---

Do Act 51
and No Child
contradict each other?

Today in Hawaii two forces drive education: the Reinventing Education Act of 2004 (Act 51) and the No Child Left Behind Act, signed into law in 2002.

To explain NCLB, consider this statement: Hawaii's school children are showing encouraging improvement in reading and math, but two-thirds of Hawaii's schools are failing. This sentence seems to contradict itself, and that is the paradox posed by NCLB.

Just as the launch of Sputnik by the Russians in 1957 forced U.S. schools to focus with a national determination on math and science, NCLB forces schools to focus with laser precision on improving test scores. Failure to abide by NCLB rules means states and local school districts risk losing federal education dollars. For Hawaii this amounts to more than $350 million yearly.

Many states are becoming restive under the yearly testing requirements and other provisions of NCLB. The state of Connecticut has filed suit, arguing that states are being forced to use their own money to meet federal education mandates. The National Council on State Legislatures has labeled NCLB "underfunded, coercive, and unconstitutional."

It's hard to argue with the goals of NCLB. However, the devil is in the details, and the details of NCLB are puzzling. It's all stick and no carrot. Rather than rewarding schools that improve their scores, it's all about punishing schools that don't.

In addition, even if the school as a whole meets yearly benchmarks, if just one student sub-population (i.e., special education students, limited English speaking students, etc.) fails to meet the benchmarks, then the school as a whole fails.

Spring 2005 testing results show that two-thirds of Hawaii's public schools did not make adequate yearly progress in meeting new and harder benchmarks. Twenty additional schools face NCLB's harshest penalty, restructuring. In more than half of these schools, the school as a whole achieved proficiency targets, but one or more student sub-groups fell short.

Do Hawaii's Act 51 and the federal NCLB complement each other or clash?

Act 51 is all about shifting decision-making down to the school level. Rather than the state DOE deciding what's best for schools, principals and their School Community Councils will make these decisions. However, under NCLB, if a school falls into "restructuring" status it will be taken over by the state Department of Education.

Currently 24 schools are in restructuring, with an additional 16-20 now facing this sanction. In these schools, unfortunately, the intent of Act 51 to empower the school is being cancelled out by the mandates of NCLB.

Further, Act 51 money will be distributed to schools using a weighted student formula starting in 2006-'07. More than 65 percent of schools that are currently in restructuring or will be soon will lose money under the weighted funding method. Does it make sense to decrease funding to schools struggling under the threat of NCLB punishments? Does it make sense to take money away from schools that are managing, with huge effort, to meet yearly benchmarks? Both will happen under the current weighted student funding formulation.

Clearly, Act 51 and NCLB seem on a collision course in some respects. Yet, the intent of both is to prepare children for a world that needs their best efforts. I hope the Legislature, the Board of Education and the state DOE will continue to work on a weighted student funding allocation system that supports schools as they face the challenges of NCLB. The winners will be Hawaii's children.

---