set up to fail, their test results become a predictable hindrance to a school's ability to meet progress targets.

The fix: Allow these students to be tested at the grade level teachers know they are at and use those results as a benchmark for charting progress. Also, allow them the full spectrum of accommodations they normally use while doing classroom work.

Sanctions: But Do They Close the Gap?

The law says: Title I schools that don't meet their progress targets for two consecutive years will be identified as "needing improvement" and must give students the option to go to other schools that are succeeding. After three failing years, schools must offer students supplemental educational services, including private tutoring and services from faith- based organizations. For continued failures, schools will be subject to outside corrective measures that could lead to a complete restructuring of the school.

Glitch: 1) The law concentrates more on punitive measures than on problem-solving actions that could help the neediest schools succeed; 2) Schools on the receiving end of transfer requests stand to get overcrowded fast--but regulations make no accommodations for the costs of new teachers or construction, or the predicament of many rural school districts that cannot offer students much choice in the first place; 3) the regulations contradict the law itself by allowing students to receive supplemental services from certain organizations that discriminate on the basis of religion and race in the hiring of their employees. Supplemental service providers need not be "highly qualified," either.

Consequence: The noble idea of choice and accountability is undermined.

The fix: Give states flexibility to apply sanctions by tailoring constructive, corrective actions to specific problems--not to entire schools and districts. Ensure supplemental services providers are highly qualified and comply with federal civil rights laws, and make allowances for rural districts that are hamstrung because they have so few schools. Also, let states and school districts limit transfers based on class size and building capacity limitations.

Fully Funded Training for Paraeducators

The law says: All paraprofessionals hired with Title I money on or before January 8, 2002, must complete at least two years of college, obtain an associate's degree or higher, or pass an evaluation to demonstrate knowledge and teaching ability by January 8, 2006, if they have not already done so. Newly hired paras must meet these requirements immediately.

Glitch: States and localities are not required to fully fund the costs of training veteran paras.

Consequence: Many paras--especially those who came into the workforce as volunteers--have no incentive to foot the bill on their own, and in most cases are unable to do so anyway. (The average salary for paraeducators who are NEA members is only $15,348 per year.) Also, local salaries may not rise when paras fulfill the additional requirements. So the pool of these educators could decrease if they leave the field to seek higher salaries elsewhere and if potential applicants, discouraged over the requirements, fail to step up to fill the vacant spots.

The fix: Require states and localities to use funds (including federal Title I and Title II) to help paraeducators meet the new quality standards by fully funding the costs of testing, continuing education, and training.

Reading Based on "Science"

The law says: A competitive grant program called Reading First will be authorized to help states and districts set up "scientific, research-based" reading programs for students in grades K-3.

Glitch: The law only authorizes grants to reading programs that meet a narrow definition of "scientific, research-based."

Consequence: Many well-proven approaches to reading instruction are not eligible for grants.

The fix: Add language that makes it clear that in sanctioning certain programs, the federal government will use the broadest range of available data, be fully objective in its analysis, and not emphasize one reading approach to the exclusion of others that have been proven effective by teachers and widely accepted by the community of reading researchers.

Where NEA Stands

NEA believes that all children should be guaranteed the right to a free and quality public education. How do we get there?

• Close the achievement gap.
• Boost student achievement.
• Put a highly qualified teacher in every classroom.

These are the long-standing goals of NEA. Based on research and practical classroom experience, NEA believes that to achieve these goals takes:

• Small classes.
• Effective mentoring for beginning teachers.
• Relevant professional development for educators.
• Innovative efforts to involve parents.
• Higher pay, which keeps talented people in the profession.
• Adequate funds to make the reforms.

The laws that require states to label schools based on a single test, and that provide sanctions instead of help for students, educators, and schools, are an obstacle to helping all students succeed.

Elected leaders must live up to promises of being "pro-education" and do some of the heavy lifting that it will take to create great public schools for every child. And that includes examining--and amending--the flaws in the No Child Left Behind Act.

