Jackson Free Press

As I proctored a classroom full of seventh-graders taking the Grade Level Testing Program (GLTP) test last April in a suburban Jackson public school, I couldn't help but think that some of the children are going to be left behind. The students in this room, although mostly white, were very different from each other. Some were fidgety, others defied any suggestion of authority, one or two were geeky and smart-looking, several seemed more concerned with their appearance than anything else. They all had one thing in common: They seemed extremely nervous about taking the writing exam.

I watched the kids delay the test as long as possible by continually traipsing to the pencil sharpener. When one would finish, another would pop up and run up. A couple said they were sick at their stomachs and had to be excused for a few minutes.

When the test got underway, the reactions were very different. The more confident kids started immediately, flying through the test, and then taking out a book and reading when they were done. Several stared into space more than they put pencil to paper. One little girl kept gazing at her bright pink toes continually wiggling inside her flipflops.

The teacher, too, seemed nervous, although she was putting the best possible face on the day and smiling. She was of the old-school type who looks over the tops of her glasses and says "we" a lot, as in "we're not going to keep talking in class, are we?" She kept busy during the test, walking up and down the aisles past her "In God We Trust" sign on the wall, finding books to read for the kids who had finished.

Of course, this scene could have happened in most any Mississippi public school 30 years ago when I was in the seventh grade. We took tests, and we weren't happy about it, and our teachers walked the aisles trolling for cheaters. But it's different now: These kids take many, many more tests, and the plethora of public-school tests have much higher stakes attached to them, courtesy of the federal government. Tests now decide which schools stay open, which teachers get fired and which students can graduate —with no regard to subjective, human criteria. The scores are now king, at least in the public-education world.

And although the children I was watching clearly came from very different backgrounds with different influences and preparation, they were, in effect, participating in an exercise in sameness. To pass, they need to know basically the same things, and pass the same tests based on those same "standards."

No More 'Educational Rot'
The catchword for education, these days, is "accountability." It sounds good. Good education equals accountability equals good education. Politicians often summarize their entire platform about education into one word: accountability. "We have to start holding our leaders accountable for the results they demand and achieve from our schools," is Republican gubernatorial candidate Haley Barbour's entire message about schools in a current TV ad focused on education.

Likewise, accountability is the cornerstone of the "No Child Left Behind" Act of 2001—the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act originally enacted in 1965. George W. Bush ran on an education platform, ostensibly designed to combine substantial federal funding with testing accountability and local/state flexibility that would ensure that every public-school child, regardless of race or socioeconomic circumstance, would be educationally "proficient" by 2015. "Every single child in America must be educated, I mean every child," Bush declared during his Oct. 11, 2000, debate with Vice President Al Gore, adding, "There's nothing more prejudiced than not educating a child."

Fast forward to Jan. 8, 2002. Bush signed into law a mammoth and confusing 670-page bill that ultimately convinced many that the president's "compassionate conservatism" indeed extended to saving the public schools, even if many of his more conservative backers disagreed with that goal. In a press statement, the White House called the act "the most sweeping reform of federal education in a generation," and one that would end some old federal bad habits. "For too long, federal education programs have come with unfunded federal mandates, one-size-fits-all approaches, and unnecessary and duplicative paperwork," the White House said then.

After he had dropped the act's provision that children in failing schools would get vouchers, Bush drew significant Democratic support for NCLB, including Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. Bush's message of investing more into the future of public schools relieved many on the left. They had worried that Bush might try to derail the public schools, as desired by many of his backers, including extreme rightist Marvin Olasky, a Bush mentor in Texas and the originator of the tough-love "compassionate conservative" theory. And the act, with its promise to build up federal assistance rather than tear it down, upset many on the right, who would just as soon see the public schools shuttered forever. Olasky derides the "educational rot" in urban public schools, and wrote earlier this year in World Magazine, which he edits, that NCLB "will help to maintain national confidence in public schools—for a couple of years, until people see that millions of Johnnies still can't read." Instead, he said, the federal government should turn schooling over to free enterprise.

But, it turns out that within months of NCLB going "live," so to speak, in school year 2002-03, opponents of public-school education may actually be getting exactly what they wanted, whether it was Bush's intention or not. That is: impossibly high testing standards, shrinking federal education money and the opportunity to start boarding up so-called "failing" schools within five years. The most cynical Bush critics argue that the act was a sneaky way to actually close the doors of "troubled" public schools (usually code for inner-city) that cannot afford to quickly bring themselves up to new federal code. The real trick here: the promised federal dollars have disappeared and NCLB has become another "unfunded mandate," just like those Bush scorned while campaigning for the presidency.

