The Forum for Western Pennsylvania Superintendents has committed to the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This may surprise readers because most have heard only complaints about this law.

Reauthorization must embrace both review and revision. Without revision, NCLB cannot realize its goal of effective education for every child; nor can we as educators ably serve our students and community.

We believe that a national strategy in support of public education is necessary. In these final weeks of a presidential and congressional election, we have an opportunity to raise questions with candidates about NCLB.

Let's ask the candidates how they plan to improve this landmark law and if they will support:

• A shift from "teaching to a test" to a balanced, real-world, assessment of student achievement and school effectiveness.

• Teacher certification and retention standards based on both academic preparation and demonstrations of effective teaching.

• Making an unprecedented social and financial commitment to equal educational opportunity by allocating the resources necessary to level the educational playing field for each and every child.

• A coherent national education strategy, including a reliable assessment of educational progress.

In the United States, each state sets its own education policies; thus, we have myriad ways of operating public schools. In the 1983 report, "A Nation at Risk," it became clear that the United States needed a national education strategy. The report warned that "the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future ..." Years later, a bipartisan effort produced the No Child Left Behind Act.

NCLB is different from previous federal ventures into public education because it ties money to standards and accountability for states and locally controlled schools.

NCLB is viewed as a way to make schools accountable for student achievement. The law requires that achievement in mathematics and reading be evaluated individually and in subgroups of race, socio-economic status, disability and English language ability. All students must master standards in reading and mathematics by 2014. Regrettably, this bold "put a man on the moon" idea lacks the imperative and tactical coherence that such an ambitious goal demands.

While recognizing that NCLB is an imperfect law, The Forum superintendents support its reauthorization because the law recognizes the urgent need for a 21st century national education strategy. Nevertheless, teachers and administrators are concerned that without change NCLB will have an increasingly detrimental effect on our ability to educate students.

Our children must be educated for their future, not our past. Although reading and mathematics competency are unquestionably necessary, they are not sufficient for 21st century student success. NCLB's high-stakes testing has created an environment in which these tests limit learning.

Time for test preparation in reading and mathematics is reducing time for important subjects like science and the arts. Employer workforce priorities, including leadership, work ethic and creativity, go beyond mastery of basic skills. These and other priorities are not evaluated by NCLB.

NCLB must change so that varied and innovative forms of evidence regarding the differing aspects of student learning are evaluated. A politically saleable "one-size fits all" single-test scorecard, though palliative, isn't rational and doesn't describe the differential talents and abilities of our nation's students.

Everyone knows that good teachers make good schools. Effective teachers are the most inequitably distributed resource in our schools. Too often, poor and minority children get our least effective teachers. NCLB relies too much on tests and certificates to determine its "highly qualified" teacher requirement.

Teacher effectiveness is related to who is accepted into and graduated by teacher education schools. Teacher educators must be held accountable for the academic preparation and teaching effectiveness of graduates. Effective teaching requires practice and is more than obtaining a certificate or passing an examination.

As we elect new leadership for the nation, let's insist that equity of educational opportunity becomes more than a slogan. It is no accident that the best public schools tend to be in higher socio-economic locations. Well-compensated, educated parents provide their children with advantages not available to many children.

Equity for our most needy schools and children requires not the same allocation of resources, but a "surge" of resources. Equity demands that a non-negotiable change in NCLB be that our most needy children and schools are served by the best teachers and learning technologies.

Only when we've committed to sufficient resources and effective teachers for our children will the watchword of accountability have integrity and will No Child Left Behind be more than a catchy slogan.