So What Do You Know?

Been boning up? Test your "No Child Left Behind" knowledge quotient.

1. "No Child Left Behind" is the new federal law that funds proven ways to improve student achievement, such as smaller classrooms, mentoring for new teachers, paid time for planning, and professional development for experienced teachers.
   T or F
2. The new federal education law tells states what their education priorities must be and how they are to achieve them. How much of the bill does the federal government pay?
   a. 8 %
   b. 30 %
   c. 50 %
   d. 70 %
3. The new federal law guarantees that every American child will read fluently by the year 2014.
   T or F
4. The California Department of Education recently projected the percentage of schools that would achieve the goal of "No Child Left Behind" by 2014. What percentage did the department predict?
   a. 95 %
   b. 70 %
   c. 40 %
   d. 2 %
5. High stakes testing, the central feature of NCLB, is a proven strategy for boosting student achievement.
   T or F
6. Outside groups paid with federal money to provide tutoring to students in "failing" schools will be forbidden to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnic group, or religion.
   T or F
7. The new federal law requires all aides paid under Title I to have two years of college.
   T or F
8. The new federal law supercedes collective bargaining agreements that regulate, for example, involuntary transfers and reassignments.
   T or F
9. Under "No Child Left Behind," who decides how well a student must read in order to be called "proficient"?
   a. The federal government.
   b. The state c. The school district
   d. parents e. Teachers.
10. Students in schools that don't reach state standards will be able to go to private schools using federal vouchers.
    T or F

Quiz answers

Recipe for Disaster? It Could Have Been Worse!

During the battles in Congress over the No Child Left Behind Act, NEA lobbyists fought to make it a tool for improving schools, not a whip for punishing educators. Some highlights:

"Highly qualified" teacher and paraprofessional: The original bill required testing of all secondary school teachers who don't have a college major in their field, and all Title I instructional paraprofessionals who don't have two years of college. The final law lets states use multiple approaches in measuring a veteran teacher's content knowledge. The law also allows either states or local districts to design their own ways to measure paraprofessionals' academic competence. New secondary school teachers do have to pass a content test or have the equivalent of a major in their field, but not those who are already working. On this one, NEA won half a pie, or close to it.

"Adequate Yearly Progress" and student testing: NEA pushed for using multiple ways to measure a school's performance but made only limited headway: Student test scores are the critical factor. Some jagged edges of the original bill were filed off, however. For example, the initial proposal was to begin sanctions after a school failed to make "adequate yearly progress" for just one year. That was amended to two years. Less than half a pie on this--one or two slices at best.

Money: The law that Congress passed and the President signed promises a major, 10-year expansion of federal funding. But that promise needs to be carried out with real budget dollars. The first year, funding did go up, but the Administration has proposed a $1.2 billion cut in the budget that is now before Congress. NEA lobbyists are asking Congress to change that. A tug-of-war over this pie.

Vouchers: NEA beat back no fewer than four major efforts to open the door to private school vouchers during the maneuvering over No Child Left Behind. The final law does not allow students to go to private schools with public dollars, but private groups can get public dollars for providing supplemental services like tutoring. NEA won most of the pie.

Collective bargaining protection: NEA pushed hard to keep the law from voiding protections that local affiliates have bargained into their contracts--for example, provisions that restrict involuntary transfers. This battle was won. The whole pie, but it only helps in those states with collective bargaining.

OK, the law has put educators in a tough spot. But that doesn't mean that NEA members are powerless. Far from it. Members are getting organized. They're speaking up about what's wrong with the law and what real education reform means--and they're getting more people to join NEA to build a stronger voice. To help inform members and the public, NEA has committed staff and other resources to the Great Public Schools for Every Child action plan. When it comes to dealing with the implementation of the law, says NEA's No Child Left Behind coordinator Dorothy Harrell, "the action is really in the states." That's where nitty-gritty decisions about everything from what's "highly qualified" to what's "proficient" are made. Here's what some state Associations that have been working successfully to influence their state plans advise others to do:

Energize and organize educators. NEA-Alaska (NEA-AK) has approved a detailed NCLB "master plan"--with a budget and timeline--that touches on everything from strategies for collective bargaining over the impact of the law to coalition building around NCLB implementation and education funding. "We've trained trainers to go to schools all over the state to correct member misperceptions about requirements of the law," says NEA-AK staffer Virginia McKinney. "We're working very hard to get our members past the grief stage and into the organizing stage."

