I found this Fresno Bee story to be very frustrating. The article tells the story of Lincoln Elementary in Lindsay Unified forgoing federal Title I money in order to avoid accountability under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act. The tone of the article seems to suggest that this cute little rural elementary school is defying the big, evil George Bush-loving federal bureaucracy.

Last fall, one little elementary school in this poor farm town did something startling: it said no to nearly $250,000 in federal funds.

In exchange, Lincoln Elementary gained something its teachers considered even more valuable: more independence.

"We want to do a better job than we've been able to do and we want to do that by being flexible," Principal Pam Canby said.

Lincoln is among a small number of U.S. schools -- no one can say how many for sure -- that have gained flexibility in following federal education mandates by turning down Title I funds.

No matter what the school or district staff say, they're not forgoing the federal funding to become more flexible. They've given up the extra money in order to avoid accountability. Lincoln Elementary is a PI Year 5 school, meaning that they have failed to meet NCLB's accountability targets for at least 7 years. Under NCLB after that long a period of time, the district is supposed to make real efforts to dramatically change the school such as replacing the staff, closing the school, handing management over to a commercial entity or reopening it as a charter. Rather than make real reforms, the district chose to simply give up the funding and avoid the consequences altogether.

No Child Left Behind has met strong opposition since it became law. Some educators and parents say the program is under-funded and forces teachers to follow a standard script, rather than adapt to the needs of their students.

"Many teachers no longer can be innovative in their teaching," said Mike Green, a California Teachers Association representative and Lindsay Unified teacher. "A lot of that has to do with the fact that you are required to teach to the test."

Some local and national educators share Green's frustrations. Canby said Lincoln educators have been "diligent in marching to the tune of Title I." The school worked with a board of education experts who evaluated and monitored the campus' academic progress under the federal program.

The school also saw a major shift in staffing. Canby was brought in about five years ago after Lincoln failed to reach annual academic targets, Lindsay Unified Superintendent Janet Kliegl said. More than half the teaching staff is new.

District officials took the unusual step of giving up $243,000 -- out of its budget of $4 million -- to free the school from Title I mandates because too much time was spent on paperwork, when time could be better spent on more innovative teaching efforts.

This section is full of the same 'ol anti-NCLB crap. The teacher's union leader says it eliminates innovation... teach to the test... too much paperwork... not enough funding... yada yada yada. If the school has been so "diligent in marching" to the Title I tune, why are they still failing so miserably. This rhetoric isn't about innovation or flexibility. It is about maintaining the status quo of a complete lack of accountability. No one wants to be held accountable for their work.

Kliegl said Lincoln was a good candidate for the change because overall it is a high-achieving school, but there are groups of students, such as English learners, who miss federal targets. This calls for a more flexible approach, she said.

For me, this line was the most incredible thing I've seen in a long time. So, the district says that because the school is "overall ... a high-achieving school", they just don't need the NCLB funding to work on those "groups of students, such as English Learners, who miss federal targets." Well, I have news for Superintendent Kliegl. Apparently, she and I have a very different definition of high-achieving school. I'm really surprised that the reporter from the Fresno Bee didn't look at this school's academic performance before they accepted the Superintendent's assurance that is is a high-achieving school. Check out this chart from Just for the Kids - California. This is Lincoln's Language Arts subgroup chart:

Even Lincoln's highest performing group, white students, is only at 47.1% proficient. That means more than half of those students are below grade-level. These tests aren't something that George Bush pulled out of the air. Lincoln is being judged on the California Standards Test, which is designed to test whether students have mastered the California Academic Content Standards for their grade-level. It is a criterion-referenced test, so there is no "bell curve". Every student can and should be at grade-level.

Overall, Lincoln only gets 21.2% of its students to grade-level. Nearly 80% of the students are behind one or more grades. This is not a high-achieving school! This school's teaching practices are not effective. Giving them more flexibility to innovate is not going to magically raise student test scores. I'm all for flexibility and innovation where a school has the basics down pat. That's not the case here.

In past years officials spent Title I money on computers, learning programs and literacy and math coaches to try to meet the standards.

Now, Lincoln's staff will use creative student programs that teachers would not have had time for under provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act. These include teaching via the Internet, far-ranging field trips and a renewed focus on science and the arts.

"We want our kids to go out on the road, go to the ocean, go to the mountains," Canby said. She wants students to appreciate music and art, which often were dropped from classrooms in order to focus entirely on improving test scores under the No Child Left Behind Act.

"An effective citizen is a person who is fluent in the arts. It's not just about reading and writing," she said.

Canby said she also wants to see a strong focus on science, which previously took a back seat to English and math.

What a bunch of hog-wash. Once kids learn how to read, write and speak English, then they can go to the mountains or the ocean. We're talking about 80% of the students at this school not reading and writing at grade-level. This is a serious problem that field trips and taking time away from the basics to add art classes is not going to solve. In order to be able to excel in other topics such as science or history, you need to be able to read. The school isn't doing these students any favors. Students will move on to middle school without basic mastery of English. Unless they get needed interventions, they're going to continue through to high school and find themselves unable to pass the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE).

Janie Castro, Lincoln Elementary's Parent Teacher Organization president, said she supports the new vision for her school. She noted Canby prepared the school to do without Title I, partly because she used previous Title I money to buy long-term resources, such as computers and software. Said Castro: "We know that she's going to make this work."

While the school can do without Title I this year, next year could bring some changes. Nancy Frank, the school's math coach, said the lack of money may mean returning as a classroom teacher. Frank said that means she may not have time to go into several classrooms each day to teach students or offer one-on-one teaching sessions with new staff members.

To help make up the difference, the school has asked for financial help -- and some is already trickling in. A citrus company provided Lincoln a $20,000 grant to help the campus be a model for rural school reform, Canby said.

Mike Wood, a science consultant who was on Lincoln's alternative governance board, said it isn't easy for the school to give up more than $240,000. But he said it's important for local educators to dictate what is best for students.

Said Wood: "Let's make learning fun again."

Making learning fun is a great thing, but not at the expense of basic skills in English. If this school was at 80% proficiency, I'd support their efforts to give up the funding in order to get flexibility to reach that final 20% of kids. That's just not the case here.

As I said, in my mind, this is about avoiding the consequences of low academic achievement. The school and the district don't want to change their teaching strategies. They don't want to reform. They don't want to change. They simply want to keep their comfortable life without the extra requirements and complications of NCLB.

The nearly 80% of students who are below grade-level and their parents are the ones who are being hurt by this effort. These parents are listening to the school and district's excuses rather than holding them accountable. Local control only works if there is accountability. Without the extra accountability of NCLB, this school is going to continue ignore the poor academic skills of their poor and minority students. Those students will be sentenced to a substandard education and unless they end up some wonderful teacher's classroom who will make the extra effort to catch them up to grade-level, they'll be completely unprepared for college and the world of work. They deserve better. Their parents expect better. Without NCLB's accountability, these students will just be left behind.