Back to Leave No Child Behind

C.I.: those who worship at the altar of Free-Market Capitalism should open their eyes and see what their idol has wrought--it isn't the promise land, it's a filfthy impoverished waste land where opportunities and standards of living are nose-diving to oblivion for the masses while the wealthy lock themselves in their gated communities and count their gold.

revel: I think teaching is still a growth occupation, but your daughter may have to move to get a job. Clark County School District (Las Vegas and the surrounding area) has consistently been hiring 1,500-2,000 teachers a year for the last five or six years and there's currently no indication that the growth rate of the district will slow anytime in the near future. What's more, special ed. is a high demand specialty.

The feds are finally realizing the problems they have created with NCLB.

Facing State Protests, U.S. Offers More Flexibility on School Rules
By SAM DILLON

Published: April 8, 2005


MOUNT VERNON, Va., April 7 - Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings offered greater flexibility to states on Thursday in meeting the requirements of the Bush administration's education reform law, calling the changes a major policy shift.

In her first national response to growing resistance among state officials to the law, known as No Child Left Behind, Ms. Spellings sought to set a new, more cooperative tone. She compared the law's tempestuous first years to those of an infant's experiencing "the terrible 2's."

"This is a new day," she said. "States that show results and follow the principles of No Child Left Behind will be eligible for new tools to help you meet the law's goals."

Although President Bush promoted the law during his re-election campaign as one of his major accomplishments, more than 30 states - including many Republican strongholds - have raised objections to it. Some argue that the federal government is not adequately financing its requirements, which include a broad expansion of standardized testing. Others object to federal intrusion into an area long considered the domain of the states.

It was unclear whether Ms. Spellings's proposals went far enough to assuage state officials' concerns, though several state superintendents expressed approval, as did both national teachers unions and several members of Congress.

But Connecticut officials, who announced earlier this week that they would sue the federal government for forcing the state to conduct more testing without providing the money to pay for it, were not impressed.

"This supposed initiative offers less than meets the eye," said Richard Blumenthal, the Connecticut attorney general. "Nothing in all of today's verbiage corrects the key legal lapse: by the law's clear terms, no mandate means no mandate, if it's unfunded. Our determination to sue continues."

Ms. Spellings announced specific concessions in only one area, concerning how learning-disabled students must be tested.

Until now, the administration has allowed only 1 percent of all students, those most severely handicapped, to be given special tests; all other disabled students have been required to take the test administered to regular students. Dozens of state officials have called that policy unfair and unrealistic. On Thursday, Ms. Spellings said states would be allowed to administer alternative tests to an additional 2 percent of students.

Ms. Spellings also said the Department of Education could give some states additional flexibility, but she said they must first prove that they deserve it.

The states that may be eligible, she said, must have generally sound educational policies in place, demonstrate that student achievement is rising and follow the "basic principles of the law," which she listed as administering standardized tests every year in Grades 3 through 8, reporting test results by ethnic groups and others to make sure that all students are advancing, and working to improve teacher training and parent participation.

For states that meet those criteria, Ms. Spellings said, "it is the results that truly matter, not the bureaucratic way you get there."

That and several other of her statements brought applause from the education officials gathered here in an auditorium at George Washington's plantation.

Ms. Spellings invited all 50 state education superintendents to appear. About 15 did, as did 10 deputy superintendents, said G. Thomas Houlihan, executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers, an association of state superintendents that gets significant financing from the Department of Education.

"We have some members who do not like this law," Mr. Houlihan said after the speech.

"It's meant a lot of heavy lifting," he said, "but this speech has left me cautiously optimistic" about chances for improving federal-state relations.

Trent Blankenship, Wyoming's superintendent of public instruction, said: "I thought she nailed it. I'm delighted that we'll be having more flexibility if we stick to the law's principles."

Terry Bergeson, the superintendent in Washington State, said she had met repeatedly with federal officials in recent months to request changes in the testing policies for disabled students.