Whatever the politics, though, with more tests and less money than they were promised, schools are under severe pressure.

'One Size Fits All'
The centerpiece of NCLB, of course, is the hefty testing requirements that it puts on any state school district receiving federal Title I education monies (which, in today's strapped state economies, means pretty much all of them). In exchange for the dough, each state had to develop an accountability plan that would, in turn, be certified by the federal Department of Education. Anticipating the federal standards, the Mississippi Legislature jumped ahead of the game, developing a consistent Mississippi Curriculum Test strategy ahead of NCLB; after considerable tweaks to please the Feds, our plan was the sixth plan approved, as Gov. Musgrove likes to point out.)

Beginning last school year, public schools were required to give tests in three grade spans: grades 3-5, grades 6-9 and grades 10-12 in all schools. Starting in 2005-06, all grades 3-8 will be tested in math and reading. Within 12 years, 95 percent of all public-school students are expected to score "proficient" (the second-highest level out of four) on all tests.

On its face, that doesn't sound so bad. Test children, see where they're weak, give them extra help.

But the reality is that public-school students are facing a continual barrage of standardized tests, and the results of the tests mean tougher consequences than they did before the federal government took the educational reins. "Federal requirements are driving the testing," Dr. Willie Johnson, Jackson Public Schools executive director of institutional research and technology, told me in April.

In JPS, for instance, students (and teachers) get a three-way whammy: The federally required standards lead to stringent state versions that are bolstered by yet another round of tests by the district to prepare children to pass the tests higher on the food chain. For elementary school, JPS started District Exit Exams for grades 3 and 6, as well as nine-week tests to prepare for the MCTs, about four years ago, says Dr. Peggy Crowell, JPS director of student services and pupil assessment.

Last year, the district decided to give the tests even sooner in grades 2 and 6 to ensure that students would be prepared for the "benchmark" state test (the tests that the feds count) given starting in grade 4. The state also requires untimed writing assessments in grades 4 and 7.

In an interview in her office during testing week, Crowell was frank that the district was concerned that its students wouldn't be prepared for the tougher state and federal tests without getting in practice with the district tests. And the district tests meant the teachers had to prepare a consistent curriculum that would facilitate good test scores. The district provides nine-week pacing guides for teachers. "It's what they need to cover in reading, language and math," Crowell said. "If a teacher has followed the pacing guide, he or she should have covered the content." She claims that doesn't necessarily mean they're teaching to the test, adding: "Within the scope, they can choose how they wish to deliver instruction." However, she said, "teachers can't just close the door and teach what they want to teach."

Indeed, teachers dare not stray far from the pacing guides, especially under No Child Left Behind. The act requires that every district institute tough guidelines for "highly qualified teachers" by the end of 2005-06.

High-Stakes Gambit
Despite its promise of leaving no child behind, skeptics fear that the new federal mandates will do exactly that: lose kids who can't keep up with the pace of constant testing, who continually fail the tests, or who just drop out from the sheer stress of having to pass standardized tests, regardless of other academic performance, in order to move to the next grade or to graduate.

It's easy, as adults, to look back on our own academic inconsistencies, problems in our personal lives or school subjects we just didn't test well in and shudder at the thought of the high stakes facing today's public-school children. But not everyone looks at it that way. In fact, many adults are criticizing JPS for not holding back children automatically who do not pass the third- and seventh-grade benchmark tests.

"Last year, nearly 40 percent of sixth-graders failed the math test and 22 percent flunked the language arts. That sounds bad. Really bad," wrote Metro columnist Eric Stringfellow in The Clarion-Ledger last May. "Worse, some of these students still were promoted to the next grade despite their poor test scores. This leaves an impression that students are being given social promotions, which comes with the most demoralizing stigma, to students and the district."

But those kids aren't just gliding through easy social promotion. Last year, the district relaxed its thinking a bit, Crowell told me, allowing students who failed those tests to move on to the next grade (perhaps forestalling drop-outs) and then be given fall remediation. Then in January they re-test and, if they don't pass, they are assigned to an external review committee, which can look at their academic portfolios and other grades to determine whether they pass that year. They still may not pass, but so far at least the district is defining that criteria for themselves—which is, frankly, a freedom that many find a refreshing dose of subjectivity in an otherwise rigid, unforgiving process.

