The principals' complaints parallel a lot of the changes states are seeking for NCLB.
Some complaints from principals included:
*Schools that made "Adequate Yearly Progress" in the first year of the program saw an influx of students from schools that didn't make the cut because the law allows children in failing schools to transfer. "If you get that designation, they send you kids with low test scores, which helps bring you down further," one principal wrote. As a result, schools that initially met the standards have fallen into the "needs improvement" category.
*The number of students learning English as a second language fluctuates from year to year. Under NCLB, schools are evaluated by comparing this year's students to the previous year's students at the same grade level. If one class comes along with a disproportionate number of pupils who lack basic English skills (or any other trait that hampers their performance on standardized tests), it's difficult for that class to outperform the one that preceded it.
*Many schools are making real progress, but, because the standards are tougher every year, they are listed as not making Adequate Yearly Progress.
The proposals that states have made to the Department of Education seem tailored to address these complaints. States are asking the feds to allow them to evaluate the progress of individual students over time, rather than the progress of one year's class compared to the previous year's class. That change would go along way to solving the first two problems mentioned above.
Many are also asking to be allowed to count students who are improving their performance as proficient, even if they wouldn't be considered proficient under the present standards. That change would address the third complaint, but it might also be viewed as an unacceptable effort to water down of the program. By May, the Department of Education is expected to announce which of the 20 waiver requests it is granting, so we should know soon.