"We've been doing a disservice to those kids under the No Child Left Behind testing rules," Ms. Bergeson said. "So I was very excited to hear the changes."

Some education advocates worried that Secretary Spellings's offer of new flexibility to some states but not others would lead to favoritism.

The feds are finally realizing the problems they have created with NCLB.

Facing State Protests, U.S. Offers More Flexibility on School Rules
By SAM DILLON

Published: April 8, 2005


MOUNT VERNON, Va., April 7 - Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings offered greater flexibility to states on Thursday in meeting the requirements of the Bush administration's education reform law, calling the changes a major policy shift.

In her first national response to growing resistance among state officials to the law, known as No Child Left Behind, Ms. Spellings sought to set a new, more cooperative tone. She compared the law's tempestuous first years to those of an infant's experiencing "the terrible 2's."

"This is a new day," she said. "States that show results and follow the principles of No Child Left Behind will be eligible for new tools to help you meet the law's goals."

Although President Bush promoted the law during his re-election campaign as one of his major accomplishments, more than 30 states - including many Republican strongholds - have raised objections to it. Some argue that the federal government is not adequately financing its requirements, which include a broad expansion of standardized testing. Others object to federal intrusion into an area long considered the domain of the states.

It was unclear whether Ms. Spellings's proposals went far enough to assuage state officials' concerns, though several state superintendents expressed approval, as did both national teachers unions and several members of Congress.

But Connecticut officials, who announced earlier this week that they would sue the federal government for forcing the state to conduct more testing without providing the money to pay for it, were not impressed.

"This supposed initiative offers less than meets the eye," said Richard Blumenthal, the Connecticut attorney general. "Nothing in all of today's verbiage corrects the key legal lapse: by the law's clear terms, no mandate means no mandate, if it's unfunded. Our determination to sue continues."

Ms. Spellings announced specific concessions in only one area, concerning how learning-disabled students must be tested.

Until now, the administration has allowed only 1 percent of all students, those most severely handicapped, to be given special tests; all other disabled students have been required to take the test administered to regular students. Dozens of state officials have called that policy unfair and unrealistic. On Thursday, Ms. Spellings said states would be allowed to administer alternative tests to an additional 2 percent of students.

Ms. Spellings also said the Department of Education could give some states additional flexibility, but she said they must first prove that they deserve it.

The states that may be eligible, she said, must have generally sound educational policies in place, demonstrate that student achievement is rising and follow the "basic principles of the law," which she listed as administering standardized tests every year in Grades 3 through 8, reporting test results by ethnic groups and others to make sure that all students are advancing, and working to improve teacher training and parent participation.

For states that meet those criteria, Ms. Spellings said, "it is the results that truly matter, not the bureaucratic way you get there."

That and several other of her statements brought applause from the education officials gathered here in an auditorium at George Washington's plantation.

Ms. Spellings invited all 50 state education superintendents to appear. About 15 did, as did 10 deputy superintendents, said G. Thomas Houlihan, executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers, an association of state superintendents that gets significant financing from the Department of Education.

"We have some members who do not like this law," Mr. Houlihan said after the speech.

"It's meant a lot of heavy lifting," he said, "but this speech has left me cautiously optimistic" about chances for improving federal-state relations.

Trent Blankenship, Wyoming's superintendent of public instruction, said: "I thought she nailed it. I'm delighted that we'll be having more flexibility if we stick to the law's principles."

Terry Bergeson, the superintendent in Washington State, said she had met repeatedly with federal officials in recent months to request changes in the testing policies for disabled students.

"We've been doing a disservice to those kids under the No Child Left Behind testing rules," Ms. Bergeson said. "So I was very excited to hear the changes."

Some education advocates worried that Secretary Spellings's offer of new flexibility to some states but not others would lead to favoritism.

