Just when you thought you knew the rules...

Another frustration is the reliance on 1998-2000 test scores, which fail to account for recent improvement. In addition, determining failure relies heavily on varying state standards. States like Michigan, which adopted more ambitious standards, therefore, will now have to deal with larger numbers of "failing" schools.

The failure designation hurts because affected districts will have not only to allow students to transfer but also to pay their transportation costs. Those same districts may also have to worry about seeing their best schools swamped by new attendees. Even here, however, the application of the law will be uneven. Districts in which the best schools are already too crowded may be freed from any such obligation.

Failing schools will also have to offer to pay for tutoring or other academic services for the students that remain, creating a further drain on resources.

Not everyone believes the transfer issue will create massive problems. Some districts already have school choice, and others doubt parents will make such changes in large numbers.

"Parents are not going to take their children to an unknown school in an unfamiliar neighborhood," says Sheldon Benardo, principal of P.S. 86 in New York's Bronx neighborhood, who has already sent letters to the parents of his pupils informing them of their right to transfer.

And some systems insist they'll be ready for the challenge. "We've had considerable discussion and planning, and I think we will be prepared," says Marilyn Johnson, general counsel of the Chicago public school system, where at least 260 elementary schools will be affected.

Other districts simply say overcrowding will make it more or less impossible to comply with transfer requests.

Many educators say the adjustments they are currently making are onerous. But some warn that they pale in comparison with what lies ahead.

For instance, some districts that already have trouble attracting teachers may find it nearly impossible to comply with provisions that all teachers must be "highly qualified" by 2005. For states with tight budgets, the need to have a statewide testing system in place that same year may prove a heavy burden. "We like the bill," says Peter McWalters, commissioner of elementary and secondary education in Rhode Island. "But this is a resource issue."

Some educators are simply concerned that certain students can't respond quickly enough. "We receive kids at all kinds of levels. We get kids who've been kept out of school for five years, and immediately we're supposed to bring them up to state standards?" asks Douglas Williams, superintendent of Perry Township, a half-urban, half-suburban district that curves around Indianapolis.

The requirement that the job be done so quickly, says Mr. Williams, is like telling President Bush, " 'Look, you eradicate every terrorist from the face of the earth in the next couple of years, or we'll get rid of you.' "

Eliminating terrorists and raising standards are praiseworthy goals, Perry says, "and they're exactly what we should be shooting for. But you just can't do it in that period of time."

The basic problem with No Child Left Behind is that it was written by legislators – a group who "wouldn't know a school if they fell over it on the sidewalk," says Richard Elmore, professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

The law sets target dates for improvement but never really tells schools – especially those struggling with high poverty rates, shortages of qualified teachers, and limited resources – how to make that improvement. "The law takes a 'and then a miracle happens' position," says Professor Elmore. "The provisions of the law are way ahead of the capacity on the ground."

Page: 1 | 2 | 3