California and No Child Left Behind

California and The Federal No Child Left Behind Left Behind Act
© Copyright, 2003 Ken Futernick
(updated 11-15-03)

In 2002, Congress passed a sweeping set of school reforms called The No Child Left Behind Act. This law will require all schools receiving federal assistance to employ only those teachers who are "highly qualified." No longer may these schools employ pre-interns or individuals working with waivers or emergency permits. Nor will high schools be permitted to assign teachers to courses that are out of their subject matter field--even if they are fully credentialed.

Each state must submit an application to the U.S. Department of Education for federal funds (See how other states are doing). In June 2003, California submitted its Consolidated Application for federal funds to the U.S. Department of Education. This application requires states to "provide baseline data and targets for the percentage of classes in the core academic subjects being taught by 'highly qualified' teachers." The table below appears on page 17 of California's consolidated application.

California’s Baseline Data and Targets Percentage of Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers:
State Aggregate
Percentage of Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers:
High-Poverty Schools

2002-2003 Baseline 48% 35%

2003-2004 Target 65% 57%

2004-2005 Target 83% 79%

2005-2006 Target 100% 100%

How accurate are these numbers and why are they alarmingly low?
California, like may other states, has had difficulty responding to this question on the Federal Application. This is because the data currently collected by the State Department of Education does not tell us with much accuracy what percentage of teachers are "highly qualified." There are at least two key pieces of data that are missing:

1. The percentage of elementary teachers who have passed a rigorous state assessment. In order to be classified as "highly qualified" by NCLB, an elementary level teacher must pass such a test, but according to the state's estimate, only 60% in 2002-03 have done so. The remaining 40% have complied with the state's subject matter requirement by completing an approved undergraduate subject matter program. California will soon require all credential candidates to pass a subject matter examination before they can earn a teaching credential.

2. The percentage of secondary core academic subject class teachers who have earned their supplementary authorizations by completing a major or major equivalent of credits. In order to be classified as "highly qualified" by NCLB, a high school teacher who teaches a core academic class has several options: one may pass a state-approved subject matter examination or complete one of these coursework options: A) a state-approved subject matter program, or B) a major, or C) a major equivalent, or D) possess a graduate degree in the core area.

According to the state's estimate, however, only 25% in 2002-03 have done so. Many of the others have been authorized to teach by virtue of provisions in the state education code that have allowed districts to rely on the observations and judgments of site principals. This means that even without completing a major or passing a subject matter test in the field, a high school teacher in California could be assigned to teach a course if the site principal says he or she is capable of doing so and the local board of trustees is willing to approve the assignment. (Read more about out-of-field middle and high school teachers.)

The state's estimates are so low partly because California has not been able (or, some would day, willing) to solve a long-standing staffing problem in its schools that was made much worse when class-size reduction was implemented several years ago. Another reason for the low estimates is the fact that the federal definition of a highly qualified teacher and the one implicit in California's present credential requirements are misaligned.

Will California meet the 2005-06 deadline imposed by NCLB?
Few education officials in California are willing to admit publicly that Title I schools here will not meet the deadline. In fact, all five of the human resources administrators who responded to an interview about NCLB predicted that their large urban school districts would be in compliance with NCLB in 2005-06.

But there are good reasons to believe many schools will not make it. From 2000 to 2003, California was able to reduce the percentage of underqualified teachers only by an average annual rate of 9%. And that happened during a period when millions of dollars were invested by the state on new teacher recruitment programs--programs which were cut in 2003. According to projections that appear on the Charts and Tables page of this website, the state would have to make annual reductions in non-highly qualified teachers at a rate of 60% in order to meet the 2005-06 deadline.

How will the Federal Department of Education respond to districts that are out of compliance with NCLB? Will it withhold funds as it is entitled to do? If so, what will be the fate of students whose schools are unable to attract and keep highly qualified teachers and now have to get by without millions of dollars in federal assistance? NCLB allows students to attend other schools if theirs do not make adequate academic progress (which would likely with the loss of federal funding), but will there space in nearby schools and transportation to get them there for those whose parents want them to leave? If the Feds do not withhold funds to schools that are out-of-compliance, then will districts simply stop working to solve the staffing challenge in the absence of a sanction?

But what if significant reductions are made and many districts do achieve compliance in 2005-06? This would be good news indeed but this scenario also raises some intriguing questions: Why was so much progress made now when so little was made in recent years? Would it indicate that schools districts were capable all along of ensuring that their students--especially those from low-income families--have access to highly qualified teachers? Would it indicate that change of this sort is only possible under the threat of serious government sanctions? While the answers to these questions are unclear now, they will emerge with increasingly clarity in the very near future.