[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 19]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 26138-26139]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. ROBERT E. ANDREWS

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, October 28, 2003

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker I would like to include, for the Record, two 
written statements on the No Child Left Behind Act. The first of these 
is an opinion piece detailing problems with the implementation of the 
NCLB, by Ms. Gail Cohen, a leader in the education community in 
southern New Jersey. The second piece is an opinion piece I wrote 
highlighting many of the same issues. The implementation of the NCLB 
Act has become a significant concern to our schools and our 
communities, and must be addressed immediately by the federal 
Department of Education.

                    On the No Child Left Behind Act

                            (By Gail Cohen)

       How did 75% of New Jersey's public high schools-including 
     some of the highest performing schools in the state-find 
     themselves on an early warning list for not making ``adequate 
     yearly progress'' toward certain student achievement 
     benchmarks? Welcome to public education in the era of the No 
     Child Left Behind Act--the well-intended but poorly conceived 
     federal legislation that actually has very little to do with 
     individual student achievement.
       NCLB requires that all students meet proficiency levels on 
     state tests by 2014. To reach 100% proficiency, states have 
     set incremental benchmarks to determine Adequate Yearly 
     Progress (AYP). These targets establish the percentage of 
     students in each school--and the percentage of students in 
     each of several subgroups within that school--who must score 
     ``proficient'' or higher on state assessments.
       No educator could argue with the objective of raising 
     achievement for all students. That's the focus of every 
     decision made in good school districts. No educator could 
     argue with a plan that says student progress should be 
     assessed and schools should be held accountable for that 
     progress. In good school districts, assessments are used to 
     inform instruction and direct professional development. 
     However, the NCLB pegs the success of a school to the 
     performance of students in disaggregated subgroups on a 
     single state-developed standardized test--a test itself which 
     has been questioned.
       The federal government would have us use the industrial 
     model of stamping out kids on a conveyor and assessing each 
     in exactly the same way. Even Mother Nature has never 
     achieved creation of two identical objects in this universe. 
     All children can learn and, when given the appropriate 
     supports, will demonstrate growth from year to year. For some 
     students, measuring that growth may require an assessment 
     different from the HSPA or other state standardized test. For 
     example, a state-developed standardized assessment does not 
     measure the progress of the autistic student who comes to 
     school in September speaking just a few words and ends the 
     year speaking complete sentences and developing social 
     relationships. Has the school failed this student? Ask the 
     student. What message are we sending to this child? Ask the 
     parent, or the doctor who predicted the student would never 
     get this far.
       Imagine being a teenager having moved to this country just 
     over a year ago. Aside from all of the issues associated with 
     adapting to a new country, culture, school and language, you 
     are expected to pass the same test as the teenager who has 
     grown up in the community his whole life. You may be 
     proficient in mathematics--you may, in fact, excel at it. 
     Should we expect the student to be fluent enough in the 
     language after one year to pass the same test as his/her 
     peers who were born in this country? Could our students pass 
     these same requirements in another country?
       Clearly, the one-size-fits-all approach to assessment, as 
     mandated by the NCLB, is unfair. Also unfair is the fact that 
     the law paints an inaccurate picture of public education in 
     our country. The legislation leaves its implementation 
     details up to each individual state. So, for example, each 
     state establishes its own benchmarks for Adequate Yearly 
     Progress. Each state determines the number of students that 
     must be in a subgroup in order for that subgroup's results to 
     be counted. These variations make state-to-state comparisons 
     nearly impossible.
       In New Jersey a sub-group's test results will only count 
     toward adequate yearly progress if there are 20 or more 
     students in that group. The schools that are not on the 
     state's early warning list appear to be mostly smaller 
     schools with fewer that 20 students in that group. In 
     Pennsylvania, there have to be 40 students in a sub group to 
     count.
       The reporting requirements of NCLB may cause communities to 
     point to subgroups of students--our special education 
     children, our children of poverty, our children of color--and 
     say, ``You're the reason our schools are failing.''
       How lucky we are in Cherry Hill to attract kids from 
     neighboring urban areas, kids whose families are thrilled 
     with the educational opportunities that our district 
     provides. We know that the longer students are in Cherry 
     Hill, the better they achieve. Under NCLB, after just a year 
     in our district, those kids are expected to achieve 
     proficiency, without regard to their background or the growth 
     they have demonstrated since they arrived.
       The intent behind the ``No Child Left Behind'' legislation 
     is good. However, if legislators and educators are truly 
     interested in all students achieving, if we are truly 
     interested in improving education, then we need to assess 
     individual student progress over time using multiple 
     measures.

