This is the NEA commentary on Congressional rewriting (reauthorization) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (aka NCLB).
NCLB is the name that President George W. Bush gave to ESEA. The federal law is supposed to be revised every seven years. NCLB was passed by Congress in the fall of 2001 and signed into law by President Bush on January 8, 2002. It is years overdue for reauthorization.
**********
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 12, 2015
NEA CALLS FOR MORE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND REAUTHORIZATION
***
WASHINGTON—The National Education Association, the nation’s largest union with 3 million educators, has been a staunch critic of the failed No Child Left Behind system since its implementation more than 12 years ago. The following statement can be attributed to NEA President Lily Eskelsen García:
“We are pleased the Administration is calling for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We all know that 12 years under a broken No Child Left Behind system has failed students and schools by neglecting to close the achievement and opportunity gaps as promised. Our students, especially those most in need, should not have to wait any longer.
“We are looking forward to working with Republicans, Democrats, the civil rights community, educators and other partners in ensuring that all students have equal educational opportunity—the original focus of ESEA. Our focus is on providing equal opportunity to every child so that they may be prepared for college and career. A child’s chances for success should not depend on living in the right zip code.
“In order to do this, we must reduce the emphasis on standardized tests that have corrupted the quality of the education received by children, especially those in high poverty areas. Parents and educators know that the one-size-fits-all annual federal testing structure has not worked. We support grade span testing to free up time and resources for students, diminish ‘teaching to the test,’ expand extracurricular activities, and allow educators to focus on what is most important: instilling a love of learning in their students. We must give states and districts the flexibility to use assessments they feel are best for identifying achievement gaps, rather than forcing them to live with a one-size-fits-all approach that often ignores high needs children.
“And we should move toward a smarter accountability system that looks at more than just a test score, but focuses on the many factors that are indicative of school and student success, and highlight gaps in equity that must be addressed.”
###
______________________
Diane Ravitch's blog 
so this is good, right?
are the storm clouds passing?
I’m afraid I don’t find this to be all that encouraging, Joanna. Statements like this have been universally ignored by those who actually make the policy. I suppose it’s good to see the NEA fighting for what’s right (has that always been the case? I’ve lost track on when and which national unions haven’t fallen for Gates-Duncan propaganda).
I don’t mean to meddle in anyone’s business, but if I were an NEA member, my first reaction might be to ask why my union is putting out a press release that describes NCLB as “broken” and “failed” in the first two paragraphs, but never uses the verb “repeal.”
FLERP!: good catch.
😎
Amen. Here’s our big chance to get this law repealed and were placating to the reformers on this. It’s similar to saying we need to slow the implementation of CCSS instead of dismissing them completely. Those on the left and right oppose NCLB yet we have too much political hubris to collaborate and abolish NCLB and CCSS. Killing this law would allow us to fight reformers at the state level rather than take on the Goliath backed by the inept USDOE. That’s a risk I’m willing to take.
I am grateful for this extra thoughtful analysis. Illuminates so much of the frustration.
FLERP, you are so keen!
Here is the reason for your confusion:
“We must give states and districts the flexibility to use assessments they feel are best for identifying achievement gaps,..”
WHOA! it is DANGEROUS VIRUS!
Where is the PUBLIC EDUCATION AUTONOMY? Where are those educational expertise, and veteran educators? Back2basic
Excellent point!
Not only that, but the statement says to REDUCE the emphasis on standardized testing, NOT remove the emphasis all together. Standardized tests should have NO emphasis in public education. If they have to be taken, they should not matter to students, teachers, or schools.
Crafting a short document for politicians and the politically focussed media is not easy, especially when unions have been the subject of ire from within and without. Iam troubed by two sentences in the statement
“Our focus is on providing equal opportunity to every child so that they may be prepared for college and career. ”
This statement ratifies an agenda and vision for education devoid of any civic purpose and life relevance to our students (and the nation) unless teaching and learning leads to to college and getting a job.
I also worry about the reference to “expanding extracurricular activities.”
The old NCLB did not prevent cuts in the arts and humanities, but at least it offered a definition of “core academic subjects” and that list was far more ample than the current focus on ELA and math spawned by the Common Core State Standards and by attaching these standards to the interim tweaks and waivers of ESEA regulations.
And this line caught my attention:
“We all know that 12 years under a broken No Child Left Behind system has failed students and schools by neglecting to close the achievement and opportunity gaps as promised.”
NCLB is broken? It’s doing just what the edudeformers want it to do, demonize public education through various nefarious educational malpractices.
And NCLB neglected “to close the achievement gap”??? “Achievement gap” is edudeformer language that in reality means “standardized test scores” nothing more and nothing less.
Now if NCLB had indeed closed the “opportunity gaps” we wouldn’t be talking about it the way we are now but it was not intended to close those gaps.
I agree with you, and Duane below for this reason: flinging around phrases such as ‘college and career ready’ and ‘closing the achievement gap’ in connection with education policy simply reinforces the canard that education policy can somehow influence the availability of jobs or the classism/ racism built into this country’s style of capitalism.
