George,

First, The No Child Left Behind slogan ranks right along with No Car Tax in validity. It is just that, a slogan. The stated purpose of the bill to improve education has served to divert attention from education for all to teaching testing skills for all. Focus has been narrowed. Demands have been placed on teachers, children and local school systems to meet a 'one size fits all' mandate that meets no one's needs but places importance on artificial test results.

Clark school's progress can be compared only to any other school with equal demographics. If such a school population exists in Virginia, then it is valid to compare them. I contend that, like its children, Clark is unique. It serves a specific population and community which probably can't be replicated anywhere else in the Commonwealth. There may be other schools that are similar but no one of them is truly like the other, and because the schools are dealing with children who are each in their own way different, they are not identical. Children are not widgets that can be sent back if they aren't perfect and don't meet the specifications. They are little, unique individuals, each with their own quirks and foibles, who come to the public school door and are welcomed in 'as is'. This is why I question the validity of NCLB.

Lastly, AYP is artificial because it is based on an artificial set of numbers. It is not the same for all schools in all states. In other states, schools with the same set of scores would be declared proficient.

I know the administration must pay attention to this law and try to meet its mandates and I commend Mr. Hutchinson for his recommendation which will preserve Title I funds and use other monies to transport children to other schools.

I will be interested to see how many parents want their children to attend a school across town because it has higher test scores than Clark. That will be the true test of the effectiveness of NCLB.

Martha Wood (electronic mail, May 31, 2004)