                     Op-Ed on No Child Left Behind

                      (By Rep. Robert E. Andrews)

       The federal Department of Education is seriously abusing 
     New Jersey's schools. The Department just released an early 
     warning list of New Jersey schools that are ``failing'' 
     federal standards, according to the No Child Left Behind Act 
     (NCLB). As anyone who lives in South Jersey knows, there is 
     something seriously wrong with any such list when it includes 
     top-notch middle schools, such as Haddonfield, Washington 
     Township, Medford and Evesham.
       The No Child Left Behind Act is a law with great potential 
     to help children. But the Department of Education's 
     implementation of the law fails to help anyone. There are two 
     primary reasons for this failure. First, the Education 
     Department has burdened school districts around the country 
     with a ``one size fits all approach.'' Local communities know 
     best how to run their school districts, and they should be 
     left alone, when successful, to do their jobs.
       The second reason is a bias against public schools in some 
     corners of the Bush Administration. By torturing the intent 
     of the federal law, the Administration has been able to twist 
     ``objective'' measures of progress into evidence of rapid 
     decline. In so doing, the Administration has thrown public 
     schools on the defensive. By making public schools appear 
     unsuccessful, the Administration creates more rationale, and 
     more momentum behind their anti-public school, pro-voucher 
     agenda.
       The Department of Education has badly misinterpreted the 
     law. The Department has made a lot of very good schools look 
     very bad by insisting that schools test and evaluate children 
     in programs for special education and English as a Second 
     Language using the same tests as those taken by mainstream 
     students. These students' test scores are included in the 
     overall proficiency standards. We must help every child 
     realize his or her potential, but these tests are not 
     appropriate for these students. The law simply requires 
     states to use appropriate standards for every child. The 
     Department of Education can, and should, easily make this 
     correction.
       The No Child Left Behind Act was intended to ensure high 
     standards for our teachers. However, the law was not intended 
     to interfere with successful state standards, such as we have 
     in New Jersey. The correct interpretation of the bill, as 
     intended by Congress, is to allow teachers, in states with 
     high standards, to continue to be certified by their state. 
     Again, the Federal Department of Education has wrongly 
     implementing the law by demanding that our very best teachers 
     meet a different set of federal standards. At a time of 
     severe teacher shortages, this policy seems driven by an 
     anti-public school bias, designed to discourage advancement 
     in the profession, and to encourage the retirement of our 
     longest serving public school teachers.

[[Page 26139]]

       The final problem with the No Child Left Behind Act is 
     simply one of dollars and cents. When the law was passed, the 
     Bush Administration agreed to provide adequate funding for 
     education in exchange for strong accountability laws and 
     tough standards. But in 2004, the Administration underfunds 
     our schools by $8 billion, and then plans to impose strict 
     sanctions on schools that don't meet the strict federal 
     standards. Without adequate federal resources, South Jersey 
     will likely experience an upward pressure on local property 
     taxes, or face a public school system in chaos.
       In May, I met with educational leaders from around the 
     State of New Jersey to discuss the problems of funding and 
     federal implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. Since 
     then, these problems have become even more evident. I have 
     called on the Bush Administration to correct these problems 
     through the regulatory process. If no action is taken by the 
     Department of Education to fix these problems, I am committed 
     to correcting these faults through legislation. I have 
     already spoken with the Chairman of the House Education and 
     the Workforce Committee, and he has acknowledged the problem.
       The No Child Left Behind Act has the potential to help 
     students around the country. But unless the Department of 
     Education infuses some badly-needed common sense into its 
     rules, and unless the Bush Administration provides the money 
     it has promised to our local schools, too many children will 
     be left behind.

                          ____________________