PIERRE — Local educators have a mixture of hopes and fears as President Barack Obama and Congress set about to reform the No Child Left Behind education program.

The 2002 law called for accountability in public schools through mandatory standardized tests.

Now, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is proposing new reforms with an emphasis on schools competing to improve and win incentive-based federal money.

(Use arrows above to view more photos) Advertisement

Both Pierre School District superintendent Kelly Glodt and Stanley County School District superintendent Don Hotalling said they worry about South Dakota schools losing out in any competition for federal money.

“The lion’s share of those dollars will go to inner-city schools that have higher poverty rates, higher free-and-reduced lunch rates and higher minority populations,” Glodt said.

Hotalling said small schools will be disadvantaged if competitive grants make up too large a share of available money.

“That puts some of the smaller schools at a competitive disadvantage,” Hotalling said, noting that many larger districts have employees whose only job is to apply for grants.

That’s a concern the Associated School Boards of South Dakota shares.

“There’s been a concern for years that the federal funding formula hasn’t treated rural states fairly,” said ASBSD communications director Brian Aust.

“We’re hoping some modifications can be made in that area.”

But local educators have more enthusiasm for proposals to reward successful schools with more money.

“I would be all for rewarding schools that do well — because we score really well,” Glodt said.

“It sounds like the education secretary’s approach to No Child Left Behind has been more taking away from the punitive aspects of No Child Left Behind and moving to more incentives — trying to work more in cooperation with local school districts,” Aust said. “We’re generally in favor of that approach.”

South Dakota Education Association president Sandy Arseneault said her organization also likes that approach.

“Anything, if it’s done in collaboration and doesn’t have the punitive connotation, I think you see more success,” Arseneault said.

Another proposed reform is to replace the current system, where each state writes its own standardized tests, with a single set of federal curriculum guidelines and a national test.

Glodt said he’s divided on that idea.

“They’re certainly going to save a lot of money doing that,” he said. “But who all is involved in the creation of those? It comes back to how involved we want the federal government to be in our local education decisions. That’s something that should remain at the state and local level.”

Hotalling is strongly opposed to new national initiatives.

“I would really like for the federal government to just stay out of local education,” he said. “But I don’t think that’s going to happen.”

Arseneault said she hopes the law gives schools more flexibility.

“Treating all students alike — that everybody learns the same — has been one of the biggest heartaches for No Child Left Behind,” Arseneault said. “We hope that when they look at that aspect, they’ll be more realistic.”

Any changes to No Child Left Behind will be months or years before they become finalized into law. Local educators are hoping what changes do occur improve the system instead of making it worse.

“Although No Child Left Behind has taken its share of criticism, the ideas and the philosophies behind No Child Left Behind are correct,” Glodt said. “I think it has made our schools more accountable for the learning of our kids, and that’s not a bad thing.”