Guest editorial

We hear so often that the schools are failing that we begin to believe such claims.

Recently the media reported that 42% of America’s public schools are failing. The newscasters, however, did not look behind the curtain to see the larger picture. Children are more than tests and statistics.

When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (aka No Child Left Behind or NCLB) of 2002 was re-authorized, the aim was to help all pubic school students succeed. Translated, this means that by 2014 ALL public school students – 100% – must pass their state tests in reading and mathematics in order for the schools to meet the federal requirements (Adequate Yearly Progress or AYP).

Unfortunately, this goal of 100% success set up the public schools for failure. Here is how that happened:

Under the law, by 2014 each public school must achieve 100% success for boys and girls in reading and mathematics in each of these 9 categories: 1) all students, 2) low income students, 3) special education students, 4) English-language learners (non-native speakers), 5) Asian/Pacific Islanders, 6) blacks, 7) Hispanics, 8) Native Americans, and 9) whites.

These nine categories become 9 cells or groups in reading and 9 cells in mathematics. In other words, public schools must achieve a 100% success rate in each of the 18 cells by 2014 or be deemed a failure. That means that even if one group in the 18 does not make 100%, then the school fails.

The stakes could not be any higher.

The state has determined that the minimum number of students in each cell is 30. This means that if a school has 30 or more students in 10th grade, then by 2014 all 30+ students must pass the state tests in reading and mathematics. If there are fewer than 30 students in any one cell, then that part is not held against a school district.

According to the website of the Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, in 2010-2011 approximately 68 of the state’s 295 public school districts met the AYP requirements thus far. Most of these schools are small, Odessa being one of the “passing” schools. The other 227 schools are failing as of 2011.

For small schools like Odessa, this is a temporary blessing – so far. For example, in 2010-2011 students in Odessa’s grades 3-5 and grades 6-8 met the law’s requirements for the categories “all students” and “whites.” The other categories did not contain 30 or more students.

Recently, the US Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, recognized that NCLB is a failed system that has, in effect, failed the public schools in this nation because of its unattainable goal of 100% success in each cell.

Numerous states are now applying for waivers so they will not be held accountable for meeting the draconian federal requirements of a well-intentioned but ill-designed law.

Remember, unless the law changes – and there is talk now about this happening – if even one student fails in any cell, then the whole school is labeled a “failure.” 100% means 100% – it does not matter if a student who is in this country for her second or third year cannot speak English proficiently, she must still pass the tests, written in English. If one student has a bad day because of some family turmoil or comes to school hungry or abused or stayed up until midnight playing video games and he fails the tests, then the school is called “failing.”

So, when you hear the claim that schools are failing, ask what that really means.

Ask what categories the school is passing with 100% and what categories are not at 100%. Is the supermajority passing? If so, how is that a “failing” school?

Is poverty an issue? If so, how much of a role does poverty exert in students’ academic success?

Is there a large enrollment of ethnic minorities? Do they all speak and read English proficiently or are they still learning the language? Non-native speakers usually take 5-7 years to adequately learn English. Knowing English proficiently, though, does matter on the state tests.

Traditionally, many boys struggle with reading. Is that an issue? And traditionally, some girls do not perform in math as well as boys do. Is that a concern?

And what about a child’s health (mental and physical) on the days leading up to the tests or on the day of a test? How is health measured for its impact on test results?

The federal law does not interest itself with any aspect of any student’s life that may interfere with passing the state tests. All that matters is the 100% target – just the numbers, please; just the stats.

As much as we may favor the notion of all children achieving 100% success, children are not robots responding as programmed. They do not develop at the same pace or reach the same weight or height or intelligence.

If the federal law were based on each student’s demonstrable progress over time, then that would be a worthy aim. Wouldn’t that goal be far more reasonable and realistic than the current cold-hearted adherence to 100%?