Teachers unions move too quickly to dismiss reforms
States that have long led the way in the move to hold schools accountable for student progress now are seeing payoffs. This month, Minnesota school officials reported increases in test scores. The same phenomenon is occurring in North Carolina.
Both states are making gains by reducing the gaps between middle-class and low-income students, blacks and whites, and native English speakers and those with limited English skills. Propelling the progress were strict state mandates forcing schools to pay attention to lower-performing students. The same method lies at the heart of the two-year-old federal law, the No Child Left Behind Act, which kicks in seriously this fall.

But to hear the national teachers unions talk, little good can come from the law. This month, National Education Association President Reg Weaver vowed to sue the federal government for setting mandates without funding them. And American Federation of Teachers President Sandra Feldman complained that the requirements are too strict, though she pledged to comply with them.

The unions view the tough mandates as a set-up. They fear the law guarantees schools will fail by requiring too much, too fast. That could boost the demand for the government to provide private-school vouchers — a move that would dilute union power.

The paranoia isn't baseless. Some schools clearly will fail to meet deadlines for improving student and teacher performance. But the alternative is worse — both for students and the future of public schools: Taxpayers and lawmakers won't be inclined to keep throwing money at a failing enterprise.

Rather than recognize that danger and help make needed school reforms succeed, the unions are trying to block them by raising objections that don't stand up under scrutiny. Among the unions' complaints:

•Washington won'tfund the reforms. While the goal of ensuring that all children learn at "proficient" levels by 2014 will require more federal aid, Washington has shown it is prepared to provide it. Since passing the school reform law in 2001, Congress has boosted spending on poor students. New York City schools, for example, receive an extra $1,807 in federal dollars for every poor student — an increase of 53% during the past two years. What's more, many schools are implementing the reforms without massive infusions of money.

• The goals are unrealistic. The goals set for 2014 are ambitious. Yet a sizable number of schools with predominantly low-income students have shown they can keep up the required pace. Their secrets can be shared with schools still struggling.

• The reforms are anti-teacher. The unions say requiring every child to have a "highly qualified" teacher within two years punishes competent teachers assigned subjects in which they lack expertise. Congress addressed this concern, however, by increasing teacher-training grants in the past two years from $2.1 billion to $2.9 billion. And the drive for high-quality teachers is something the unions have long favored.

The importance of the reforms is not lost on the public. According to a poll released in June by the Business Roundtable, a group of corporate executives, 93% of parents surveyed expressed concern about a school where white students succeed but minority students do not.

The school reforms were passed to ensure that learning gap is closed. By embracing them instead of fighting them, the teachers unions can help all public students get the high-quality education they deserve.

Reform law is flawed
By Reg Weaver
The National Education Association (NEA) has always been dedicated to the goal of leaving no child behind. We have tirelessly advocated for measures that would improve student achievement. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that we support the stated intent of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Our concerns are that the impractical implementation requirements of this law are as detrimental to its success as is its lack of funding.
As an example, under the law's "Adequate Yearly Progress" (AYP) provision, all children are expected to learn the same information at the same rate. Parents know that each child learns in an individual way. It is illogical and impractical to expect every child to have the same skill and ability or be expected to learn and achieve at the same rate.

There is no one-size-fits-all prescription for student achievement. Teachers are trained to assess their students by utilizing a variety of assessment tools. They not only determine the best ways to teach students, but also help determine how much students have learned and retained. Unfortunately, the AYP provision amounts to a single, high-stakes test to determine the success of the student, the teacher and the school.

This one example emphasizes why the NEA proposed critical amendments to the law. Our proposals will provide flexibility to states in identifying and targeting schools that need the most attention, reduce reliance on a single test as a measure of a student's achievement, define requirements of a highly qualified teacher that close loopholes and grant states flexibility, and require Congress to fully fund this law.

The NEA looks forward to joining states and localities in challenging provisions that force districts to spend billions of dollars to implement these underfunded mandates.

The administration proposes a cut of $1.2 billion for K-12 schools while imposing additional mandates. At the same time, from coast to coast, cash-strapped states are laying off teachers and other school employees, and cutting student and teacher programs.

Funding is fundamental to reform. Had there been resources to support education reform, the goals of NCLB would have been a reality long ago. By fixing and funding NCLB, we will ensure that Congress keeps its promise, and we will ensure great public schools for every child.

Reg Weaver is president of the National Education Association.