Politics in our Schools

II.  Teacher Quality

        

Title II, Improving Teacher Quality

(Part A:  Grants for improving Teacher Quality)

        The President proposes to improve the preparation, training and recruiting of teachers, based upon the fact that teacher excellence is vital to achieving improvement in the students.  The proposal will allocate funding for states to improve teachers through “high-quality training for teachers that is grounded in scientific research.”  (Bush 12)  In return, states are held accountable to improve the quality of their teachers.  Below is an outline of the grants and programs included in the president’s plan:

• The Eisenhower Professional development Program and Class Size Reduction Program will be consolidated into grants that may be use more flexibly by states and local districts.  (Bush 12)  
• The states and school districts are allowed more flexibility to fund their specific needs in improving teacher quality.  In return, the states and schools will be required to ensure that the funding from the federal government us used to promote scientific, research-based and effective practices in the classroom.  (Bush 12 – 13)  
• The states and school districts are allowed to use their federal funding to “promote innovative programs such as reforming teacher certification or licensure requirements; alternative certification; tenure reform and merit-based teacher performance systems; differential and bonus pay for teachers in high-need subject areas such as reading, math and science, and in high poverty schools and districts; and mentoring programs.”  (Bush 13)
• The states will be held accountable to ensure that all teachers are qualified and for developing a plan to ensure this goal is met.  (Bush 13)
• States that develop teacher assessment systems that measure performance using the data from student academic achievement will be eligible for awards from the Secretary of Education.  1% of the funding of the No Child Left Behind Act is set aside for these grants.  (Bush 13)
• Teachers and other school administration, when acting professionally, are protected from federal liability when maintaining discipline in a classroom, so long as their conduct is not reckless or criminal.  (Bush 13)
• Teachers are allowed to make a tax deduction of up to $400 to defray the costs that teachers make out of pocket for classroom expenses such as books, supplies, professional enrichment programs and other training.  (Bush 13)
• Parents will have access to the effectiveness of their child’s teacher as defined by each individual state.  (Bush 13)

Title II, Improving Math and Science Instruction

(Part B:  Math and Science Partnerships)

        The President divides the problem in the areas of math and science into three causes:  too many teachers teaching out-of-field; too few students taking advanced coursework; and too few schools offering a challenging curriculum and textbooks.

        The President acknowledges the higher education community’s vested interest in improving the achievement of math and science in the public schools.  “More than twenty states have begun to form partnerships with colleges and universities for the purpose of raising math and science standards for students, providing math and science training for teachers, and creating innovative ways to reach underserved schools.”  (Bush 14)  The President’s plan provides funding for these partnerships.

III.  Funding

        The President’s bill allocates funding for Title I, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and charter schools.  The bill also consolidates a few programs and creates a few new programs.  The following is a summary of the provisions and other highlights, pertaining to the funding of the No Child left Behind Act (excerpted from the California School Board Association website):

• Total Title I funding is $12.2 billion.
• IDEA funding increased by $1.2 billion.
• There is no voucher provision in this bill.
• Charter school funding increased by $10 million.
• Program Consolidations: Education Technology, Teacher Quality, Bilingual and Immigrant Education.
• New Programs; Early Reading First Program.
• Program Cuts: School Renovation.
• Title 1 School Wide Program threshold changed from 50% to 40%.
• Extends liability protections to individual school board members (as distinct from the board) who undertake reasonable actions to maintain order and discipline in the classroom without the fear of being subjected to frivolous lawsuits.

Transferability Provisions:

• States can transfer up to 50 percent of funds for administration and activities among selected Title I programs.  States must notify the U.S. Department of Education of changes.
• Local education agencies (LEA) may also transfer up to 50 percent of Title I funding among selected programs.  LEA’s identified in need of improvement or for corrective action can transfer up to 30 percent.  LEAs must notify the state of modifications.

IV.  Sanctions and Rewards

Freedom and Accountability

Title VII

Title VII establishes how states and school districts are held accountable for improving achievement.  States and schools are allowed great flexibility in how they can spend their federal education allowances.  In return, the federal government will hold the schools accountable for improving achievement.  The states are required to submit a plan that specifically addresses accountability requirements.  States and schools that can show significant progress are rewarded.  The federal government will withhold funding from states that fail to show significant and adequate yearly progress.  Sanctions are based on a state’s failure to meet adequate yearly progress in math and reading in grades 3 through 8.  Progress on state assessments are confirmed through an annual sampling of 4th and 8th grade students on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in math and reading.

I have segregated the proposal into the three large sections to accommodate readability for this outline.

