Essay by Martha Quillen
Education – March 2005 – Colorado Central Magazine
I’D BEEN MUCKING AROUND in the backwaters of my mind trying to think of something to write this letter about, when Ed and I went on a local radio show.
Then, on the air, Ed said he thought Colorado Central should do something about the regional effects of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
It was the first time I’d heard that idea, and I immediately protested — talking as fast as I could, back-pedaling as hard I was able. We’d been there, done that, tried it….
Except on the way home, Ed pointed out, “We never did anything on No Child Left Behind.”
“Well, okay, maybe not specifically. But surely we’ve done enough about schools? What about the story Annie Hays did? And all those school board elections? And school report cards? And school deficits? And the Headwaters Conference on Education?”
“But we ran Annie’s story way back in the fall of 2001, when No Child Left Behind was still just a gleam in George Bush’s platform,” Ed contended.
And Ed was right. The last major education story we did was way back when the Republicans wanted prayer, the basics, and accountability “returned” to the system; back when Colorado Democrats were still complaining about overtesting, underfunding, and low teacher pay … Hey wait, they’re both still complaining about those things.
“I think people like to know how their local school systems are doing,” Ed said.
“Yeah, sure,” I agreed. “We can put something in about the Colorado Department of Education’s website (www.cde.state.co.us/). It let’s you access accountability reports for every school in the state.”
“And that would tell people how their local schools are adjusting to No Child Left Behind?” Ed prodded.
Okay. All right. I’ll admit it. Our last big education story was forever ago. And now our nation has got this fancy new legislation in place, and everything is different. So, of course, Ed is right. We’ve been remiss, and we really should do a comprehensive story. In fact, I think Ed should get started on it just as soon as I’ve made arrangements to visit my mother for a few months.
In case you’re wondering…. You’re right. I think education articles are a thankless task. And the only thing that can easily be accomplished by doing one, is to alienate everyone.
It’s not merely laziness on my part, either — although I’ll admit that plays a part. In fact, just like most of the senators and congressmen who voted for the No Child Left Behind Act, I haven’t actually read all 600-plus pages of it. And I don’t want to.
AFTER READING WHAT LITTLE I did, I was clueless about how a lot of things were supposed to work. NCLB is full of guidelines for grants, allocations, appropriations, and authorizations, which made little sense to me. And I doubt that all of that fine print is making much more sense to school teachers, principals, accountants, lawyers, senators, congressmen, school board members, and the parents who are supposed to be taking advantage of all the added choices NCLB offers them.
Why?
Because the Act is written in typically inscrutable legalese. Take “SEC. 1003. School improvement,” for example:
(a) STATE RESERVATIONS – Each State shall reserve 2 percent of the amount the State receives under subpart 2 of part A for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and 4 percent of the amount received under such subpart for fiscal years 2004 through 2007, to carry out subsection (b) and to carry out the State’s responsibilities under sections 1116 and 1117, including carrying out the State educational agency’s statewide system of technical assistance and support for local educational agencies.
Ahhhh, but you think I purposely picked a dull part, don’t you? Well, maybe, I did. So here’s the more interesting stuff:
SEC. 1001. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.
The purpose of this title is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments. This purpose can be accomplished by —
(1) ensuring that high-quality academic assessments, accountability systems, teacher preparation and training, curriculum, and instructional materials are aligned with challenging State academic standards so that students, teachers, parents, and administrators can measure progress against common expectations for student academic achievement;
(2) meeting the educational needs of low-achieving children in our Nation’s highest-poverty schools, limited English proficient children, migratory children, children with disabilities; Indian children, neglected or delinquent children, and young children in need of reading assistance;
(3) closing the achievement gap between high- and low-performing children, especially the achievement gaps between minority and nonminority students, and between disadvantaged children and their more advantaged peers;
Now multiply that by 670 pages, and I’ll bet you’ve just developed an unexpected sympathy with all of those congressmen who don’t read the legislation they vote for.
Still, I’m surprised that more people don’t get into this stuff.
Or am I the only one inspired to laughter by it?
I especially appreciated our congress’s concern for “migratory” children.