High-schoolers, however, don't get that dose. Under new federal guidelines, every Mississippi public-school student must pass all Subject Area Testing Program (SATP) tests in order to graduate. As they finish certain subjects (English II, Algebra I, Biology I and U.S. History from 1877), students must take the SATP test and pass it to get a diploma, even if the student scored an A in that particular class. (The old Functional Literacy Test, which allowed students to be weak in some areas and strong in others, is being phased out. Freshmen who entered high school in 2002-03 will take all SATPs to graduate.)

In this new world of so-called state flexibility to determine their own standards, the Algebra I test has caused the most consternation for the Mississippi Department of Education. The feds originally said the state's test didn't meet the federal math requirements because it did not test geometry (the highest math level). So the state started working on a tougher math test that will combine Algebra I and geometry to be administered in the 11th grade with the Algebra I test staying "live" through 2005. Then the feds changed their minds, but the state says it plans to go ahead with the new math test anyway.

Reconstituting Schools
Beyond the fears of individual students and tests, NCLB is probably causing the most stress over its plan to "reconstitute" schools in which students don't steadily improve their "Adequate Yearly Progress." That is, "failing" schools that can't cut the mustard will be padlocked, at least proverbially. (The feds have tried to move away from the "failing" moniker of late, fearing it may be self-perpetuating, but the label has stuck with public-school critics, as well as in many media reports.)

Here's how reconstitution (the White House's word) breaks down: Starting in 2002-03, school test scores will be aggregated to determine whether a high enough percentage of students in each school are scoring "proficient" or above on all tests. After two consecutive years of not meeting federal requirements (this year is the second year for many struggling schools), a school goes on the improvement list (or is a "failing" school, depending on whom you ask). The school then must inform the parents in writing that they can request a transfer to a higher-performing public school (if slots are available). If the school doesn't meet the Adequate standards in its third year, parents can transfer and request "supplemental" services (tutoring) at the cost of the district. In the fourth year, the district must take corrective action by firing defective staff, etc. "Reconstitution" kicks in the fifth year (earliest: 2007).

The White House explained it in January 2002: "f they fail to make Adequate Yearly Progress for 5 years, they run the risk of reconstitution under a restructuring plan. … For students attending persistently failing schools … districts must provide Title I funds (approximately $500 to $1,000 per child) for low-achieving disadvantaged students in the school to obtain supplemental services—tutoring, after-school services, or summer-school programs—from the public or private-school provider selected by their parents from a State-approved list." (emphasis added)

Fine, you might say: The schools need to be accountable; 95 percent of students need to be proficient. But the plot thickens.

Complicating the Adequate requirement even further, NCLB divides a school's students into several subgroups: race/ethnicity, students with limited English skills, students with disabilities, students eligible for free lunch. The school's students not only have to score proficiently overall, but each subgroup has to score proficiently. That is, a majority of students overall at a JPS school can score proficient or better but if too few of its special-ed kids score proficient, then the school is put on the path of reconstitution. (The required proficient percentages are being phased in, ending up at 100 percent by 2015.)

The White House's argument for these subgroups sounds convincing; over the years, many schools, including well-to-do, largely white suburban schools, have managed to mask poor-performing groups of students who need extra help. The argument goes that these students need to be identified so they can be remediated. That is, so they're not left behind.

"The current system is unfair to disadvantaged children," said Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Education Committee.

'Unfunded Federal Mandates'
The reality, though, is more complicated. Because the plan puts this accountability strategy on such a fast track, school officials fear that poorly performing schools will never have a chance to catch up. This is a particular concern for math scores in majority-black schools. A variety of systemic factors—from poverty to lack of parental guidance to little or no "social capital"—have conspired to present obstacles between young black men (in particular) and good math scores, JPS' Johnson said.

Johnson agreed that the math scores are the really scary ones. He called the standards "very extreme," adding, "I don't know if, nationally, we'll ever meet the standards. … I don't know whether districts can meet the standards, especially with our limited resources."

It's the resource question that is beginning to really tarnish the reputation of NCLB. It quickly went from being a clarion call for the federal government to help state education to becoming an overwhelming financial burden, a dreaded unfunded mandate, for the states. Even as the states are learning that it's going to cost an unfathomable amount of money to even try to remediate enough children to make Adequate Yearly Progress, the Bush administration has defaulted on its monetary pledge. "The resources aren't sufficient," Johnson said.

