Kurt Gutknecht and Bill Livick pen an interesting article, published recently in the Fitchburg Star:

Several teachers at area schools did not return calls asking for their opinion on the act. Administrators were less reluctant to weigh in.
The principal of a Madison middle school, who did not want to be identified, gave a qualified endorsement to the act for focusing on essential skills and for including all students.
“They’re reasonable standards. A student can’t solve problems if she can’t read well,” the principal said.
Madison schools have a good foundation in addressing the needs of all students, which predated the act, according to the principal. Of greater concern was the act’s requirement that specialists teach every content area, which could force many qualified teachers from the profession. Although it’s not unreasonable to focus on formal teaching standards, “it seems ludicrous” because “many of our most effective teachers are generalists,” said the principal, particularly when there’s no funding for training.
The requirements of the act have “terrified” some teachers, who fear being labeled as ineffective and are concerned about teaching in a school that’s labeled as having failed, according to the principal.

Unless something changes, the No Child Left Behind Act could eventually leave all schools behind within a few years, according to educational administrators in the area.
So far, schools have accommodated the legislation, which is officially known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, without noticeable effect.
But many anticipate major problems a few years from now when schools that haven’t met the standards are subject to sanctions. When that happens, schools will be squarely in the center of a debate involving some of the most contentious issues in American society, including race, segregated housing and poverty, as well as funding for education.
Implementation of the act unleashed a storm of criticism and comment.
Opponents portrayed it as a draconian attempt to punish teachers – or even as a prelude to “teacherless education.” Proponents touted it as a long overdue attempt to enforce discipline and responsibility on an unwieldy and recalcitrant educational bureaucracy.
As in most things, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. In a recent column, Art Rainwater, the superintendent of the Madison Metropolitan School District, said the act “captures both the best and worst of current educational thought” – and also predicted that “all of our nation’s schools” will eventually be subject to sanctions for failing to have made “adequate yearly progress” as defined by the legislation. According to Rainwater, the best of the act is the reliance of “academic performance data” to assess performance, particularly of children of color and those who live in poverty. The same tests are also linked to the worst aspects of the act, according to Rainwater, which will use the results “to create a punitive climate for change.”
Every aspect of the act has generated controversy, including the tests used to assess compliance.
There’s concern that the narrow focus on math and reading fails to adequately encompass the efficacy of education and will lead to teaching for the test instead. A recent issue of the newsletter of the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the teachers’ union, recounted the experiences of several teachers who said the testing requirements are “robbing students of valuable learning time and disrupting the learning atmosphere in schools,” in addition to increasing the pressure on young kids to perform well on tests.
Several teachers at area schools did not return calls asking for their opinion on the act. Administrators were less reluctant to weigh in.
The principal of a Madison middle school, who did not want to be identified, gave a qualified endorsement to the act for focusing on essential skills and for including all students.
“They’re reasonable standards. A student can’t solve problems if she can’t read well,” the principal said.
Madison schools have a good foundation in addressing the needs of all students, which predated the act, according to the principal. Of greater concern was the act’s requirement that specialists teach every content area, which could force many qualified teachers from the profession. Although it’s not unreasonable to focus on formal teaching standards, “it seems ludicrous” because “many of our most effective teachers are generalists,” said the principal, particularly when there’s no funding for training.
The requirements of the act have “terrified” some teachers, who fear being labeled as ineffective and are concerned about teaching in a school that’s labeled as having failed, according to the principal.
With the strength of the teachers’ union, however, there’s little concern about job loss if a class fails to meet the standards, the principal said.
Although the school hadn’t yet incurred substantial costs associated with testing, costs could be substantial in a “failing” school if its teachers and other staff members are replaced. Eventually, however, the principal predicted the act would lead to the “sacrifice” of instruction in areas other than math and reading and the continued loss of all staff not directly involved in teaching. “I wish we didn’t have to make that choice, but it’s coming,” the principal said, particularly as Madison schools become blacker, browner and poorer.
The principal agreed that eventually nearly all schools would fail to meet the standards specified by the act.
Administrators at other area school districts echoed that assessment. The act has focused more attention on students with particular needs, said Jane Peschel, director of instruction with the Oregon School District, but she also questioned whether they could bring all students to proficient and advanced standards by 2014, as is required by the act.
She insisted that the district wasn’t purchasing or using material geared to the tests, and said the act had increased the district’s emphasis on being accountable.
Administrators with the Verona Area School District, whose students are more diverse than in Oregon, weren’t as charitable in their assessment of the act. A large number of African-American students in the district performed at the minimal level in reading, which meant the school narrowly avoided sanctions, said Linda Christensen, the district’s director of curriculum.
The district took measures to correct the problem but the performance of these students still lags behind African-American students attending school in Madison. The act’s focus on reading and math worries Christensen.
“With time, attention and money going only to reading and math, I worry what will happen to other content areas,” Christensen said.
While praising some aspects of the bill, Verona Superintendent Dean Gorrell said the act was punitive and unrealistic in demanding 100 percent proficiency. “There isn’t any organization that has 100 percent efficiency,” he said.
Students attending a school that fails to meet standards for two consecutive years can transfer to schools that do meet these standards, which Christensen said could lead to disparities in enrollment, exacerbating crowding in some schools and vacant classrooms in others.
If performance doesn’t meet standards of the act, schools are supposed to implement an improvement plan that’s approved and supervised by the state department of public instruction, which lacks the staff to provide the necessary assistance, Christensen said. Sanctions may also involve the loss of state funding, further worsening the plight of these schools.
Students who don’t perform up to standards can also request tutors, although it’s not clear who would bear the cost, Gorrell said.
And it’s not as if a district can simply opt out of the act since it’s linked to federal Title 1 aid. Even if a district opted not to accept federal funds, it would still be bound by the testing standards.
The Verona district received $133,000 in Title 1 funds this year. “It’s not a tremendous amount, but given our budget situation, it’s not insignificant,” Gorrell said. Christensen said some states have considered rejecting Title 1 funds to avoid complying with the act. The district has already incurred substantial costs to comply with the act, including the time required for eight-hour tests, Christensen said. Gorrell estimated the district invested thousands of hours of staff time in testing and many more hours to prepare for tests.
Despite the criticisms, Christensen thinks the act will remain, even with a change in administration at the federal level. Educators are hoping that the law will allow for more flexibility in how progress is measured, particularly for disadvantaged students, Christensen said.
As matters now stand, the No Child Left Behind Act appears likely to leave every school behind. That might not happen if schools had lavish budgets to deal with the demands and consequences of the act. They don’t – and they probably won’t. In a few years, holding educators accountable – at least by the standards of the act—may prove to be much less attractive than anyone expected.-