Home › Blogs › No Issues Left Behind
« Moment of Silence for the Golden State | Main | California Golden Schools Initiative »
March 24, 2006
Well, some kids left behind - but why?
From the Wall Street Journal -
March 24, 2006
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
DOW JONES REPRINTS
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit:
www.djreprints.com.
• See a sample reprint in PDF format.
• Order a reprint of this article now.
Spellings Test
March 24, 2006; Page A10
The No Child Left Behind Act has taken its lumps from the education establishment, which loathes its testing and transparency measures. But the latest criticism of the law is more surprising, because it's coming from conservatives who are questioning the Bush Administration's commitment to enforcing its own law.
This week the Alliance for School Choice filed complaints against school districts in Los Angeles and Compton, California, where school officials have neglected to notify parents of their rights under NCLB. These districts have also failed to make transfer options available to kids in underperforming schools.
Under the 2001 law, schools that repeatedly fail to make "adequate yearly progress" as measured by state standards are required to give students the option to attend better schools within the district. To be sure, the California districts singled out in the filing aren't the only ones skirting the law. Similar violations have been reported in Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, New York and elsewhere. A Government Accountability Office report from 2004 found that some three million children in 5,300 schools nationwide were eligible for choice under NCLB, but only about 1% were exercising the option.
Still, Los Angeles and Compton are among the worst cases of noncompliance, according to the Alliance, which filed the administrative actions with the school districts on behalf of several parents with children stuck in failing schools. In the 2003-04 school year less than two-tenths of one percent of eligible students in the Los Angeles Unified School District exercised their rights and actually transferred schools. In Compton, no students have received transfers.
"That only two out of every thousand families with children in failing schools would seek a better school for their children," says the complaint, "betrays the utter inadequacy of [the L.A. school district's] notification and explanation regarding school choice rights."
The complaint further alleges that these pitifully low transfer numbers are by design. While NCLB specifies when and how parents must be notified of their options, the school districts have deliberately dragged their feet and gone out of their way to confuse and discourage families. Tactics include, among other things, burying transfer notices in other material sent to homes; giving parents a very narrow time-frame -- say, a week -- in which to make up their mind; and forcing transfers to take place in the middle of a school year. This kind of obstructionism fits the pattern of public school officials around the country who are resisting every challenge to their control of school enrollments, curriculum and especially budgets.
The reason school districts have been able to get away with this behavior is that no one is holding their feet to the fire. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings has chosen to hand out exemptions or look the other way instead of enforcing the law. This benign neglect hurts most the very students that NCLB was designed to help. The GAO report found that 80% of children in failing schools were minority and 62% were low-income.
If the districts reject the Alliance complaints, they can be appealed to the state and then federal government. But Secretary Spellings needn't wait for that process and could take action against these recalcitrant districts and impose sanctions if necessary. Under the law, she has the authority to terminate federal funding and compel compliance but so far has been unwilling to use it.
Large urban school districts like the one in Los Angeles respond that the number of students eligible for transfer far exceeds the number of seats available in better schools within the district. But that's not an excuse for noncompliance; that's a reason to let students attend schools outside their public district, including charter schools and private schools.
School districts have little incentive to initiate these reforms on their own, especially when federal enforcement is an empty threat. And if the Bush Administration isn't going to use its funding leverage to ensure that all children have a shot at a decent education, then No Child Left Behind has become yet another illusory reform.
--- your comments please....---
Comments
Hello:
How come we can't ask for measurement benchmarks for success in education? President Bush promised in his 2000 campaign to offer a better approach to federal education spending and accountability because education had risen to the number one issue facing American voters in 2000.
Think about that, in the previous eight years education rose to the number one issue facing American families in the US and this was under a Democratic President with support from the NEA.
You would have thought President Clinton, a man known to have polled the American people on where to go on vacation, would have done something about the growing demand for federal action in education. Why didn't he?
I'll admit, the previous president did some good things in education with his HOPE scholarship and passage of some enabling legislation for charter schools, but essentially he left the heavy lifting in education reform for Bush to tackle.
And Bush tackled it with bi-partisan support in congress.
Now, not all things have gone well with NCLB. We as a nation also have the War on Terror and the biggest natural disaster ever in Hurricane Katrina to tackle. I'll admit that NCLB isn't perfect, but we are seeing continuous improvement in areas of education we never saw in the previous eight years.
If we were to repeal No Child Left Behind as the far left and the far right want to do, it would be disasterous for our students. Let's keep reforming NCLB to enhance and improve the improvement we have seen since 2001.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at March 27, 2006 02:26 PMBrian,
I was saying that we should apply these same NCLB principals in exactly the same way to other professions. What's wrong with that?
There is nothing wrong with that, however NCLB was a response to a neglected crisis perceived by the voting public. It was a bipartisan bill too.
The president also passed a prescription drug benefit for seniors in response to the prescription drug crisis that occurred in the late 90's as well because response was neglected. It hasn't made everyone happy, but it was better than no response by the previous president.
I hardly think the public would take those government proposals you suggested seriously, yet time after time, the public wants more accountability in classrooms. Actually, when I read them allowed, they kind of sounded like a good piece of satire.
Like I said, NCLB is not perfect. This year's budget proposal argued for a special ed cut to state budget reimbursements that I didn't agree with and I don't agree with not enforcing the law as a bipartisan congress approved this.