In his 2003 budget, Bush requested only $22.1 billion of the $29.2 billion that Congress authorized for NCLB. And he only asked for $11.35 billion of the $18.5 billion earmarked for impoverished school districts. Then his 2004 education budget came up $6 billion short, leaving former NCLB buddy Teddy Kennedy furious about the president's "tin cup budget." There's only enough there to test kids, not to prepare them for the tests, the Massachusetts senator complained.

Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, a staunch supporter of testing who helped shape much of No Child Left Behind, is angry about what has turned into an unfunded mandate—hitting the states just as the recession has strangled their economies. During a July 28 luncheon with the capitol press corps, Musgrove said the NCLB financial burden is affecting the state much as the unfunded special-education mandate, passed in 1975 but never funded more than 15 percent by the federal government. That mandate has cost the state $100 million, he said, although he didn't attach a number to the NCLB burden, and his office did not provide it as of press time.

In a May 1, 2003, analysis in Phi Delta Kappan (a professional educators' journal) Brandon, Vt., school superintendent William M. Mathis summarized several studies showing that the states would need to increase base education budgets an average of 35 percent to meet the burden. That is, while K-12 public spending reached a total of $422.7 billion in 2001-02, between $85 billion and $148 billion would be needed just to pay the remediation costs associated with NCLB. The current Title I federal appropriation is $11.3 billion. Total.

The states cannot legally sue the federal government to collect what it promised, so the states are left scrambling to pay the costs. And under the twisted logic of NCLB that rewards better-performing schools with more resources, Mathis points out that it is even more perverse that states with the toughest standards, like New York, will require the most remedial money to get kids up to those standards.

Add these figures to the fact that the National Governors' Association is estimating that states will face a total 2003 fiscal-year deficit of $58 billion, and the education shortfall is painfully clear. "In many states, budgets are being balanced in part by cutting education dollars," Mathis wrote. Last legislative session, Musgrove led the charge to raise education funding to 62 percent of the total state budget, with a promise not to raise taxes, but NCLB deficits may start looming, making one or both of those pledges hard to uphold.

Looming Reality
JPS is already feeling the crunch. Last spring, 44 percent of sixth-graders failed the second try on the math test and 29 percent failed the language arts exam. In May, Partners in Education coordinator Rebecca K. Starling sent a letter to community leaders requesting donations of $3,000 each to pay for the remediation of elementary kids who failed the MCTs. "With District and Federal funds, the District will be serving approximately 400 of our 15,000 K-5 students beginning on June 2nd in this summer intervention program," Starling wrote.

And more reality is on its way. The districts' first real report cards, for 2002-03, are due out in September, and school officials are hoping for the best and praying that their schools won't end up on the improvement plans. Many fear such a designation will only negatively reinforce the "failing" perception of the students and staff in those schools as a time when they need to believe in their abilities to improve. And those school designations could hurt property values and neighborhoods, which then potentially becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for the families.

Meantime, even those fearful of NCLB believe in wise accountability. The federal standards are "good in a sense," said Johnson. "They push us to help children learn to their potential. But to meet these federal guidelines is very difficult."

It is important to remember, as well, that test scores don't just happen in a vacuum. They are influenced by many factors, as Mathis writes in Phi Delta Kappan. "Simply teaching children will have little effect if they return to bad neighborhoods, single-parent homes, foster care, inadequate health care, and a general lack of support," he said.

Without the promised federal dollars, with looming state deficits and a curriculum that may be devolving to little more than test preparation, it's little wonder that some JPS schools fear being called "failing." Once those schools are saddled with a "failing" grade, what's next for their neighborhoods?

That, as they say, is another story.

Donna Ladd's education research has been funded in part by a Packard Future of Children fellowship awarded by the Child and Family Policy Center at the University of Maryland.

Previous Comments

ID

77153

Comment

"For years, advocates of school vouchers for children otherwise confined to abysmally performing public schools have argued that the dose of competition provided by vouchers would improve the failing public schools. Now, a major study by the Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute has provided much evidence that proves the point." A+ for Florida vouchers "The results demonstrate the following: * Floridaís low-performing schools are improving in direct proportion to the challenge they face from voucher competition. These improvements are real, not the result of test gaming, demographic shifts, or the statistical phenomenon of ìregression to the mean.î" When Schools Compete: The Effects of Vouchers on Florida Public School Achievement

