The U.S. Department of Education's No Child Left Behind Act paints a picture of our education system that resembles a triangle with only two sides.

The first side of the triangle is about governance. Reform in this area involves training principals and teachers, improving school administration, introducing efficiency and standards-based accountability. The idea is to professionalize the system, often by adapting management practices from the private sector, with the aim of making the school more effective. Improvements to the physical plant - often in disgraceful shape - are part of this area too. And should the school still fail to meet standards, "governance" takes on a whole other meaning, since mayors can and will take over such schools and become the new bosses.

The second side of the triangle is about pedagogy. Reform efforts focus on teaching strategies, curriculum innovations, and the options we provide students to help them learn. We work to inculcate different teaching styles and fresh approaches. Educators consider the most basic questions about "the project of education": what it's set up to do and achieve, in terms of preparation for citizenship and economic empowerment. Broadly speaking, this side of the triangle is about the content and purpose of education, while the first side is about the form.

What's missing is the third side of the triangle - the coordinated involvement of community members who can meet the non-academic needs of students, and help schools truly become places where no child is left behind.

Neither one of the first two sides of the triangle address the issues of the most vulnerable kids. The best teacher, the best administrator, the best curriculum, the highest standards - none of these will put food in a child's stomach or a roof over his head. And these "extra-curricular" issues are so pervasive in our country that, when ignored, they undermine the huge and necessary investment we're making in the other two sides of the triangle.

Think of a business that's run very well, with great employees and a terrific product - except that their intended customers have no money, so the whole thing is pointless. Even if NCLB-inspired reforms worked perfectly to strengthen governance and pedagogy, you'd still be missing something huge: Are the students themselves coming to school ready and able to succeed?
Integrated, school-based services are not just an addendum or a support to reform of the other two sides. Rather, they must be welded into the triangle as a firm, equal third side. Community resources and support are a necessary - but not sufficient - condition for true school reform, and for the success of millions of children, especially those whose social well-being is threatened.

To believe otherwise is to allow middle-class presuppositions about "what kids need" to frame the debate. It may well be that your children, and most of the other children in your community, come to school after a good night's sleep, a nutritious breakfast, and a short walk through a safe, pretty neighborhood. NCLB and similar reform perspectives assume that all kids come to school this way - ready to learn, ready to succeed. The kids are fine - it's those darn schools that are failing them. And if there is some inequality among children at the starting line, it can be ameliorated through academic support services and maybe a mentor.

In thousands of schools across the U.S., that picture is tragically inaccurate and far from reality, and it's about time the reform movement faced up to it.

*****
This article is excerpted from Bill Milliken's new book, The Last Dropout, appearing in Fall 2007 from Hay House.