Allowing more flexibility:

• States and schools will have an option to enter into a charter agreement with the Federal Secretary of Education.  The agreement will allow the schools freedom from the current requirements placed on the categorical grant programs (Grants specifically designed to be used in one specific way) in return for submitting a five year performance agreement with the Secretary which establishes specific goals for increased student performance.  During these five years, states and schools are held up to strict accountability for improving achievement, review, and sanctions for failing to meet the terms of the agreement.  A state or school will lose charter status if student achievement and other performance indicators do not improve as agreed to in the charter.  (Bush 26)
• Funding for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is increased to reduce the burden states and local school districts bear in meeting the special needs of their disabled students.  (Bush 27)

Increases Accountability for Improved Student Achievement

• States will submit a plan to the Secretary of Education for all ESEA funds.  The plan must include:

• The adoption of standards, annual assessments of all children in grades 3 and 8 in math and reading, reporting, and consequences for academic achievement in schools.  Federal funds will be available to help play for the assessments and state accountability systems.
• The development of a system of sanctions and rewards to hold schools accountable for meeting performance objectives
• A requirement for schools to publish, in print, school report cards for parents as well as on the Internet.  The report cards must include math and reading results separated by ethnicity, gender, poverty, disabled students and English proficiency.  When possible these school report cards should be integrated with existing state and local report cards.
• An agreement to participate in an annual National Assessment of Educational Progress in grades 4 and 8 in reading and math.  Congress would fund administration of the test.  (Bush 27)
• The Secretary of Education was to reduce the amount of money a state receives if a state fails to meet its performance objectives.  Sanctions are based on whether a state meets its performance objectives for improving the achievement of disadvantaged students and English language proficiency. (Bush 27)

Rewards for High-Performing States and Schools

• An “Achievement in Education” fund was to reward high-performing States in closing achievement gaps and improving English proficiency.  The performance is using state assessment results, which are confirmed by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. (Bush 27 – 28)
• States have the option to implement the annual reading and math assessments in grades 3-8 before the end of the second year of the plan’s enactment will be eligible to receive a one-time bonus.  (Bush 28)
• The Blue Ribbon Schools program was into the “No Child Left Behind” bonus fund to reward schools that make significant progress in closing the achievement gap.  (Bush 28)

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001:  A Critique

Change and progress are very different things.  

The President has a historically low level of support among African Americans, and an image that shows a pro-business, anti-poor affiliation, education is an issue of “outreach.”  It allows the President to show himself (insincerely) as an ally of the poor, communities of diverse ethnicity, particularly those ill-served by public education.

The President’s 2000 campaign was an opportunity for Bush to speak out against the “soft bigotry of low expectations” and to promote a school reform based on high-stakes testing.  Once in office he published a 28-page paper on the reformation of the federal role in education.  Bush focused on the lowest performing schools and the racial dimensions of the achievement gap, giving his rhetoric a sense of urgency it would lack otherwise.  His rhetoric also included the policy proposals of vouchers for low performing schools and high-stakes testing which reinforce the “hard bigotry” of racism in education by promoting higher drop-out rates, tracking, and funding inequities.

The President left out key details in his policy paper, like how he proposed to afford the sweeping changes, it also outlined the following positions (excerpted from Stan Karp’s essay Bush Plan Fails Schools):

• A call for annual, federally-mandated testing in 3rd through 8th grades in reading and math. This call to leave no child untested could dramatically impact states and school districts already sagging under expanded testing mandates.
• The restructuring of dozens of federal programs, many targeted to specific needs like class-size reduction and after-school programs, into general categories of block aid that states can use with more flexibility, and less concern for equity, to "improve student achievement" (i.e., raise test scores).
• An overhaul of Title I, the largest federal education program, that would allow the introduction of a voucher system to encourage students to "seek other options," including private or religious schools.
• An expanded early childhood reading initiative that would fund a limited range of phonics-based approaches to reading instruction.
• Increased funds and support for charter schools.
• Reduced support for bilingual education, and a requirement that non-English speaking students receive instruction entirely in English within three years of entering the school system.

Vouchers are a large area of political debate.  Bush’s proposal gives students in poor schools a voucher for $1,500 if a school’s test scores do not improve within three years.  This leads the public to believe that vouchers are the answer to give poor families a choice in education.  In reality, these vouchers are merely an ideological issue; with a scarce 7% of all school spending in this area the federal funding is largely symbolic.  $1,500 is not nearly enough to finance the tuition necessary for the families to afford sending their children to a better performing private school.  Consequently, these children are left behind due to the President’s oversight in provisions for his goal.