Randi is not the only one guilty of adopting ed-deformers’ lingo, we all do it. We’ve let them frame the argument and then try to tweak it. The only way education can influence these things is if it facilitates the development of well-informed voters.
that was me, Sp & Fr Freelancer. Somehow my moniker disappeared
Isn’t this the same organization that called for Duncan’s firing 6 months ago? Funny how quiet things have gotten, and I find nothing earth shattering in this release.
Lily met with Arne in person and decided he’s really a pretty swell guy after all. Not a peep since then.
This statement by Lily Eskelsen abandons call for Duncan’s resignation, repeats squishy old rhetoric and takes no strong position, sure to cement her seat at the table. NEA represents 3mil teachers who are being battered; Lily should forthrightly declare NCLB a disastrous failure and call again for Arne’s earned resignation and for an end to annual testing, privatization of public schooling, and under-funding/over-regulating of the public sector. This safe fluffy statement will please the bad guys, who will read it as NEA still on on their team, comfortable thwarting opposition from rank and file, wanting to keep its seat at the table.
the “college and career” line was the one that made me think that; but otherwise, it didn’t sound as bad as some past things I’ve read
Can’t we just skip to the part of NCLB campaign season where Democrats complain they never would have agreed to test and punish if they had known that they wouldn’t get any of their “priorities” funded?
Because that’s a done deal.
Why in the world would you want to skip the “getting our hopes up” and “this time it will be different” stages? 😉
The issues are so deep. We are left with the remnants of public education.
Please see this piece: The Looting of the American Dream: The Post Katrina Rubble of Public Education in Louisiana http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?j=pfie&vol=12&issue=8&year=2014&article=9_Fischetti_PFIE_12_8_web
May I respectfully suggest that a stronger message could be sent by endorsing the Massachusetts Teachers Association’s (NEA of MA) proposed legislation calling for a three-year moratorium on high-stakes usage of standardized test results, for students (graduation, et al) and for evaluating teachers? There’s a concrete response that has some teeth in it, and sets a tone for the rest of the country. The Boston Globe gets this. http://www.yorkdispatch.com/breaking/ci_27232320/york-city-parents-sign-petition-against-charters
I don’t like the idea of a delay, because I don’t like the idea of evaluating teachers by test scores for many reasons. A delay entrenches the miserable testing regime while muting legitimate complaints and concerns from teachers, students, and parents. There’s a reason that Bill Gates has also called for a moratorium.
Ohio teacher, your point is a good one. However, sometimes we who are fighting huge battles need breathing room in which to continue to reach out, mobilize and teach and learn. There is a huge difference between Gates recognizing that they are not fully winning this battle, and our side recognizing that we can turn things around if we have that space in which to do it. Madeloni tells the truth as she advocates for space in which to fight, during which time students and teachers and schools are not penalized (understatement). I support this.
Among other things, we have a responsibility to work with the communities in which our children live to fight for stronger schools in the real sense of strength. There is understandable doubt about the schools in many of our communities — especially now with closings, defundings, destabliizing, and, yes, over-testing and closing of things like libraries/music/art/recess. If we who are against the testing mania are also champions of the needs of these communities, we have a far better chance of changing things FOR the children — and, thus, for teachers. IMO.
Good and fair points, kippdawson, and I’ll admit to being conflicted. I’ve thought about this issue a lot, and while I respectfully disagree with you (my conclusion is that ultimately we will be worse off…and maybe considerably worse off…with a delay), I’ll concede that it’s possible that a delay would allow for more thoughtful analysis to prevail. I’ll also concede that in the short term, a delay is much better than the status quo.
My fear is that the 2016 presidential/Congressional elections are going to be critical with regards to educational policy. I think a delay aids our most harmful political leaders.
Definitely appreciate your points, though!
Sorry, wrong link on my comment above (though that’s a good story about parents organizing against the charterization of York, PA schools). Here’s the Boston Globe link: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/01/13/can-tide-turn-against-standardized-testing/Wzuyqi0aja3SAqmqWzlmpN/story.html
Here’s another NEA local taking initiative which the NEA president could welcome, endorse, support:
Passed by Aurora Education Association:
The AEA Board believes that assessment is an integral part of adequate and thorough student instruction. The Aurora Education Association recognizes the value of using a variety of assessment measures to support teaching and learning. A quality assessment informs the teacher of the strengths, attempts and next steps for all students. An effective assessment can be evaluated by the teacher, and used to plan for instruction, modifying plans as needed for whole group, small group, and individual instruction. The association promotes the use of valid and reliable, teacher-selected measures that assess critical competencies for identified learning outcomes.
The Association believes the teacher is able to create objective assessments and determine which commercially developmentally appropriate assessments may be employed to ascertain formative, as well as summative data, in order to provide a cumulative record of growth and achievement which is more reliable than a single standardized testing tool.
AEA urges locals across the country, CEA, and NEA, to support teachers who make the professional decision to opt out of administering high stakes assessments.