Meanwhile in North Carolina, the law has already become a tool for organizing. In addition to lobbying state legislators to boost annual paraeducator pay--now averaging just $15,000--the North Carolina Association of Educators (NCAE) has been offering local and regional workshops to prepare paraeducators for the state's WorkKeys? para assessment, which has a 60 percent success rate on the first try. The workshops, which are publicized in membership recruitment drives, have been offered to NCAE members since they started last August. Already ESP membership has increased 25 percent.

The Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) has been actively teaching and coaching members about the kinds of education reforms that really turn schools around. That way they will be poised to speak out against parts of the federal law that hurt, not help. "Top-down, one-size-fits-all mandates and 'best practices' alone won't work," says PSEA staffer Mark Wescott. "We're working with our members to ensure that local solutions to the problems of struggling schools are developed locally."

Tap into abundant resources from NEA and its affiliates. NEA provides weekly NCLB bulletins, legislative and legal analysis, staff and leadership training, and resources such as educator-friendly fact sheets, slide presentations, and flow charts that help teachers and paras figure out whether they are "highly qualified." (See pages 28-30.) School district officials in many places are beginning to rely on this NEA-produced material. NEA also offers assistance through federal lobbying and regular contacts with the U.S. Department of Education.

In states such as Alabama, Idaho, and Minnesota, superintendents are inviting Association staffers into schools to conduct workshops for teachers and support professionals. The Idaho Education Association used NEA networking resources to tap into model work being done by the Wisconsin and Ohio affiliates to draft NCLB-related contract language for local negotiators.

Influence the state implementation process by getting members on key state committees. The law directs each state to create a "Committee of Practitioners"--including front-line educators, parents, and administrators--to advise each state in carrying out its responsibilities under Title I. And there are a host of other ways to get member voices heard, depending on your state.

In Colorado, the Department of Education has set up 11 workgroup subcommittees to address components of the law, and the Colorado Education Association has placed at least one member or staffer on each of these panels.

In Tennessee, Association members have had a voice on the Committee of Practitioners, the Teaching Quality Committee, and the Teacher Advisory Council. In addition, the Tennessee Education Association talks daily with state Department of Education staffers who are making recommendations about the NCLB state plan.

In Hawaii, the Hawaii State Teachers Association (HSTA) has established an NCLB Ad Hoc Task Force, which lets state Department of Education staffers know exactly what's on the minds of Hawaii teachers--and then reports these meetings to HSTA chapters.

Help Title I paraeducators meet the law's tough, new "highly qualified" mandates. The law's requirement is a potentially costly, discouraging proposition for some paras: Hold an associate's degree, complete two years of college, or pass a rigorous state or local assessment. But some Associations have created ways to ease the burden:

The New Jersey Education Association has joined a coalition of educators, administrators, parents, and school board members to develop a "multidimensional assessment scheme" for paraeducators. The bottom line: Eligible paras would receive specialized training through local community colleges (for either an associate's degree or 48 credits) at convenient high school locations--or develop a portfolio evaluation with criteria approved by the Department of Education. "When paras leave this summer, they should know their jobs are ensured in the fall," says NJEA staffer Wayne Dibofsky. "And we'll help them to bargain proactively with districts to maintain their benefits and reflect their new credentials in the salary guide."

Vermont-NEA is encouraging paraeducators to organize district task forces that establish portfolio assessment as a way to meet the law's requirements. Many paras are now helping each other verify past classes for portfolio credit, and in at least one district, paras and principals are using new standards for district planning goals and designing para training to meet those goals.