Author

Reader

Date

2003-08-24T21:26:44-06:00

ID

77154

Comment

Both links above point to a "study" by the Manhattan Institute. The MI is an ultra right-wing thinktank and you'd be hard pressed to find an organization more dedicated to discrediting public schools. (At least since the CCA closed down.) Just as an example, the MI funds authors such as Charles Murray, who co-authored "The Bell Curve." That book, put bluntly, set out to prove the intellectual inferiority of blacks -- a theory, of course, that has been roundly debunked and rightly castigated. While I'm all for reading various points of view (and the MI site is always fascinating), a check of sources is in order here. Quoting an MI "study" that supports vouchers is like quoting a study by Castro that says Cuban cigars are good for you. Briefly regarding vouchers...glancing through the WashTimes piece and the MI materials, I find it curious that I find little or no discussion regarding the testing of *private* schools. If vouchers are such a panacea because they give students choice and standardized-testing "accountability" is important to improve public schools, will the ability to choose private schools mean those private schools will thus be tested and therefore held more accountable to government standards?

Author

todd

Date

2003-08-25T10:59:55-06:00

ID

77155

Comment

I'd certainly say that if they're benefitting in any way from taxpayer money, they should be held to the same standards. That is sure to be a battleground of the future, should vouchers ever get past the American people (see the results of last week's Gallup poll showing that support for vouchers has dropped dramatically . (Note it was commissioned by a pro-public education group, for the record). There are a host of other problems as well, but we'll get to those later. All that said, there are passionate and compelling arguments in favor of vouchers found in places other than on the extreme right where the Manhattan Institute and the Washington Times reside. Every source is biased, but those are off the charts.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-08-25T11:34:23-06:00

ID

77156

Comment

So, should we consider the pro-public education group that commissioned the poll as the 'extreme left' or 'ultra left-wing'? By what criteria do you measure any group to determine that their particular bias is "off the charts" in one direction or another? Maybe you could post your 'bias scale' so that we could become more familiar with your perspective? Your rush to classify (95% of the time only those organizations right of center) in order to discredit is always amusing. Keep gnashing those teeth.

Author

Reader

Date

2003-08-25T12:03:04-06:00

ID

77157

Comment

That's easy. Supporting research to reach the conclusion that blacks are inferior to whites? Off the charts. Running regular columns by avowed white supremacists? Off the charts. To paraphrase Potter Stewart, certain things are so extreme that you know it when you see it. But, fortunately there is a helluva lot of gray area between the extremes that gives us all a lot to talk and think about. Personally, the Manhattan Institute seldom gives me anything to think about, but they indeed will make me gnash my teeth with disbelief. And I'm proud of that. Fortunately, they're so marginalized at this point that I seldom hear anyone bring them, or their counterparts in scientific racism, up to support any argument, so I have no need gnash very often over such extreme extremism. There are plenty of nutball lefty sites and blogs out there that I never use to support any argument, or don't think are compelling (or well-researched enough) to link to the site. That would be pointless and silly. Now, for readers who think that everything left of the Washington Times is, er, liberal ... they're on their own, and probably need to look for a different Web site to troll.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-08-25T12:59:42-06:00

ID

77158

Comment

I'm encouraged to see Bob Herbert write about this train wreck called No Child Left Behind today in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/28/opinion/28HERB.html "Next week the Senate will take up the education budget proposed for next year by the White House and Senate Republicans. From the perspective of those who are pro-children, it's loaded with bad news. Not only does the bill fall far short of the photo-op promises Mr. Bush made to provide funding for programs to improve public education, but it would actually cut $200 million from the president's very own (and relentlessly touted) No Child Left Behind Act." and "The proposal would also cut more than 20,000 teachers from professional training programs, despite Mr. Bush's promise that teachers would 'get the training they need to raise educational standards.' And it would completely eliminate training for teachers in computer technology." and "It's hard to believe the president ever intended to adequately fund the No Child Left Behind Act. Mr. Bush fights ferociously for the things he really cares about: enormous tax cuts for the wealthy, for example, or launching a war against Iraq. He has never showed a similar passion for improving the public schools. The administration tried to cut funding for the No Child Left Behind Act less than two weeks after the president signed it into law." This should be THE campaign issue of 2004.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-08-28T16:57:49-06:00

ID

77159

Comment

Here's a story about NCLB's problems on Slate.com today. I don't agree with the conclusion, though, that NCLB isn't so bad because it's based on a Clinton standards strategy -- that was flawed as well. But it's interesting to see the media are finally figuring out that NCLB is a non-starter, and likely to become a political nightmare in the near future: http://slate.msn.com/id/2087654/

Author

ladd

Date

2003-08-29T19:33:32-06:00

ID

77160

Comment

So, what is your biggest beef? Unfunded mandate or too much testing? Pick one. Nobody in the state, or JPS, or the Guv's office, seems to be as bugged about NCLB as you are. Which public official is so bugged that they are willing to go on record about the vast chasm that represents their dissatisfaction with the push.

