March 9, 2004
IS OUR PUNDITS LEARNING?:
Built to Fail: The federal No Child Left Behind law is threatening to wreck public education in Minnesota and elsewhere. That's what it was designed to do. (Britt Robson, 3/15/04, City Pages)
Under the terms of NCLB, which President Bush has called "the cornerstone of my administration," all of the nation's public school students must be tested in reading and math every year in grades three through eight, and at least once in grades ten through twelve. Any school receiving federal Title I money (ostensibly earmarked to improve the performance of disadvantaged students) faces increasingly harsh sanctions if its test scores fail to meet state-defined standards for making adequate yearly progress. After two years of AYP failure, the school must offer students the option of transferring to another public school in the district and bear the cost of transportation. After three years, the school must also offer low-income students tutorial services through a public or private agency approved by the state. After four years, the school district must take corrective actions such as removing personnel or changing the curriculum in the school. And after five years, the district is obliged to blow up, or "restructure," the school by replacing most or all of its staff or by turning over operations, as the U.S. Department of Education puts it, "to either the state or to a private company with a demonstrated record of effectiveness."With reasonable guidelines and adequate funding, this timetable might have been a prudent course of education reform. But as the first sanctions are just now begininng to kick in, people across the country are belatedly discovering that NCLB is being structured and implemented as a punitive assault on public education, designed to throw the system into turmoil and open the door to privatization.
Minnesota is a prime example of the carnage NCLB is likely to create. For decades, the state's education system has earned a sterling reputation by producing some of the nation's highest test scores and lowest drop-out rates. Yet in its evaluation of NCLB, the scrupulously thorough and nonpartisan Office of the Legislative Auditor estimates that, even if Minnesota students showed a modest improvement in test scores and educational proficiency, 99 percent of the state's elementary schools would fail to make AYP 10 years from now, and 65 percent of the elementary schools receiving Title I funding would have to be "restructured." Under its most optimistic scenario for student improvement--which assumes, among other things, that the state's percentage of special education and immigrant students won't continue to grow, and that brand-new immigrants can boost their test scores just as rapidly as native-born Minnesotans--the auditor's office estimates an 82 percent failure rate on AYP for elementary schools in 2014, and the restructuring of 35 percent of the schools funded by Title I.
The closer one looks at the details of NCLB, the more ludicrous it appears. How do you create a chaotic situation in which nearly every school is destined to be labeled a failure? [...]
For those schools lucky enough not to have enrolled a measurable amount of students in at-risk subgroups, or through Herculean effort somehow manage to otherwise avoid being put on the list of failing systems, NCLB simply cranks up its testing standards. The required proficiency rates for math and reading will inexorably climb over the next decade until, in 2014, we arrive at the theoretical endgame, where the only options are failure and perfection.
That's right: Every student in every subgroup must be proficient on every assessment in order for schools and districts to be in compliance with NCLB. [...]
As might be expected, creating an education system that does not allow a single one of our nation's students to be left behind is going to be expensive. A raft of new tests are being developed, administered, and assessed. As more and more schools inevitably land on the AYP failure list for longer periods of time, the cost of providing tutorial services, transporting students to other schools, changing the curriculum, replacing the staff, and eventually restructuring the entire school or district will steadily mount.
Now that NCLB is at a stage where schools and districts across the country are beginning to contend with the law's first remedial sanctions, many state legislators, researchers, and education officials are growing nervous that they will be saddled with huge costs from an unfunded federal mandate, as they already are in the case of special education. In January, the Ohio Department of Education released a study estimating that it will cost about $1.5 billion a year--twice the amount the state now receives from the federal government--to implement NCLB.
William Mathis, a superintendent of a Vermont school district near Rutland and a senior fellow of the Vermont Society for the Study of Education, has analyzed studies from 18 different states, which project the costs of raising test scores to meet either the requirements of NCLB or their own state standards. Nearly all of them reveal that, even with the assistance of federal Title I money, states would need to raise their education budgets more than 20 percent to raise student performance across the board. As needs outpace means and delineations of bureaucratic turf become thoroughly scrambled in this new NCLB environment, tensions have occasionally run high. There's been talk of local schools and districts suing the state for funds to implement the law, and states doing the same thing in turn at the federal level. And late last month, Paige made headlines with his comparison of the National Education Association to a "terrorist organization" for opposing NCLB.