The Alabama Education Association is working closely with the state education superintendent on para credentialing. The Association wants a statewide assessment, something that's portable from district to district, and professional development for paras before they're evaluated.

The Delaware State Education Association has convened two rounds of NCLB informational forums for paraeducators, and has been collaborating with the state Department of Education and universities to develop classes for para certification. It will soon offer training for paras to prepare for a test being developed by the Educational Testing Service.

--Written by Marilyn Milloy, Dave Winans,
Alain Jehlen, Kristen Loschert, and John O'Neil,
with reporting from Robin Nettinga (Idaho), Linda
Edwards (Colorado), Mary Ann Blankenship
(Tennessee), Angela Farthing (North Carolina), Ellen
David Friedman (Vermont), Pam Nichols
(Delaware), and Arlene Lee (Hawaii).

Want a Happy Ending?

The No Child Left Behind Act may be on the books, but how the story ends depends a lot on you.

As NEA lobbyists push to amend the law on Capitol Hill, educators can impact the law's implementation closer to home. Working with state affiliates, NEA will offer training to help members become powerful advocates who can convince state and national legislators and advocate to change the law. It's all part of NEA's action plan, Great Public Schools for Every Child.

"Our members are powerful messengers," says Diane Shust, NEA's director of government relations. "They can educate legislators about the reality of what's going on and the reasons changes are needed to help children and public schools succeed."

Contact your state Association for more information on training and resources available. And check out these other ways to get involved:

Invite your member of Congress to your school to see firsthand what educators are up against. It'll be good PR for him or her, and an opportunity for you to get an ear.

Call your local Association. Clarify information you are unsure about.

Encourage your colleagues who aren't NEA members to join--and get involved. Talk to parents and members of the community. Let them know what's going on.

Volunteer to sit on committees that can influence your state implementation process.

Sign up to be an NEA cyber-lobbyist. Go to www.nea.org/lac to receive alerts and to send letters to members of Congress.

Check out resources on OWL.org. NEA's online community for members will keep you up-to-date on the law and link you to NEA resources. Go to www.owl.org. If you're a first-time visitor, click on the "Register" button on the right-hand column of the homepage. (It's free.)

Tell your story. Write your local newspaper, your member of Congress, school superintendent, and NEA's legislative action center (www.nea.org/lac) to convey the real-life impact of the law.

Get Informed. Get Energized. Get Involved.

"Kids are getting physically ill because of the pressure of these tests," NEA Secretary-Treasurer Lily Eskelsen was told at a recent Tennessee Education Association conference.

Sharon Blevins of Kingsport filled Eskelsen in on the details. "She told me, 'One of my third graders actually threw up on the test. I was told to put it in a baggie and send it in with the others for scoring,'" Eskelsen recalls with a shudder.

Eskelsen was alarmed--and not just for the poor scorer who had to deal with the soiled exam. The story exemplifies the "damn-the-consequences" steamroller known, ironically, as No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The new law contains provisions for increasing testing and punishing schools that fail to reach standards. (See "The Law: What It Is, and Isn't") And, members report, it already is wreaking havoc in their schools--ratcheting up test anxiety, pushing worthwhile activities out of the curriculum, and alarming many teachers and paraeducators who will have to jump new hurdles to keep their jobs.

As Eskelsen and the rest of NEA's Executive Committee (EC) crisscross the country, visiting schools and speaking to members and local leaders, the effects of No Child Left Behind are Topic #1.

"The mood of members is one of dismay, of anger, of feeling that they are being set up to fail," says NEA President Reg Weaver. "Reform must not be done to us. Rather, reform should be done in concert with us, in order to improve and make public education great."

"Politicians have talked in very general terms about a vision that our members happen to agree with," adds NEA Vice President Dennis Van Roekel. "But members are upset because they believe that the timeline of No Child Left Behind--and the lack of resources behind it--are going to be harmful to them and the kids in their classrooms."

