Disciples of George W. Bush Back Away From No Child Left Behind
Stuart Nachbar
January 06, 2009
President George W. Bush has not started to back his bags or book his flight back to Texas as Congressional conservative Republicans propose legislation to dismantle No Child Left Behind, the only significant domestic policy accomplishment of his two terms in office. See the story in Education Week at: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/03/14/27hoekstra.h26.html?r=199548792.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Michigan), the third-ranking Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee is the primary sponsor of this legislation. Hoekstra believes that the current act has led to a "federalization" of local public schools. His legislation shifts the burden of accountability and standards to state governments, in effect repealing federal requirements that students in grades 3-8 be tested annually in reading and mathematics and once in high school. However, I must add that some states, including my home state of New Jersey, already had testing requirements in place before George W. Bush took office.
Hoekstra's bill has 41 co-sponsors, but I don't see it passing Congress, nor do I see it as the magic bullet to revise a new No Child Left Behind Act. But I do see this legislation as an intent to cut federal spending in K-12 education.
There has been some good to No Child Left Behind. It has made the public and teachers more aware of the problems faced by economically disadvantaged students and provided quantifiable measures for policy makers. However, the act has been used to make higher standardized test scores to be a "be-all, end-all, for-all" for improved public education. That, and limited federal funding, are the true failures of No Child Left Behind.
I actually agree with Rep. Hoekstra and the co-sponsors in that there is no need for Congress to legislate standardized testing--unless it is prepared to fund it or collaborate with educators to develop the tests. I don't see any reason why there could not be a public-private partnership to develop a selection of K-12 tests that provide the measures all policy makers and educators need to help evaluate schools and make better investment decisions.
Right now, it seems that tests are being "dumbed down" to show results, or used to terminate teachers and cut school budgets. And the multiplicity of tests in the states is a joke. It goes against the freedom of mobility that Americans enjoy. A student who leaves the public schools in one state to attend school in another should be able to transfer seamlessly into a new classroom. So, if policy makers and educators are not serious about national tests, then Congress should not impose an unfunded mandate. Either fund a national testing program that can be taught to all teachers, or scrap the mandate in its entirety.
In addition, tests do not need to be mandated in the high schools. State governments are already raising high school graduation standards without prodding from the federal government. It would not be a reach for educators to develop a standard final examination in core subjects or use SAT II tests, already required by colleges, for the advanced courses.
But more relevant testing costs money, and state governments are not on the same financial footing. I would support federal funding to help schools put this type of testing in place in high schools. There is no need to impose an additional "graduation" examination on students who are already required to take college entrance examinations or pre-employment tests for life after high school.
Rep. Hoekstra has not presented a problem; he has presented an opportunity for serious discussion between partisans and educators. Either the federal government will facilitate and finance national elementary and middle school examinations that have some meaning, or they will leave this responsibility to the states. Either we have an adequately funded mandate with national tests or we get rid of an unfunded mandate for state-funded testing. The current act is a senseless compromise that must be corrected.
Contact Stuart Nachbar at http://www.EducatedQuest.com , a blog on education and entry level employment issues and books or read about his first book, The Sex Ed Chronicles, a novel on education and politics in 1980 New Jersey, at http://www.SexEdChronicles.com .
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Michigan), the third-ranking Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee is the primary sponsor of this legislation. Hoekstra believes that the current act has led to a "federalization" of local public schools. His legislation shifts the burden of accountability and standards to state governments, in effect repealing federal requirements that students in grades 3-8 be tested annually in reading and mathematics and once in high school. However, I must add that some states, including my home state of New Jersey, already had testing requirements in place before George W. Bush took office.
Hoekstra's bill has 41 co-sponsors, but I don't see it passing Congress, nor do I see it as the magic bullet to revise a new No Child Left Behind Act. But I do see this legislation as an intent to cut federal spending in K-12 education.
There has been some good to No Child Left Behind. It has made the public and teachers more aware of the problems faced by economically disadvantaged students and provided quantifiable measures for policy makers. However, the act has been used to make higher standardized test scores to be a "be-all, end-all, for-all" for improved public education. That, and limited federal funding, are the true failures of No Child Left Behind.
I actually agree with Rep. Hoekstra and the co-sponsors in that there is no need for Congress to legislate standardized testing--unless it is prepared to fund it or collaborate with educators to develop the tests. I don't see any reason why there could not be a public-private partnership to develop a selection of K-12 tests that provide the measures all policy makers and educators need to help evaluate schools and make better investment decisions.
Right now, it seems that tests are being "dumbed down" to show results, or used to terminate teachers and cut school budgets. And the multiplicity of tests in the states is a joke. It goes against the freedom of mobility that Americans enjoy. A student who leaves the public schools in one state to attend school in another should be able to transfer seamlessly into a new classroom. So, if policy makers and educators are not serious about national tests, then Congress should not impose an unfunded mandate. Either fund a national testing program that can be taught to all teachers, or scrap the mandate in its entirety.
In addition, tests do not need to be mandated in the high schools. State governments are already raising high school graduation standards without prodding from the federal government. It would not be a reach for educators to develop a standard final examination in core subjects or use SAT II tests, already required by colleges, for the advanced courses.
But more relevant testing costs money, and state governments are not on the same financial footing. I would support federal funding to help schools put this type of testing in place in high schools. There is no need to impose an additional "graduation" examination on students who are already required to take college entrance examinations or pre-employment tests for life after high school.
Rep. Hoekstra has not presented a problem; he has presented an opportunity for serious discussion between partisans and educators. Either the federal government will facilitate and finance national elementary and middle school examinations that have some meaning, or they will leave this responsibility to the states. Either we have an adequately funded mandate with national tests or we get rid of an unfunded mandate for state-funded testing. The current act is a senseless compromise that must be corrected.
Contact Stuart Nachbar at http://www.EducatedQuest.com , a blog on education and entry level employment issues and books or read about his first book, The Sex Ed Chronicles, a novel on education and politics in 1980 New Jersey, at http://www.SexEdChronicles.com .
Print
Email