It never ceases to amaze that these folks all consider George Bush an idiot but can't figure out the simplest things he does. Once a school is judged to be failing its students are entitled to vouchers. They can only be used at other public schools -- for now -- but the infrastructure for a universal vouchers system slid right under Teddy Kennedy's nose, indeed he pushed it through, thinking he'd scored a victory over the moron. But even he figured out two years ago that he'd been had. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 9, 2004 9:00 PM
What I particularly like is the hoist-on-their-own-petard nature of the left's complaint: "No Child Left Behind is all well and good, but not leaving any child behind is nuts. That SOB, he meant what he said."
Posted by: David Cohen at March 9, 2004 9:59 PMOJ has been pushing this concept (NCLB is a stealth voucher plan) for awhile. I tend to agree but NCLB is consistently listed as one of the major dissatisfactions with Bush by the GOP and conservatives. It would be a shame if conservatives don't back Bush because they don't see that the bill was designed to reach the same goal but in a different manner.
Posted by: AWW at March 9, 2004 10:11 PMIt looks as though the courts are going to get a chance to eviscerate this law. There are certainly enough states breathing heavy about lawsuits.
My question is: why do people shriek when they are told (via testing) that schools are failing? It is time to start using the phrase "government schools" because 'public' has become a meaningless word (especially to the children of virtually every elected official in D.C.).
Posted by: jim hamlen at March 9, 2004 10:27 PMAWW:
They don't call us the Stupid Party for nothin'. Look at Pat Buchanan trying to keep Catholics out of America.
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2004 11:08 PMThey're just pissy they didn't get vouchers. I want it NOW!!!
They should be lucky they got what they got.
AND the beauty is they want out of NCLB but still want the cash.
Posted by: Sandy P. at March 9, 2004 11:39 PMSandy raises a good point: This is an "unfunded mandate" only if the, you know, funds from the Federal Government tied to this performance are somehow left out of the equation.
He who pays the piper calls the dance. Either start shuffling off to Buffalo, or leave the floor.
Posted by: Chris at March 10, 2004 8:17 AMIt's a fraud, folks. The model in Texas was a fraud. It did not do what it was claimed to do.
Bush and Paige lied.
I gather that Orrin doesn't care, because he expects good results even from dishonest premises.
Like the with the space station.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 10, 2004 12:47 PMAh, Harry, what would we do without our Stalinist, the last man in the West who disbelieves in the market and thinks the State is efficient.
Posted by: oj at March 10, 2004 1:01 PMHarry:
If
A)lying is the deliberate stating that something is true when it is not, or not true when it is; and
B)The only truths we can know reliably are objective truths based upon material observation and testing; and
C)Only trained scientists are qualified to do this accurately;
then how do you explain that scientists never lie but Christians, the churches and politicians you don't like always do?
Posted by: Peter B at March 10, 2004 5:17 PMThe Space Station would've been fine if Russia had been able to keep up their end of the bargain...
As it is, NASA's budget is roughly ten times Russia's, so of course it's up to the US, if we want it to get finished.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 10, 2004 6:23 PMThe lie is that no child is being left behind.
When Paige was head of the Houston district, the dropout rate was at least 50% and he claimed 1%.
That's a lie, isn't it?
Makes you wonder whether the folks pushing this really have the best interests of the children at heart.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 10, 2004 7:55 PMOf course there are children being left behind--most children, like most people are idiots. The point is to get vouchers for those kids who can be educated, the minority.
Posted by: oj at March 10, 2004 9:45 PM"growing nervous that they will be saddled with huge costs from an unfunded federal mandate ... January, the Ohio Department of Education released a study estimating that it will cost about $1.5 billion a year--twice the amount the state now receives from the federal government"
So just stop taking Federal money if its not worth the cost of complying.
The Brothers are if anything (mis)underestimating the President's cleverness in this. As he often does, he is allowing two options, both of them beneficial. You've analyzed the first.
The second is that states stop qualifying for federal money, and the Feds finally get out of local education as Reagan wanted.
Posted by: ralph phelan at March 11, 2004 2:24 PM