Already, the prospect of increased testing has schools cutting back on arts programs and subjects that aren't directly tested. A member in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, said his colleagues were so alarmed by NCLB that they suggested at a faculty meeting that any subject not being tested be removed from the curriculum, says EC member Michael Marks, who teaches debate and drama in Hattiesburg.

Other members wonder "how we can let non-educators, such as test publishers, have so much power over what we as professionals must use to assess our students," notes EC member Marsha Smith of Maryland.

"When members talk about the kids, and about what they're not doing in the classroom anymore, that's when they get most passionate," adds EC member Becky Pringle, a Pennsylvania middle school teacher. "They're saying, 'This is not why I got into the profession.'" Pringle is one of many middle school teachers in Pennsylvania who, despite their proven classroom experience, will have to take a test administered by the Educational Testing Service in order to meet No Child Left Behind's stipulation that all teachers be "highly qualified."

Many Title I paraeducators, who must meet new standards in the federal law, are anxious and upset about the new rules, says EC member and education support professional Iona Holloway of LaPlace, Louisiana. "Many of the people who have worked 25 years or more say they may retire," she says. "Those who have not worked as long are wondering if they'll keep their jobs. I'm trying to keep people upbeat."

EC member Dan Sakota says that, at a faculty meeting at his school in Rexburg, Idaho, "some really didn't know much about the law and hadn't paid much attention to it." One of his colleagues suggested that NCLB "is just another fad."

Others believe NCLB has a not-so-hidden agenda, says EC member Michael Billirakis. "I talked recently with one Ohio member--who probably speaks for many others--who said that this law was passed to destroy public education." When schools are labeled as failing, this member told Billirakis, "then they'll be right there with their answer--vouchers and tax credits."

Given such strong reactions, the law may have an unanticipated consequence.

"If there ever was an issue for us to rally around, this is it," notes Pringle. "We're going to have to mobilize all our forces and speak with one voice."

Check It Out

The National Education Association's homepage provides ample material on NCLB, including flow charts that help educators determine if they are "highly qualified." Go to www.nea.org/esea/.

The NEA ESP website offers a close-up look at NCLB's impact on paraeducators, along with useful links. Visit www.nea.org/esphome.

The U.S. Department of Education maintains a website dedicated to the No Child Left Behind Act. The site includes an overview of the law's requirements, a glossary of terms, fact sheets, an online newsletter, and links to other useful websites. See www.nochildleftbehind.gov/. Also, you can look up your district's FY 2002 Title I allocations by going to www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/TitleILEAs/ FY02allocations.

Keep up with state activities related to NCLB by visiting the Education Commission of the States website and clicking on the icon for No Child Left Behind. The site includes summaries of legislation and policies enacted by states in response to NCLB. Go to www.ecs.org.

Browse NEA Today articles from the past year at www.nea.org/neatoday/.

1. False. The law promises increased federal funding, but so far that promise hasn't been kept. The main focus of the law is on mandates, not money--punishing schools for low scores, not helping them do better.
2. a.
3. False. It only punishes educators if some children don't.
4. d.
5. False. A recent study of the actual experience of states that have adopted high-stakes testing shows there is very little effect on achievement in either direction. Scores on the high-stakes tests themselves went up, but scores on other tests measuring the same academic areas did not--a sign that students were getting better at taking the high-stakes tests but not actually learning more than before.
6. False. The law says federal civil rights laws apply, but the Department of Education's regulations say outside groups are exempt because the money is passed through local school districts. So while school districts are appropriately prohibited from discriminating, private groups that actually use the money are not. This will likely be settled in court.
7. False. The academic competence requirement applies only to paraprofessionals with instructional duties, and it allows for state or local assessments as an alternative to college credentials.
8. False. Collective bargaining agreements continue in full force.
9. b. Each state sets its own standard.
10. False. Voucher proposals were defeated in Congress. The law allows students at schools with low scores to transfer to other public schools, not private schools.