How No Child Left Behind changes could affect you

Through all the frustrations of No Child Left Behind legislation -- test score ups and downs, failing grades for typically top-notch schools, cries that the expectations are too high and the sanctions too severe -- there has been one enduring and uniting understanding: Every child matters.

And that piece isn't up for negotiation, educators say, as the landmark law undergoes reauthorization this fall.

Yet dozens of other chunks of the education-altering act, from the standards by which schools, districts and states are judged to what happens when they fall short, are.

Some are even hopeful the most basic piece -- the stipulation that every single child be proficient in math and reading by the year 2014 -- is at least reconsidered.

One Washington, D.C., organization is lobbying for a 95 percent success rate and an extended timeline to get there, coupled with a requirement that schools also get 80 percent of their kids to a set "college ready" threshold hammered out by educators from colleges on down.

"It essentially is a deal with the states," Amy Wilkins, vice president of The Education Trust, explains. "We'd give you more time (to succeed) if you give us more rigor."

Several other proposals, including some that could notably impact Illinois schools, already have made their way into draft legislation from the U.S. House. The Senate still is working on draft legislation.

Still other ideas are being pitched by ordinary educators as the reauthorization process -- which some say won't wrap up until well after next year's presidential election -- slowly marches on.

Elgin High School science teacher Deb Perryman, for one, says the whole thing should be chucked so the nation can start over, weighing first the concerns of parents, teachers and others.

A lot of good things have come out of the No Child law, she says -- but she predicts more failing schools, more teacher discord and more unhappy educators if some major things don't change.

Here's a look at some suggested legislation tweaks that could impact school success.

• Use a "growth model" to determine school success: This change, included in the House draft bill, would give credit for gains made in student achievement over time.

It's an idea applauded by educators, who long have said such an approach would be a better success indicator than the setup now, which compares entirely different groups of kids year-to-year.

Educators also say it would help in circumstances where students start out behind.

At Elgin High, Perryman says colleagues have had ninth-graders come in reading at a fourth-grade level.

It's a success to move them ahead one level or a bit more, she says. It may be impossible to get them up to par.

Ed DeYoung, Elgin Area School District U-46's test score guru, is confident the nation will move to a system that looks at student growth rather than insisting all kids jump over the same bar.

"The alternative," DeYoung cautions, "is to self-destruct as a nation."

• A 15-state pilot program of local assessments: This suggestion, part of the House draft, would allow states to try out the process of judging accountability based on local, district-generated exams as well as a uniform state test.

Wilkins, though, said that would undermine the integrity of the whole system.

"The power of NCLB is to say, 'one standard, all kids,' " she says. "No matter what school district they're in, no matter what color they are, no matter how much money Mommy and Daddy make."

She also fears developing such tests could cost school systems time and money.

• Include other subjects, and encourage states to put adequate emphasis on music and arts: Right now, No Child success is based on two subjects: math and reading.

Under this change, pushed by the Center on Education Policy in Washington, D.C., exams in social studies and science, already part of the testing process in Illinois, also could count toward determining schools' progress.

As well, schools would have to take care to emphasize art and music in addition to core subjects. The center suggests states even could consider using art and music as part of the accountability system.

That No Child stifles creativity in the classroom and diverts most cash to the subjects that are tested long has been an allegation of teachers in the Chicago suburbs.

To that end, Perryman and others also are pushing for the revised law to add support for even more school subjects, like environmental literacy and service learning.

"I'm really afraid that the way NCLB is moving (now), a lot of the creative kind of teaching may go out the window," Perryman worries.

• Multiple measures for determining success: Like the changes mentioned above, this tweak specifically would mean schools are judged on things other than scores in math and reading alone.

Issues well beyond scores, like graduation rates, could end up playing a big role.

Hailed as a way to take a more multifaceted view of the school, Wilkins' group scoffs at this approach, saying it's a compensatory notion: It allows schools to succeed when in fact they maybe shouldn't.

"As a parent, if I know a school isn't making progress in reading and math, I really don't have any other questions," she says. "I know then that's a troubled school."

But Diane Rentner, director of national programs for the Center on Education Policy, says looking at reading and math only is a poor way to gauge success. Her group has talked with teachers across the nation to weigh their feelings on No Child.

"In the existing law, you're basing all this accountability on two tests that kids take on two different days," she says.

• Change in subgroup size: The draft legislation out now calls for capping the size of subgroups -- brackets of kids in each school who fit certain income, ability, language and race criteria -- at 30 students.

Today, that group size can differ from state to state.

Illinois requires schools to have 45 kids in a given category before having to be held accountable for them. Other states have higher thresholds.

Changing the size no doubt would create new subgroups in some Illinois schools that don't now have them -- since it would take fewer kids, not a full 45, to qualify. That, in turn, could affect how a school ends up performing.

A study by Steve Cordogan, who crunches test scores in Northwest Suburban High School District 214, suggests schools with more subgroups are more likely to fall short of goals, at least under today's No Child pass-fail standards.

• Prioritized failure system: Experts say there is general agreement that this change, which would differentiate between schools that miss the passing mark by a mile and those that miss it by an inch, would be a good one.

Today, all failing schools, even if they fall short by a bit in only one area, face the same set of strict sanctions.

The proposed House draft calls for separating failing schools into two clear groups: priority, and high priority. The latter would mean the school requires more aid.

"I think people realize we have limited resources, and that there are some schools that really do need more help," Rentner said. "Not all schools are exactly the same."

Such a law could mean a big change in Illinois, where many top-notch schools have found themselves on federal failing lists because of seemingly minor slip-ups. One year, Rolling Meadows High failed only because too few Hispanics took the test, even though students there had made clear academic gains.