NCLB changes could mean more local control

In the wake of last week’s announcement that the federal No Child Left Behind Act will now allow states some flexibility in meeting its education requirements, SAD 44 Supt. Dave Murphy said the change may mean more local control and other options for measuring student progress.

The NCLB, signed into law in 2002 by Pres. George W. Bush, established standards for schools to achieve “adequate yearly progress,” by having a set percentage of students score at certain levels in annual testing. The act has since generated debate about how realistic its goals are.

“Currently, one of the biggest challenges in Maine's schools is to meet the ever increasing percent-age necessary for schools to meet AYP,” said Murphy. “It’s worth noting that the proficiency target for Grades 3-8 reading was 66 percent in 2009-2010, but that was increased to 75 percent in 2010 -2011. Similarly, the target for math proficiency jumped from 60 to 70 percent during that same time.”

The required percentage of proficiency to meet AYP has increased steadily, with the current goal of 100 percent proficiency by 2014.

“Failure to reach these percentages can portray a school or school district in a negative light, even if there is specific progress that is being made,” said Murphy. “Sometimes it can be just a very few scores within a single subgroup that prevents a school from reaching AYP.”

Such groups could include specific ethnic populations, economically disadvantaged students and special-education students.

If a school does not meet AYP, districts are required to set aside 10 percent from their federal Title I allocation for additional professional development, “thus reducing the amount of funds available to provide staff to support the Title I program,” Murphy said.

Title I provides academic assistance to at-risk students.

In the past, said Murphy, Telstar Middle School has had years when the specific achievement stan-dards in either reading or math were not met by all subgroups within the school. In those situations, additional professional development was provided and school improvement plans were developed.

President Obama’s announcement of the easing of requirements, said Murphy, will allow states to seek waivers from the federal government to develop alternatives to certain aspects of NCLB.

He said Maine Education Commissioner Stephen Bowen will work with stakeholders in upcoming months to develop a waiver proposal for Maine.

“Increased flexibility will likely be one of the key advantages of any waiver that is submitted and approved,” Murphy said.

Depending on the possible waiver, he said, “schools may have the chance to measure individual student growth rather than comparing grade level achievements from year to year. Increased local control at the state and district level could also prove to be beneficial.

“As it should be, the responsibility to improve achievement will still be significant but the way that is measured may put us in a better position to move forward in a way that can be more positive. Teacher and administrator accountability is certain to be an area of focus that will be included in any waiver that is approved.”

Murphy said that despite any NCLB shortcomings, “it would only be fair to note that NCLB has had some very positive impacts on teaching and learning over the years. We have become better and tracking data and using information to address curriculum improvements. There has been an increased focus across the state on graduation rates.

“The yearly testing, although time consuming, has provided us with data that we did not previously possess and, more importantly, our staff members have become better at using that information to improve instruction.

And in the case of TMS, he said, the NCLB process helped the school address the identified areas of concern and develop a plan to meet the necessary standards.

“The problem has been more in the way of the unrealistic targets that have been set. Under an approved waiver, schools will still be held to an ever-increasing level of accountability and that is how it should be, but, ideally, the way that progress is measured should prove to be more realistic and meaningful.”