But, we are seeing some improvement we've never seen before. Even the NAACP is coming out to defend it because they are seeing that schools where failure was typical is no longer the case.
I choose to support the imporvement. You should join me.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at March 27, 2006 04:21 PMScott,
It had bi-partisan support because the President said it would be FULLY FUNDED, and it has not been. He lied, just like he did about Iraq, about domestic spying, etc. That is why the State of Utah has said adios to most of NCLB. A group of bi-partisan state legislators found that so far states have shelled out over 10 billion to fund NCLB, money they were told DC would come up with. Instead we send that money to Iraq to build infrastructure that is blown up a few days later. Do you think it was right for Bush to lie about fully funding NCLB?
Scott,
What do you think about the Chamber of Commerce spending millions on ads to support Arnold in California? Has the Chamber become just another arm of the republican party? Is that the best way for them to promote business for their members?
Arleigh:
The chamber can support Arnold just as the CTA can oppose him and support their own candidates. I have no problem with free speech even if I don't agree with what I hear.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the power to tax and spend rested with Congress, not the President. Does not Article One of the Federal Constitution spell that out?
Department of Education funding was already appropriated the day the law passed. Why didn't democrats demand proper investments didn't get tied to each section of NCLB. It hardly can be construed a lie if everyone new the funding situation going in. It seems somewhat conveinent for dems to lambast the President for something they did not fight for the day they voted for the bill.
On International Relations, I am not afraid to go on record and say we need to be involved in the world and defeat terrorism. If only 1% supported the war on terror I wouldn't change my opinion. Of course, we may fundamentally disagree on that point, but I just know that if history has taught me anything it's that I'd rather be on the offense against those that mean to harm Americans than wait for a Pearl Harbor or 9/11 to come hit us.
BTW, Arleigh, thank you for serving our country in the Marines. I'm not sure if I've ever thanked you on this blog. Disagreement is what makes this country great, but we should never lose the context of what is most important. We all have a contribution to make and without sounding corny I respect your opinions even if I humbly disagree with them.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at March 28, 2006 04:42 PMScott,
The democrats in congress didn't fight for NCLB funding (or introduce any bills to make it happen either) because they preferred it as an election issue, instead of an educational issue.
Simple, cynical, priceless.
Tim
Posted by: Tim Keaney at March 28, 2006 06:08 PMTim:
I'm not sure dems could have added those type of amendments in the House version, but I am totally positive that in 2001 with basically a 50-50 Senate, democrats could have threatened to torpedo the President's No Child Left Behind Act until he committed to title by title spending priorities.
Then, in House/Senate conference, experienced lawmakers like Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle and John McCain could have really worked up the finishing touches on a financial commitment and forced a compromise with House Republicans before it hit the President's desk.
The President really wanted NCLB, so even if dems pushed the envelope and asked for minimum funding options like prop 98 written into parts like Title 1, they were really in no danger of forcing a veto.
Again, saying your going to "fully fund" something is open to interpretation just like how prop 98 has three different tiers of spending based on economic conditions and revenue levels.
Seriously, who does business like that?
You buy a car, you get a price, you buy insurance you get a price.... that's how a rational marketplace works.
Only in our political structure are we allowed to never give a price for anything and to me it encourages irrational and sometimes downright reckless taxing and spending behavior.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at March 28, 2006 11:28 PMTim:
Case in point.
Right now, on the floor of the house is a debate over HR 609 called the College Access and Opportunity Act.
The bill's major sponsor is Majority leader John Boehner. It offers 70 billion more dollars with the goal of getting more students into college and expanding opportunity.
Democrats have come out strongly against this bill. House dems strongly oppose some of the following in the bill...
1. Teacher Quality Enhancement Acts
2. Teacher Recruitment Grants
3. Preparing tomorrow's teachers to use technology.
4. Creating Cetners of Excellence
5. Expand funds for Veterans
6. Teacher Incentive Programs
7. Mathmatics and Science Education coordination efforts.
8. Federal Work Study Programs.
9. Books and Supplies.
Watching the debate on the house floor, democrats have railed against the pharmaceutical companies, the richest 1%, the FEMA response to Katrina, and private colleges like University of Phoenix, which helps students get a college education at night and around their business schedule.
It amazes me that dems wouldn't support the College Access and Opportunity Act. What do you think?
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at March 29, 2006 10:01 AM
Tim,
Posted by: Arleigh Kidd at March 24, 2006 11:41 AMI heard that Bush and his brain trust are now seeking to expand the ideals of NCLB to other areas. They are working on two new laws. One will mandate that there will be no crime by 2014 and if the police fail to do this they will face penalties. They will have their duties out-sourced to private security firms that are not accountable to the taxpayer. I think this is fair because after all every criminal can be taught to go straight, and if not, we should blame the police. This also will be NCLB "NO CRIMINAL LEFT BEHIND. The other law will mandate that diesease and sickness will also be gone by 2014. After all, we are dumping billions into healthcare in America and getting little in return. This will be called NPLB "NO PATIENT LEFT BEHIND." If we still have disease by 2014 patients will then be allowed to seek treatment in foreign countries as a way to sanction American Doctors. Of course along with these new mandates the Federal Government will promise to fully fund it and then only provide a fraction of the funding.