The Clark County School District (Las Vegas area) just administered their proficiency test this week. Before NCLB, Nevadan students were required to pass statewide reading, writing, and math proficiency tests in order to graduate. The reading and math tests are now also used for the purpose of NCLB. We also run into great difficulties with the lack of flexibility of NCLB--the school district is held accountable for every student's performance, however, about 60% of the district's students have been in the district less than two academic years (the Las Vegas area has an extremely transient population). Why are we held responsible for students' academic preparation over which we had no control?

It's because bureaucrats do not understand all the problems associated with teaching and schools before they mandate standards. They create impossible standards without the funding. When we also consider the fact that republicans are supposed to be for less government intervention in local governance, we can understand how screwed up they really are!

Why do I think of Michael Jackson whenever I see this thread?

Because if we listen to those who think anything other than throwing more money at the problem is evil, its the kids that are getting screwed?

Something about "leave no child's behind...", oh, never mind.

You have to wonder, however how much 'additional funding' the states think would be adequate to meet the NCLB requirements. And to the best of my knowledge, any state can simply opt out of the program by foregong the funding. But what appears to be happening, they want the funding but don't want to meet the requirements for meriting it. $8 billion isn't enough? How much is enough?

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget06/nclb/index.html

Foxfyre- You are quite correct. It has been clearly shown in many places that more and more money is not the solution. The solution is the voucher plan and the set up of specisal schools to take care of children with etraordinary needs( the mentally disabled and the severely disruptive) so that teachers can do the job of educating the other students( sometimes the efforts of the liberals to make sure that all of the special educsation students and the severe discipline cases are educated, it is forgotten that the rest of the studjents are individuals who mus tbe given an opportunity to learn in viable surroundings.

About ten years ago, A liberal attempt to educatre came to an ignminious end in the Kansas City School District.

A federal judge decreed that the "funding" for the Kansas City Schools was insufficient and so the suburbus around Kansas City must be melded into the city system and those suburbs must sned both a large amount of tax moinies and their public school students so that the pupils in Kansas City would receive the FUNDING they need.

Millions were poured into the schools in Kansas City. Dozens of new schools, state of the art, mind you., were built. Class sizes were lowered.
The experiment lasted for nearly ten years. At the end of this time, there was NO INCREASE IN STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT--NONE. In fact, some schools even regressed.

This is a case that shows clearly that Financing schools is a losing proposition unless some radical changes are made in changing the cullture of the schools.

The culture of a school is changed when "gangbangers" and severely handicapped students such as autistics are given special facilities of thier own. This, of course,cannot be done if LIberals are present and in power since they will scream bloody murder about the rights of the gangbangers and autistics.

Hospitals wisely put thier very infectious cases in special isolated wards.

In order to produce better scholars, Schools must do the same.

Why voucher system is not a cure all.

"Private schools aren't accountable to any oversight organization; thus, they may not act responsibly. Public schools are subject to government oversight and more rules & regulation. Thus, tighter control is placed on the teaching methods and system of education. With little or no oversight, we don't know how well private schools will perform.


Public schools must accept everyone regardless of disabilities, test scores, religion, or other characteristics; private schools can show favoritism or discrimination in selecting students. Private schools can establish any criteria they want for selecting or rejecting students. Thus, they can discriminate or make eligibility standards much more difficult for poorer students. Public schools on the other hand must accommodate all types of students regardless of what challenges they present. Government funds should be kept with the public schools that take on these challenges rather than private schools that may discriminate."

NCLB, with its array of unrealistic requirements, should at the very least have been accompanied by a funding appropriation equivalent to the additional budgetary burden being imposed on school districts, not a small fraction thereof. And of course schools want the funding; more to the point, they need the funding. However, the notion that they don't want to achieve high standards is a ridiculously obtuse and ideologically obstructed conclusion--schools want to achieve; what they don't want is an additional drain on their already insufficient budgets, which is exactly what NCLB is since the modest appropriation by the federal government doesn't meet additional spending required of the states and school districts. Hell, most school districts already have to choose between funding a sufficient custodial staff and purchasing enough textbooks, and now they're expected to cover additional required expenses without a comparable increase in funding (apparently neither clean schools nor literate students are high on the conservative agenda).