And I couldn’t help but think that “closing the achievement gap between high- and low-performing children” should be child’s play and very cheap, as long as one isn’t too picky about whether high or low performance is the objective.
You would think that this sub-passage would mention that the goal is to close the gap by raising low-performing children to new levels, not vice versa. And yet curiously it doesn’t say that.
What does it say?
Well, it will take years to figure that out.
But basically, NCLB is a federal funding package for everything from new reading programs, to adult education, to charter schools, to Native American education programs, to technology grants.
THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT is actually a re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary School Act of 1965, and thus it’s nothing totally unprecedented.
And yet this Act marks a major departure from past legislation, in that NCLB is clearly intended to dynamically change our entire educational system.
In the USA, the states are in charge of public schools. The federal government contributes funds and has a vested interest, but it doesn’t determine school curriculum or standards. NCLB, however, is a bold attempt to establish some national educational standards, through federal funding.
Most of the things the feds want seem logical, though, and maybe even essential.
First off, the feds want to quit giving money to lousy schools that are not only inadequate but dangerous. Toward that end, NCLB contains pages and pages of accountability measures.
Second, the feds want to give parents and communities more options, including charter schools, tutoring, and faith-based initiatives. Toward that end, NCLB outlines dozens upon dozens of goals, grants, allocations, and programs, for reading, math, science, equipment, tutoring, after-school programs, discipline, adult education, safety, etc. etc. etc.
NCLB ALSO CALLS FOR STATES to test all students in grades 3 through 8 for reading and math skills by 2005, and to include science testing by 2007.
It requires “highly qualified” teachers in all classrooms, and calls for bachelor’s degrees and competency tests for teachers by 2005.
Under NCLB, states have to demonstrate “Adequate Yearly Progress” (or AYP, in NCLB parlance) toward improvement for all students, including those who are economically disadvantaged, mentally handicapped, and/or newcomers to the English language.
Schools that fail to accomplish AYP may have to provide tutors or other remedial programs. And if schools continually fail to meet NCLB standards, students can transfer to better schools, with free transportation provided.
The No Child Left Behind Act is huge. But it doesn’t outline what schools have to teach. Nor does it specify exactly what schools and teachers should be tested for.
Instead, No Child Left Behind says that states must prepare, train and recruit high-quality teachers and principals; and promote parental choices and innovative programs; and foster flexibility and accountability.
No Child Left Behind offers grants and funds, assistance, and oversight. But states, and to a somewhat lesser extent communities and individual schools — and even lone parents — must come up with their own education plans.
In order to comply with NCLB, states must first establish acceptable standards and assessments for education. Then the schools have to meet those standards — or else.
Unsafe schools, schools with gang problems, and schools with unacceptable achievement gaps, must perform better in order to quality for federal funding.
Under NCLB, parents with children in failing schools will have options such as tutoring or alternative programs, or they can send their children to other facilities.
When schools are hopelessly and chronically deficient, the public school system will have to pay for transportation to private schools (by congressional decree). And finally, if remediations fail and floundering schools show no improvement over a number of years, the state is supposed to step in and set things straight.
At this point, it’s not clear how states and school districts are supposed to pay for all of this.
The only clear thing is that the promised federal funding will not cover it.
Although NCLB promises more funding than previous federal education packages, it doesn’t offer anywhere near enough money to cover all of the testing and programs congress has detailed in the Act’s 670 pages.
So what are states and schools supposed to do?
Well, a few states have considered telling the feds to take a hike. And at least one very wealthy community has actually cut itself free, at least temporarily. (But such places usually have more impressive facilities, equipment, testing, and staffing than the new federal guidelines require, anyway.)
Sadly, though, the schools in real trouble tend to be poor, and they desperately need federal money just to function.
The feds don’t supply anywhere near enough funding to cover everything a poor school system needs. But to be fair, that isn’t the Feds’ responsibility.
THE FEDS, HOWEVER, now outline what states and schools must purchase and provide, which brings to mind Anatole France’s 1894 maxim: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
Now, U.S. law, in its majesty, actually says that poor school districts should pay for children to ride to private schools.
No Child Left Behind grew out of a Bush campaign promise. But at one point, it had wide bi-partisan support. Now that it’s a done deal, however, Democrats tend to dismiss NCLB as impractical and overly expansive.
