State-based school reforms require vigilant oversight

Faced with a federal deadline to define a "highly qualified" teacher, Washington state recently decided middle school teachers could continue to teach any subject — even if they never mastered the topic in college or proved they are knowledgeable about it. In fact, all they need is certification to teach elementary school.
Tennessee, by contrast, will require its middle school teachers to meet exacting standards. They must have majored in their assigned subject, have a graduate degree in it or pass a test to show their knowledge.

Obviously, a teacher's competency shouldn't vary based on state residency. Yet that's the result of the national education reform law, No Child Left Behind, now taking effect. It lets each state set its own standards on everything from what constitutes a dangerous school to who's qualified to teach.

The result is a confusing patchwork of contradictory standards that jeopardizes the national goal of making all students proficient learners by 2014.

The problem can be traced to a compromise made in 2001. Members of Congress agreed to pass a law giving unprecedented federal oversight of schools if states were given latitude to define their own standards.

Such an agreement only makes sense if the standards states develop are designed to improve public education, not skirt the new law. Without strong federal oversight, too many states are doing just that.

The latest example arose last week as states described their plans to provide students with "highly qualified" teachers by spring of 2006. The law specifies that teachers be certified in the subject they teach or pass a test. Yet Missouri lets teachers instruct outside their fields as long as they have positive job evaluations. Mississippi requires only that teachers take roughly a year's worth of college courses in an unfamiliar subject, far below what colleges require for a major.

These are hardly isolated occurrences. Conflicting state standards have surfaced for two other reforms targeted by the law:

• School safety. Children in persistently dangerous schools are entitled to transfer. But when given the freedom to define those schools, California created a definition so narrow that not a single school qualified as risky — a conclusion that certainly surprised some parents in tough neighborhoods.

•Low-performing schools. Florida concluded that nearly 90% of its public schools failed to achieve the "adequate yearly progress" demanded by the law. In Delaware, half the schools fell into that category. In Minnesota, though, only 8% fell short.

State flexibility doesn't ensure failure. However, it does demand vigilance on the part of the public. For example, California officials backed down from a flimsy definition of a "highly qualified" teacher after public pressure forced the state's hand.

The U.S. Department of Education, whose oversight of the law has been spotty, also can be an effective watchdog when it gets involved. Louisiana, for instance, finally agreed to report students' test results broken down by race — a key part of the law — because the department stood its ground.

The same type of accountability is required for evaluating all aspects of the education standards the states are setting.

State-based education reforms sound good in theory, but not if they allow a school's quality, teachers or safety to vary dramatically from one state to the next.

State flexibility is key
By John Boehner

Since 1965, the federal government has invested hundreds of billions of dollars in our public schools — with few results. Taxpayers are right to expect a return on their annual investment in K-12 education. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), passed with bipartisan support and signed by President Bush, should finally give it to them.
For the first time, all states have adopted their own unique academic accountability plans, rooted in the belief that all children — regardless of their race, income or disability — can learn. This feat, a direct result of NCLB, is historic. Under NCLB, in exchange for billions in federal aid, states agree to establish meaningful standards for academic progress and teacher quality, and ensure public schools work to meet those standards. Achievement gaps between disadvantaged students and their peers — hidden from public view for decades — must be reported and closed. Parents must be notified when children are in classes not taught by highly qualified teachers.

One of NCLB's best features is that it allows states to set their own standards for schools, rather than imposing federal standards that all must meet. Congress penned NCLB with a recognition that a "one size fits all" approach to education doesn't work. What works in Boston may not work in Walla Walla. What matters is that public schools in all states are accountable for results. NCLB requires this, while preserving the time-tested right of states to set their own standards and design their own systems.

To ensure the gains being made in each state are real, NCLB requires a small, randomly chosen sample of students in each state to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). This allows test results to be compared among states without imposing a national test that all students in all states must take, and without imposing a national teacher quality standard on local schools.

We won't close the achievement gap overnight, or without any "bumps in the road." But we do have the framework in place to do it. The No Child Left Behind Act provides this framework without imposing rigid federal standards on states. It's the right approach for our children's future.

Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, is chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.