Changes to NCLB would affect schools differently

For most public schools, the perceived heavy hand of the federal government would become a lighter touch under President Obama's plan to rewrite the No Child Left Behind law. But for others, the consequences of academic failure would stiffen considerably, the Washington Post reported.
The proposal to update what is formally known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act divides nearly 100,000 schools into three broad categories: those rewarded for high performance; those challenged and shaken up because they are struggling; and the huge number in the middle that are pushed to improve but given freedom to innovate."For the vast majority of schools, we're going to get rid of prescriptive interventions," Education Secretary Arne Duncan told reporters Monday.
Duncan heads to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to start selling the administration's 41-page blueprint to the House and Senate education committees. The 2002 law, a signature initiative of President George W. Bush's, is overdue for reauthorization. Democratic and Republican lawmakers have launched hearings and bipartisan talks on a new education bill. But there is no certainty that Congress will act before fall elections.
Under the law, public schools are rated every year on their progress toward a goal of 100 percent proficiency in reading and math by 2014 for students tested in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school. Those that fall short of targets for two consecutive years face an escalating series of consequences under certain conditions. The first consequence is a mandate to offer transfers to a better school. The second is a mandate to offer tutoring.
The two mandates would become options under Obama's proposal. And the label of "failing to make adequate yearly progress" would vanish. In the 2008-09 school year, according to the Center on Education Policy, about one-third of schools fell short of what is known as "AYP."
Mike Petrilli, a former Bush administration education official and analyst with the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, called the Obama plan realistic. "It uses federal power to give political cover to reformers at the state and local level, but focuses most of its muscle . . . on a handful of the worst schools," Petrilli wrote in a blog post. He described the No Child law's sanctions as "a bust."
Education Department officials said 5 percent of the lowest-performing schools would face radical interventions, including replacing the principal in nearly all cases. Those are tougher remedies than current law provides. The next-lowest 5 percent would be placed on watch lists and forced to take major steps. Another 5 percent with wide gaps in achievement between disadvantaged and better-off students would face interventions.
High-flying schools, Duncan said, would be rewarded with funding and increased flexibility and autonomy. He said that group would include schools with high test scores and those that make large gains -- at least 10 percent of the schools in each state, officials said.
As for the large middle group, he said, the government would not ignore them but would take a largely hands-off approach. If they started to stagnate, Duncan said, they would get more scrutiny. "Carrots and sticks across the board," he said. "Rewards and consequences."
How this switch would play out in the near future is unclear. Without congressional action this year, Duncan conceivably could take some administrative steps toward flexibility. His predecessor, Margaret Spellings, did that frequently during the Bush years.
Even if Congress revises the law, changing school accountability systems in 50 states and the District would take years. Separately, there is a state-led move to shift academic standards toward a new goal for all students to graduate ready for college and the workforce. That would mean, in turn, new curriculum and new tests.
Obama's plan leapfrogs past the tough question of whether to eliminate entirely the 2014 goal of proficiency for all students. In essence, the administration is leaving that up to Congress. Instead, Obama points toward a new academic goal that would take effect in stages over the next few years: for all students to meet "college- and career-ready" standards by 2020.
Teachers unions have criticized the plan as relying too much on testing to fix schools and not enough on helping educators. David A. Sanchez, president of the California Teachers Association, said Obama had embraced "the same one-size-fits-all and flawed foundation" of the Bush-era law "that has unfairly and unproductively used test scores to label public schools."