Since Bush signed The No Child Left Behind Act on January 8, 2002, funding has been a persistent sore point. But there are others.
Critics of NCLB point to the Act’s objective of 100% proficiency by 2013-14 and claim that the legislation demands the impossible.
CRITICS ALSO CLAIM that NCLB’s standards for teachers are lousy, and may dismiss rather than assure competent teachers. They maintain that NCLB puts too much emphasis on penalties, and creates a new level of bureaucracy.
(Some critics also object to a portion of the Act which has little to do with education; it gives the U.S. military the right to obtain lists of high school students’ names, addresses and phone numbers from public schools, unless parents have specifically supplied a waiver.)
Supporters of the NCLB Act, however, think its high time the government demanded some accountability from schools. They claim that the law ensures a much better education for children who have hitherto been neglected in American classrooms, including students with learning disabilities, migrant children, and kids from non-English speaking homes.
Supporters praise the law for making public school assessments public and increasing parental choices. And some even maintain that liberal school teachers are resisting compliance with NCLB in order to assure the law’s failure.
Opponents of NCLB trump that charge, however, and up the ante by surmising that anti-government conservatives are actually supporting the No Child Left Behind legislation in order to destroy our government-run public schools.
TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS also tend to be a mite gloomy over NCLB. In a national survey of 2,000 public school administrators (published in a 253-page assessment report by the Center on Education Policy): 89% of school superintendents and 81% of principals described NCLB as an unfunded mandate; and 49% of superintendents and 48% of principals felt its requirements for special education students and English-language learners were “unreasonable and undoable.”
Skepticism on the part of teachers was expected, though, since NCLB forces accountability on professional educators.
More surprising has been the tepid response by ordinary citizens. This legislation was designed to force public schools to give parents choices and options, but thus far there hasn’t been a lot of response in terms of community meetings, focus groups, or demands.
Even in places where schools have failed to show the Adequate Yearly Progress required by NCLB, interest in alternative schools and/or tutoring and other promised benefits has been meager.
So at this point in a typical letter, I guess I’m supposed to tell everyone that they need to get informed, get involved, and take a stand. Parents need to know their options and demand their benefits. And Ed and I need to write that comprehensive local article making it clear what everyone can do.
NCLB is the law now; it’s time to use it.
Except…. I’m not sure whether that’s a good idea.
First off, who’s going to pay for all of that tutoring and transportation?
Close-to-bankrupt rural schools couldn’t afford music and art programs before NCLB, so how will they pay for all of those innovative new programs?
I don’t know. But higher taxes aren’t the easy answer that some contend. Taxes fall too heavily on businesses and workers. And in Salida, housing and utilities are already so high that working people can barely afford to stay. If taxes and utilities keep rising, we’ll lose working families, and then our schools will have even fewer children, and thus less revenue.
But even if we had a big community forum, and Central Coloradans somehow managed to resolve some of the age-old problems of living in a resort economy, it wouldn’t resolve all of our educational problems.
On the contrary, I think American schools face a really formidable problem, today.
Ask Americans what they think is good and right in a school system, and they’re bound to disagree.
Imagine the survey:
1) In hiring a high school math teacher, would you favor: A) a brilliant, openly gay Stanford graduate with 15 years of teaching experience and an impeccable resumé? B) a recent college graduate with coaching experience who failed advanced calculus, but is currently retaking the class?
2) Would you prefer having A) Ward Churchill B) Bill Owens teach a civics class at your child’s school?
3) Do you think high school health classes should teach about: A) abstinence B) birth control C) both D) neither.
Americans disagree about fundamentalism, capitalism, nationalism, truth, beauty, reality, rationalism, idealism, pacifism, and darned near everything else.
We argue about creationism in the classroom, carols in the school concert, prayer in the auditorium, sex education in the curriculum, and the appropriate content of a history lesson.
But perhaps most irksome of all, many parents today believe in strict and decisive discipline — but only for other people’s children.
Despite all of that, I think we could still work out a viable educational system. But now that so many citizens seem convinced that the beliefs of other Americans are destroying civilization as we know it, will we?
Well, that’s a deal breaker.
–Martha Quillen