Although, Bush’s proposal of vouchers is grandeurous, the policy will not make it into effect until the Supreme Court (the same court that installed Bush as the President) decides on how far states are allowed to go in funneling public funds to private and religious schools through vouchers.

The President’s increase in funding for charter schools, however, will not need to be reviewed by the supreme court.  Charters and public school choice are a legitimate portion of improving public schools, however, they compete with the efforts of state and federal government that attempt to target the necessary recourses at the neediest schools.  Eventually some children are left behind due to selective admissions policies, and elite magnet institutions.

The tax credit is probably the most detrimental portion of the funding policy contained in the No Child Left Behind Act.  The policy allows families with incomes up to $160,000 a year to put $5,000 annually in a tax free savings account to be used for education purposes, including tuition in private or religious institutions resulting in millions of dollars in lost tax revenue and subsidies for private institutions.

Bush’s call for annual testing is of the most prominent concern from education experts.  Less than a third of all states tested their students in math and reading every year before the policy came into effect.  States had to abandon their existing testing programs and push aside the test in science and social studies to accommodate for the testing in math and reading.

The federal funds tied to test scores create a scenario of high-stakes testing.  These policies will lead to test coaching and curriculum polluted with test answers and ignoring central concepts allowing students to synthesize information.  “Even where these strategies boost short-term results, the progress is often illusory.  For example, the highly-publicized gains on Bush's Texas Assessment of Academic Skills, upon which much of his reputation as a successful education reformer is based, did not show up on other measures of achievement like the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the major federal testing project (whose own independent diagnostic value would be seriously compromised by the Bush plan).”  (Karp 2)  Teachers will be more likely to manipulate test results in significant ways and cheating scandals could arise as teachers feel pressure from administration to show improvement on the tests.  This was the case in Texas after Bush implemented a similar plan as governor.

FairTest Executive Director Monty Neil called the Bush Plan, “A major threat to assessment reform efforts that will particularly harm poor children.”  He went on to say, “This unnecessary and unhelpful federal intrusion into the process of school reform will force more states to direct resources toward turning schools into test-prep programs.  Yet research has demonstrated that the states which administer the most tests and attach the highest consequences to them tend to have the weakest education programs.”  (Karp 4)

“Educators and researchers know that test scores alone provide a very limited picture of educational success or failure,” says Stan Karp.  “Multiple measures of academic performance, classroom observations, project- and portfolio-based assessments, a range of indicators from attendance and drop-out rates to graduation rates and post-graduation success, measures of teacher preparation and quality, indicators of parent participation and satisfaction are all needed if the goal is to assess the effectiveness of a particular school or education program.  In addition, legitimate assessment strategies would measure “opportunity to learn” inputs and equity of resources so that the victims of educational failure were not the only ones to face "high stakes" consequences.

But if the goal is a political one — to posture about "getting tough," to justify disinvestment in the most struggling schools, to drive multicultural curriculum reforms, equity concerns, and more pluralistic, bottom-up approaches to school reform out of the system — then standardized tests may do just fine.”

        Fortunately (or unfortunately), Bush’s ideological goals have been undercut by his own lack of funding for his programs.  Bush’s proposal, aside from testing, does little to aid schools in need to help.  “For example, Bush passionately professes concern for the 70 percent of urban students who don't read at grade level.  (He also typically bases his reading program on questionable research that appears biased towards heavily prescripted versions of phonics-based instruction.)  But the most striking feature of the program is its severely limited scope. Bush's proposed tax cut would deliver 128 times more dollars to the richest 1 percent of the population than he would spend on his reading initiative.”  (Karp 4)  

        The late Senator Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) spoke about the Bush Education Plan:  "I am afraid that his plan could set up millions of vulnerable kids for failure, leaving us with another dose of mostly symbolic politics at the expense of poor children and their families.  The education reform framework that the new administration is developing could do a great deal of additional damage to the children in America's most troubled public schools."

        "It's clear that we have failed to provide all children with the same tools for success," Wellstone continued.  "And given Bush's other spending priorities it seems certain there will be little if anything left to finance his efforts to leave no child behind.  Before we threaten to withhold billions from schools in the name of accountability, politicians and education leaders at all levels, from the White House on down, must first be held accountable to give children what they need to learn."  (Karp 4)

---

        The following is an excerpt from Chapter 42 of Al Franken’s book Lies and the Lying Liars that Tell Them, A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right:

42

The No Child Left Behind Standardized Test

In compliance with the President’s recent education initiatives, teachers using the volume as a textbook are encouraged to “teach to the test.”  The practice questions below are the questions that will appear on the test and will determine whether your school will receive federal, state, and local funding.  In accordance to the Texas model, please ensure your lowest performing students have dropped out prior to the test date.

