What do you believe will be the most significant challenges to full implementation of NCLB's adequate yearly progress (AYP) provisions?

Actually wanting to implement reform is the most significant challenge. It is possible to successfully implement No Child Left Behind (NCLB), but if a state doesn't want to, there's no way it's going to happen. There are so many political leaders involved in the implementation process that someone is inevitably going to be dragging their feet. This will be the toughest thing to get over, making sure that everyone is on board so that NCLB can be fully implemented.

On the technical side, the most daunting challenge is how to decide what constitutes an adequate yearly gain. To appropriately measure AYP, states must have annual assessments in place. This is the most immediate hurdle. We've made the argument that the funding provided by the federal government is sufficient, and this can be done. It's just a matter of political will.

What roles should governors play in overcoming these challenges?

Governors need to use their bully pulpit to stand up and say that this matters. The underlying philosophy of NCLB, that states should measure the performance of all kids every year is very valuable, and very difficult to challenge. Although the situation in every state is unique, governors need to form a consensus with the public and the state leadership that supports accountability and believes that NCLB's AYP provisions can be implemented.

In most states AYP builds on state accountability reforms, but in local control states accountability has been resisted. How should governors of local control states respond differently to these challenges?

First, I think governors in these states need to clarify that there are large segments of student populations in every state that are being left behind. These students tend to be disproportionately low-income and minority. In low-income areas the bar is set much lower, and the expectations are far less. "A" work in low-income communities may only be equal to "C" work in more affluent, suburban communities. Ensuring equal expectations for all kids is an absolutely compelling reason to get over the local control notion, so that all children have an opportunity to succeed. In the end, it is governors' job to remind people why this is important.

History is also important, so governors need to determine exactly why there is resistance to accountability. Is it state imposition? Employment issues? Every single poll shows that the public favors standards and assessments by a wide margin, so there is little downside to governors favoring standards and assessments. The key for governors is understanding where resistance is coming from, and what motivates that resistance.

In communicating with the public what message should governors send?

Governors should focus on the message that now, for the first time, we're telling the truth about all of our kids, and that's the only thing that has changed. Before, we ignored student failure, but now we're being honest and confronting student failure. Everybody has to be able to look at the statistics, and when they look at the statistics, the inevitable conclusion is that we must do something about student achievement, particularly in our lowest-income and minority populations.

What opportunities for flexibility exist in NCLB's AYP requirements?

My sense is that asking states to set standards, gauge annual growth, and ensure that students meet standards in 12 years is non-negotiable. Within those non-negotiables, most of the conversations in which I've been a part have encouraged a great deal of flexibility. At this stage, the science of assessments and accountability systems is still in development. It has not been shown that there is a single best way of gauging AYP. There is no science suggesting norm-referenced tests should not be allowed as part of state 3-8 assessment systems. States really need to press for flexibility here. Secretary Paige has repeatedly indicated that he wants to work with those states that show him what they need, and a rationale. I'm very worried that for the sake of ease, we're not going to think through what is really needed, and what is really supported by science. In the absence of good data, we cannot afford to simply fall back on conventional wisdom.

We're starting to hear states talk of lowering standards in response to AYP requirements. Do you have any suggestions for how states can avoid this?

State leaders should set their goals higher. The major issue is not NCLB-the major issue is political will, and believing that school reform matters for the state.

That said, standards may need to be altered to make NCLB politically feasible. We're no longer using the law of averages, where one subgroup can overwhelmingly fail, as long as the school test averages were acceptable. To make this work though, states may need to adjust standards. I would argue Texas did well by starting with low cut scores, and gradually raising the requirements.

What other advice do you have for governors in implementing NCLB's AYP provisions?

Based on our knowledge, there are many states and schools that want to implement this law. No Child Left Behind has helped states, districts, and schools understand now what must be done, so now let's do it.

Lisa Graham Keegan is a founding member of the Education Leaders Council, a group of reform-minded education chiefs from seven states. She served two terms in the Arizona House of Representatives from 1991-94. She was elected State Superintendent of Public Instruction in 1994 and re-elected in 1998.