Author

Reader

Date

2003-08-29T22:29:03-06:00

ID

77161

Comment

Nobody in the state, or JPS, or the Guv's office, seems to be as bugged about NCLB as you are. You're wrong about that, but to no fault of your own. By design, it is difficult for education officials to complain out loud about NCLB -- the state plans, after all, have to be certified by the U.S. Department of Education. It's all very political and dicey for the public schools right now. If they don't cooperate, they end up with no federal funds. That said, there has been plenty disenchantment shown inside and outside the state about the federal accountability plans, and publicly at community meetings, etc. Much of it happened already, but it's part of the public record if you know where to look. It's not always sexy enough, though, for daily media to go very deep into it, although the C-L education reporter does try, to her credit. But the public just hasn't listened hard enough, and the chickens are going to come home to roost, so to speak. I had a six-month fellowship to study issues related to NCLB, zero tolerance and the IDEA just as the bill was signed. It was really amazing to watch how the name of the bill and the density of its content kept so many people, especially outside the education world and particularly media, from really trying to understand what the bill was designed to do. "Oh, Bush is devoting so much money to helping the public schools!" is the mantra. The truth is, that's never really been the strategy, and the administration's actions have proved it. No, I don't think you have to pick one to be angriest about: too much testing or unfunded mandate. The administration have coupled the two, opposite, principles together. We sure don't have to choose one or the other to be more critical about. The fact that both of them are put in to one bill, in many ways, is the most egregious and telling aspect of NCLB. It sure speaks to motive.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-08-30T09:07:43-06:00

ID

77162

Comment

Another circular editorial in the Clarion-Ledger today, this one about NCLB. I, very often, simply cannot understand C-L logic. It is on a higher plane than I'm qualified to decipher. The logic on this particular one seems particularly tail-chasing to me. Or, is it wagon-circling. I dunno. It's too late over here to sort out my cliches. http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0308/31/leditorial.html One particular phrase struck me as particularly nonsensical, or naive, as it were: "The second ó academic ó issue is that the federal standards as developed by the state actually offer a guideline for schools to improve. So, schools that 'fail' have before them a precise roadmap on how to be succeed. Isn't improvement the point? Offering every child an adequate education so no child is left behind?" Ummm, that's a good press release for the feds, but I think the C-L missed quite a few of the NCLB points in its litany of rhetorical questions. What does this phrase mean to the average reader: the federal standards as developed by the state? Are they saying they're federal standards or state standards? (Hint: the state had to develop standards that would pass muster with vera, vera controlling feds; if you call that "local control," then I gotta a vera, vera big bridge to sell ya.) And this question, "Isn't improvement the point?", indicates that the C-L has bought Bush's rhetoric hook, line and sinker (now, there's a cliche), despite all the evidence to the contrary: Actually, vouchers were originally the point ... and still are. But more on that soon. Stay tuned. (Sorry for any excessive punchiness, all. On deadline.)

Author

ladd

Date

2003-08-31T02:14:18-06:00

ID

77163

Comment

The Washington Post today indicates that more and more Americans are catching on to the irony of the words "No Child Left Behind": "As the bad news about America's public schools has poured in, with large numbers falling short of state targets demanded by the new federal education law, local officials are blaming the White House and Congress for asking the impossible. How could rational leaders demand, in just 12 years, that 100 percent of students do well enough on standardized tests to be rated proficient in reading and math?" http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15836-2003Sep15?language=printer

Author

ladd

Date

2003-09-16T23:01:16-06:00

ID

77164

Comment

From Salon today: "For the fourth time in as many months, the Bush administration is easing the restrictions of its education law, this time in the area of testing. The latest move -- reducing the number of students a school may test without running afoul of the law -- probably will cap a flurry of responses to concerns from states and schools. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires schools to test at least 95 percent of students in math and reading. Schools also must have 95 percent participation from all major subgroups of students, such as minority or disabled youngsters." http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/03/29/no_child/

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-03-29T18:23:59-06:00