This letter to the editor by Eric Earling, the Deputy Secretary's Regional Representative in Region X, appeared in the Salem Statesman Journal (Oregon) on April 7, 2007.

A March 26 reprint of a Medford Mail Tribune editorial ("Another View: No Child Left Behind") professed support for the "central concept" of the No Child Left Behind Act, including accountability and measuring students to show results. But the rest of the piece recycled critical and outdated myths and clichés.

First, let's set the record straight on funding. Oregon is scheduled to receive nearly $219 million for NCLB in the president's next budget. Under the law, states receive not only increased resources, but greater flexibility to invest those resources in what works, such as proven reading instruction and teacher training. In exchange, they are expected to show progress in getting students to read and do math at grade level or better. This compact is one reason it passed Congress with strong bipartisan support five years ago, including the votes of every Oregon Congressman and U.S. Senator.

What are the results? For starters, more reading progress was made by 9-year-olds in five years (1999-2004) than in the previous 28 years combined. Also, math scores for 9- and 13-year-olds have reached new heights. And achievement gaps in reading and math between African-American and Hispanic 9-year-olds and their white peers have narrowed to all-time lows. That's progress.

There's specific evidence NCLB is working in Oregon as well. Last year, a significantly higher percentage of Oregon's Title I schools -- which receive the lion's share of federal funding -- made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) than others. These schools serve economically disadvantaged communities and student populations that have historically struggled the most. The success of Oregon's educators in helping improve their performance is a testament to their dedication and commitment, but also to the power of NCLB.

Second, schools that do not meet their AYP goals are not "punished" with loss of funds. On the contrary, they receive increased support to get back on track. NCLB has spurred a 65 percent increase since 2001 in annual Title I funding for Oregon's most economically disadvantaged students. The law does allow qualified students in underperforming schools to receive outside tutoring or transfer to a traditional public school or public charter school that better meets their learning needs.

The editorial also implied that NCLB is unfair because it measures students with disabilities. They, too, have the potential to learn and improve. Under new U.S. Department of Education policies, states may use an alternate assessment for students with cognitive disabilities who are nevertheless capable of reaching high academic standards over time.

Finally, I must take issue with the charge that NCLB stifles creativity. Take a look around. All across the country, schools are starting after-school classes, providing one-on-one counseling and even holding contests to motivate their students to perform well. Pep rallies used to be held just for sports. Now they're being held for academics.

No Child Left Behind is working and should be strengthened, not watered down. We're working with Congress to do just that. Based on the results, the law deserves to stay.

Eric Earling
Deputy Secretary's Regional Representative
Region X
U.S. Department of Education