Washington's inflexibility hurts school reform efforts

In 2002, Marshall High School, which serves a poor section of Portland, Ore., landed on a federal "needs improvement" list for a second year in a row. It triggered a provision under a new federal school-reform law that lets students transfer to better schools in Portland. And 40 students did just that.

School officials would have preferred a less-disruptive option to help the students: tutoring. But the federal law won't pay for tutors until a school is listed as underperforming for three straight years. That doesn't make sense to educators, who say transfers should be considered only after other efforts to improve student performance.

In fact, to more and more states across the country, many of the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act defy logic. This month, Indiana's state board of education gave the law a vote of no confidence. Oklahoma's legislature did the same last month, joining a dozen other states that have protested portions of the law. Even one of its architects, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., has cited flaws that need fixing.

Two years into this sweeping effort to improve education for all students, states are encountering bumps in the road. Yet, instead of responding to these predictable bumps, the government is reluctant to make sensible mid-course corrections. In some areas, such as transfers, the Department of Education clings to overly rigid rules. In others, it provides inadequate guidance for meeting tougher standards set by the law.

The government's recalcitrance fuels obstructionist efforts by groups that never backed the reforms. And it alienates schools that can embrace this law as a pathway to a high-quality education for poor and minority students shortchanged in the classroom.

A common complaint is that schools are tripped up by rules that result in the schools being branded as "failing." For example, if a school tests 94% of special education students, it can run afoul of the law, which requires 95% to take tests to track their progress. That's one reason nearly 30% of the nation's 90,000 public schools failed last fall to make the gains required by the law, more than double the number of schools that education experts rate as truly troubled.

Fine-tuning provisions to increase federal support and remove unreasonable demands could prompt more schools to strive to reach the law's goals. Some changes include:

•Making tutoring available earlier. Allowing students to transfer from a failing school makes sense. But offering transfers before tutoring deprives schools of a valuable tool for improving students' performance and the schools' overall rating. At Marshall, 200 students who would have attended the school this year opted to go elsewhere, largely because of publicity about the 40 transfers the year before.

•Revisiting special education rules. The law sets an admirable goal of making sure that 90% of special education students learn at the same level as other students. But many educators say the rule is unrealistic because the percentage of children with learning disabilities who are able to keep up with other students is much lower. They want more flexibility in deciding how many special education students can handle schoolwork at a normal pace.

Education Secretary Rod Paige says his department has made accommodations. And in some cases, he's right. For example, last month it dropped a requirement that states give reading tests to non-English-speaking students who just entered schools.

Still, Washington has failed to adopt other needed fixes that are costing the law support. Smoothing out more bumps along the way could help ensure the nation reaches the goal of a better education for everyone.

Every school has room to improve, and NCLB ensures weak areas are identified and fixed. Think of it this way: Even Shaquille O'Neal needs improvement. He is an excellent basketball player, but his free-throw percentage could be better.

Like many schools, O'Neal needs to spend some time on part of his game. But nobody would call him a failure.

NCLB also respects the importance of local control. That's why the states, not the federal government, set achievement levels and define which schools make the grade.

Thus, if one-third of a state's schools did not meet the expectation levels set by their state education department, it is unfair to blame the federal government. Instead, that state should be applauded for setting such high standards and identifying the problem. Under NCLB, those schools will get increased resources. Parents have choices, and the "system" is being forced to respond to them and their children: the customers.

This law is just two years old. We are listening to feedback from educators, parents and administrators and fine-tuning the law's implementation in ways that are good for students. Some organizations are suggesting "fixes" that already were rejected during the bipartisan legislative process, because they gut the law and don't help children.

We will continue to enhance the law and give states flexibility. But this is a good and necessary law. It will prepare U.S. students for the bright future they deserve, one they can achieve only if they get a high-quality education. NCLB gives them just that.

Rod Paige is secretary of Education.