And vouchers would fail for exactly the same reason chiczaira believes additional funding won't help public schools: they fail to consider culture. Conservatives look to the many success stories of private schools and home-schooling and conclude that all we have to do is create a system that will allow all families to take "their share" of the public education money to send their children to private schools and the educational problems of the country will be solved (we'll pretend the fact that vouchers redistribute wealth upwards hasn't occurred to conservative leaders). Then the ideology of free-market capitalism comes inexplicably into play and it's competition between the schools that will somehow fix education. What's being ignored here is the fact that the parents of private school children tend to be much more invested (both emotionally and financially in the case of private schools) in their children's education. These are parents who are going to keep track of their children's progress, contact the teachers when they see something askew in their children's performance, help their children with their homework, make sure their children are doing their homework, and discipline their children when necessary. It's not that private schools, in and of themselves, are fundamentally better than public schools, it's that the parents of private school students have more time or resources (or, in many cases, desire) to help their children succeed. In public schools, the students who tend to dominate the ranks of the high achievers are those whose parents have the time, resources, and/or desire to help their children succeed. Unfortunately, most students don't have these types of parents--a fact that is addressed neither by NCLB nor vouchers.

And chiczaira: one last time--students with severe mental disabilities or severe behavioral disorders are not mainstreamed. They, with the exceptions of misdiagnoses, are placed in special education classrooms with a trained special education teacher. Though they still go the same school as other children, they are isolated from the other children for the most part. We do frequently have students who are involved with the wrong end of the criminal justice system, but that's not the same thing as having a 'disorder' and they usually aren't the principal behavioral problems in the classroom.

And mainstreaming isn't a 'liberal' movement, it's a nonpartisan parent-based movement. Parents, regardless of political stripe, want to avoid their children being labeled as 'special needs'. If their children are placed in special education classrooms, then they will certainly be labeled as such. The problems of mainstreaming arise mainly from two factors: parent denial and politics/the legal system. Some parents are right to want their children in regular classrooms, but some are in denial about the severity of their children's disabilities. The parents who are in denial can frequently get their way simply by going to higher administration or school board and threatening bad press. If that fails, they can hire a lawyer and threaten a lawsuit. Unless the student in question is a verifiable threat to others or very severely disabled, most districts will cave simply to avoid the expense of fighting a lawsuit.

bookmark (don't want to interrupt this exchange)

Mills, I don't care about cultural differences. I believe children of all races, ethnic groups, and sociopolitial backgrounds. when sufficiently challenged and competently instructed, can learn in all important ways; and to compartmentalize them into various 'victim' classes is not only harmful to them but detrimental to the education process. Some may need remedial classes to learn English, but wouldn't that be the case whether or not there is a NCLB initiative?

I cannot see how the NCLB requirements are beyond the ability of any child of normal intelligence. Unless you believe few children are of normal intelligence, it would seem that to meet the NCLB standards, a teacher has to teach. If the teachers are unable to teach the children what the children are supposed to know, no amount of additional funding is going to change that.

Foxfyre: Of course every child of normal intelligence can succeed, that's not the point. The point is that not every child is motivated to succeed in their home environments, and a teacher with thirty or forty students per class simply doesn't have the time or resources to reach all the students who need the extra motivation. It can be done by reducing class-size and enhancing after school programs, but accomplishing these things aren't free.

However, this doesn't address the additional budgetary hardship placed on school districts specifically by NCLB. There are three main requirements of NCLB: that states require all of their students to take a standardized test to evaluate their reading and math skills; that 95% of students at each school who are supposed to take the test actually take the test; and that schools show sufficient progress towards reaching the proficiency levels mandated by NCLB.