Section one – Math Skills

1. In the No Child Left Behind Act, Congress authorized a $5.6 billion increase in Title One spending for low-income children.  However, President Bush budgeted only $1 billion for Title One.  If title One calls for $2,800 per poverty-level student, how many children are left behind?

1. 0
2. 1
3. 7
4. 1,643,857

2. In the No Child Left Behind Act, Congress authorized an expansion of transportation and other support services to an additional 130,000 homeless children.  Instead of an increase, the President’s budget froze funding for the homeless education program.  Because of inflation, this meant 8.000 fewer homeless children could be served than in the previous year.  Assuming there is no increase in homelessness this year, how many homeless children are left behind?

1. 0
2. 8
3. 13
4. 138,000

3. In the No Child Left Behind Act, Congress authorized increased funding to help school districts meet the mandate that all teachers in core academic subjects be “highly-qualified” by the end of the 2005-2006 school year.  By freezing the funding for the Teacher Quality State Grant Program, the Bush budget trains 92,000 fewer teachers than were promised by the act.  Assuming each teacher teaches four classes a day of twenty-five students each, and does guidance counseling for eight additional students, how many children are left behind?

1. 0
2. 25
3. 33
4. 9,936,000

4. There are seventy-two million children in the United states.  If George leaves 1,643,857 children behind by cutting Title One programs, and leaves 138,000 children behind by freezing spending for homeless education programs, and leaves 9,936,000 by slashing teacher training, what percentage of America’s children as George left behind?

1. 0%
2. 1.63%
3. 16.3%
4. 163%

Section Two – Verbal Skills

1. Teddy agreed to throw his support behind the No Child Left Behind Act because George had promised to fully _____ it.  When George presented his budget, Teddy felt _____.  Which Pair of words best fills in the blanks?

1. undermine; excited
2. comprehend; appreciative
3. transcribe; Betsy
4. fund; betrayed

2. George W. Bush said, “Education is my top priority,” he was being…

1. mendacious
2. rebarbative
3. risible
4. all of the above

3. Sometimes in life, it is okay to tell a little _____, but you should always avoid _____.  Which Pair of words best fills in the blanks?

1. white lie to the American people; getting caught
2. story that tugs at the heartstrings; being mawkish
3. joke to lighten the mood; running with scissors
4. kid that you’re going to fund his education; following through

4. Correct the punctuation in the following sentence:  “George W. Bush is the President who, in God’s name, will protect our children.”

1. The sentence is correct
2. George W. Bush is the President who I God’s name will protect our children.
3. George W. Bush is the President.  Who, in God’s name, will protect our children?
4. George W. Bush is the President.  Who, in God’s name, will protect our children?!

---

Although humorous, Mr. Franken makes a good point.  I will close with a quotation of President Bush which Mr. Karp included in his essay, "Rarely is the question asked: is our children learning?"  Like the president’s grammar, the question is correct, but the answers are all wrong.

---

 Works Cited

Bush, George W.  No Child Left Behind [http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/presidentplan/proposal.pdf].  2001

Christensen, Linda and Karp, Stan.  Rethinking School Reform.   Milwaukee, WI:  Rethinking Schools Ltd., 2003

Do You Know the Truth About High Stakes Testing?  [http://www.nomoretests.com/regentsfacts.pdf].  The New York Parent’s Coalition to End High Stakes Testing

Executive Summary.  [http://www.ed/gov/print/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html].

Fiekohn, Al.  Rescuing Our Schools from “Tougher Standards.”  [http://www.alfiekohn.org].

Introduction:  No child Left Behind  .  [http://www.ed/gov/print/nclb/overview/intro/index.html].

Karp, Stan.  Bush Plan Fails Schools.  [http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/bushplan/bushplan.shtml].  2001

“No Child Left Behind Act of 2001” Brief Summary.  [http://www.csba.org/nclb/esea.htm].

Preliminary Overview of Programs and Changes Included in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.  [http://www.ed/gov/print/nclb/overview/intro/progsum/sum.html].

Sacks, Peter.  Standardized Minds:  The high price of America’s testing culture and what we can do to change it.  Cambridge, MA.  Perseus Books,  1999

Teacher Quality:  Frequently Asked Questions.  .  [http://www.ed/gov/print/nclb/methods/teachers/teachers-faq.html].