First of all, standardized testing is expensive. Most states already had standardized testing to gauge their students' competency, so that by itself was only a hardship for states who weren't already testing their students. However, now that the testing has become so high stakes for the schools themselves, they've been forced to take additional steps to prepare students for the test--practice tests (which cost almost as much as the real tests to administer), educational materials designed specifically to prepare students for the tests, and so on. This all costs big money.

Then there's the fool's dream of 95% attendance on test day. I doubt most large schools could achieve 95% attendance if they were giving away free beer and pizza. So schools send out additional mailings, call parents, and set up rewards systems to entice students to come to school and take the test. And yes, most of the students have to take it the same day for security reasons (we don't want those dishonest schools holding on to the tests longer than absolutely necessary). Trying to get that 95% costs money.

The final item actually goes back to the issue of motivation. How can teachers teach students who are simply content to fail? Remember, it's not enough that the students who want to learn pass the test; the students who refuse to learn and whose parents don't care (sadly, a substantial minority of students) have to pass it too. We can, however, change these students, but that requires additional time on the part of the teacher to work with that student--teachers only gain this additional time by smaller class sizes, and smaller class sizes cost money.

Mills writes


Okay, you make some very good points. I am not a public school teacher though I do teach so know something about motivating students and also about students who refuse to be motivated. I have served on a school board and thus know something of the problems regarding budget versus performance. I concur 100% that simplistic answers are not sufficient for complicated issues.

So here's the deal as I see it. You have the teachers' union resisting most efforts to evaluate and reward teacher competency. You have the do-gooders refusing to back away any at all from mainstreaming the problem child with the motivated children and Title I consuming much more than its fair share of available resources. And you have the ACLU and its ilk barging in to make sure there are no meaningful reforms
And this I think is the problem and not the amount of money expended.



What if we could break the death grip of social engineers and send Title I off to do its own thing completely separate from the public schools? Then lets give the school the power to retain those students who show up for and pay attention in class and are motivated to learn? The truants, poorly motivated, disruptive, or otherwise uneducable, are sent to alternate schools where they are taught the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic and are taught a trade so that they can support themselves. There might be a transitional program if horrified parents decide to motivate their kids to get back into the mainstream.

And finally, lets get rid of most of the top heavy administrative bureaucracy that is choking the life out of schools just about everywhere. I didn't hunt up a current median per capita expenditure for the U.S. public schools, but the last time I looked it was in the $5000 range not counting capital expensitures. Take a class of 25 kids x $5000 = $125,000. How much of that does the teacher get - $25k to $35k max? Where is the rest going? It sure as hell isn't going for books or school supplies, the latter which many teachers are buying out of their own pockets.

Straighten out these problems and there will be plenty of funding to prepare for the tests, take the tests, ensure that the kids know the stuff they need to know to pass the test, and exceed that 95% requirement.

NCLB makes a lot of sense because what we're doing now isn't working to educate an unacceptable percentage of children.. I for one am not willing to funnel still more money into a system that isn't getting the job done. Once the schools figure that out and start thinking and doing things differently, more efficiently, more effectively, then NCLB will have accomplished its purpose and will be no problem at all.

I am very much afraid that Cicerone Imposter is quite mistaken about schools that operate under the voucher system. Every school is subject to at least the authority of the state to visit and declare the school worthy of being certificated.

Cicerone Imposter does not realize that the customer who is not locked in to a particular school, as many people are, are able to vote with their feet. Schools that are not serving their students properly will not be utilized. Period.

I am mystified at Cicerone Imposter's comment that Public Schools must serve everyone. Of course. NO CHILD CANNOT BE DENIED AN EDUCATION. It is crystal clear that voucher schools must be set up for the mentally disabled and the severely disruptive( as I have mentioned several times already) but it is a critical point that these special students are the MAJOR REASON(not the only reason) why learning is not taking place as we could expect in our schools.

I know quite a good deal about schools and how they run. Anyone who has taught will agree that one or two highly disruptive students or a couple of mildly autistic children in a class will make that class IMPOSSIBLE to teach in any coherent manner.

Yet, today's philosophies about Mainstreaming and allowing everyone, even the mentally disabled and the emotionally disturbed, to sit in a class with twenty five other average children attempts to assert the rights to an education for the "special" students while simutaneously wrecking any chcaces chances that the rights of the TWENTY FIVE OTHER CHILDREN to a good education will be upheld.

I am sure that you are a good teacher, Mills 75. Your writing and your zeal are evident.

You make an excellent point about culture. I am afraid that you really don't understand what the culture of schools really means.

There is a great deal that has been written about the "culture" of schools or of a "school" and the culture of the school is the problem.

I am familiar with several large city systems having been a teacher and administrator in them.

The cities are Chicago( very large) Milwaukee(not as large) and Madison Wisconsin( smaller still).
I can tell you that the culture of the school is created by the culture of the neighborhood. If many of the children who come to the school are enamoured with the "gangbanger" life style, I can tell you UNEQUIVOCALLY that there will be little or no real education going on in that school.

However, there will be some children who want to learn and some parents who want them to learn and some parents who are not opposed to having their children bussed a long way in a large city to a "Magnet School".

What is special about Magnet Schools? Many of them have dress codes. Some of them make it quite clear to the enrollees and their parents that discipline will be maintained. Nonetheless, some of the gangbanger types do enroll. They dilute the learning process even in the magnet schools.

I don't know what the Special Education regulations are in North Las Vegas but I can assure Mills 75 that in the cities with which I am familiar SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS ARE INDEED MAINSTREAM AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT SOME OF THESE CHILDREN HAVE A TEACHER AIDE ASSIGNED TO THEM THEY DRIVE THEIR TEACHERS CRAZY( you do know what the unfortunate Autistics are like, don
t you, Mills 75?)

You see. Mills 75, you are correct but you don't go far enough. In Chicago, there are quite a few Parochial Schools( mainly Roman Catholic) which educate children in the INNER CITY. These schools are quite a bit more successful than Public Schools because they demand a great deal of their students or else councel them to find education elsewhere.

There are many Black and Hispanic children whose parents will make sacrifices to put them in a school where they can learn.

Vouchers would take care of those people.

But what about the others? The five or ten percent who are either so emotionally disturbed, disruptive or mentally handicapped that they would not be able to profit from a voucher system?

But, they would. With appropriate legislation, these children can be instructed in VERY SMALL CLASSES with superior teachers.

Hospitals set up separate wings for the highly infectious. Why can't we do the same for students?

foxfyre is correct about Teachers Unions. Let's be honest. In everyone of the three cities in which I have worked in Education, the teachers Unions come to the table with 200 or 300 demands in September( literally). By crunch time, they have shown their "good faith" by tossing out 90% of their initial demands( the items tossed out usually include "lowered class sizes, curriculum upgrades and other benefits in the classroom" Guess what remains typically?

Benefits- Salary. Medical Insurance, Sick days, etc.

No one should be suprised at this since good unions do exactly that= they look after the most pressing needs of their constitutents.

I am very much afraid that Mills 75's comment about changing the students who do not want to learn may be a bit idealistic. I think it can be done but changing students who are mainly motivated by the ideas of their peers is almost impossible. That is precisely why the "hard cases" should not be allowed to poison the atmosphere of any classes.


I would ask Mills 75, foxfyre and cicerone imposter to answer this question:

Exactly why are Asian students( Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, East Indians) so successful in school? Not all of them go to private schools. Not all of them go to schools in affluent neighborhoods?

When the Harvard Class of 1995 paraded its Phi Beta Kappa honorees in a ceremony, a full 19% of the honorees were Asian while only 9% of the total graduating class was Asian.

The answer is culture--the culture of the home and of high expectations---not the culture which feels that the Summum Bonum is a slam dunk.

Until Cultures are changed, minority success in American Schools will lag behind drastically.

Culture is not amenable to the fixes of funding or smaller class sizes. It must come from the people themselves.