So far, the focus of the presidental race has been mainly security, and terrorism, and the military, but some voters want the focus to shift back to education:
...In campaign 2004, Bush and his Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry, say surprisingly little about education. Some educators and parents want to hear more.
"Yes, war and the economy are important issues, but our children's future should at least make the top-five list of issues," said Michelle Martin, principal of Winchester Avenue Elementary School in Martinsburg, W.Va., a state that both political parties consider up for grabs in the Nov. 2 election.
When the president does mention schools, he boasts about his No Child Left Behind initiative, which he says "at long last" brings accountability to public schools and sends a message that poverty and race won't be excuses for academic failure. In a second term, he promises to bring the yearly testing regimen to high schools -- it is now limited to elementary and middle schools -- and to institute a new program to help districts better train teachers.
Urk. I'm a psychometrician, and even I don't know if I'd be willing to accept that bringing yearly testing to high schools is necessarily a good thing. Accountability, yes, but we've seen enough problems with exit exams that I'm not sure how well this model will apply to high school students.
Kerry devoted only a few paragraphs to education in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. But he does offer a blistering critique of the president's education policy, accusing Bush of so badly underfunding No Child Left Behind as to ensure the failure of many public schools.
We can talk about the funding issue all day, but it's silly to say that a Republican presidents want to "ensure" failure of public schools.
Kerry promises to repeal the Bush tax cuts for those earning more than $200,000 a year, in part to fully fund No Child Left Behind. He would also establish a federal fund to train teachers, provide bonuses to teachers who raise student performance, and begin a new after-school program for more than 3 million youngsters.
Sounds like he's just talking about the "evil rich" here, doesn't it? Like himself, I suppose. Notwithstanding the fact that Kerry voted for NCLB, I think he'll find the idea of giving bonuses to teachers who raise student performance a tough sell with some of his constituency. Jonathan Schorr has a lengthy discussion of Kerry's ideas here.
U.S. Education Secretary Rod Paige, on the other hand, says the check is in the mail:
In an interview, Paige said federal education funding is slated to reach a record $57 billion in 2005, up 36 percent since Bush took office -- a bigger increase than the Clinton administration achieved during comparable periods.
The Bush administration has been careful not to dictate standards, letting states set their own, he said. His department has provided waivers when states requested more flexibility...Where the administration won't compromise, he said, is in insisting that all students be evaluated for yearly progress.
"First we start off with the premise that the name (of) the bill bears: No child should be left behind -- notwithstanding their ZIP code, or notwithstanding their native language," Paige said. "All students should have an opportunity to experience our very best efforts."
Ultimately, the bottom line is, conservatives and liberals can come together in complaining about NCLB:
Nationally, conservatives complain that the law is a federal intrusion into local school districts, while liberals complain that it is underfunded. The National Education Association, the nation's biggest teacher union, backs Kerry but continues to seek an even broader overhaul of No Child Left Behind.
"Instead of punishing schools that need help the most, educators, parents and the public want to see investments in the classroom," said NEA President Reg Weaver. "We all know what works in the classroom to help students achieve -- high-quality teachers, up-to-date resources and small class sizes."
But Abigail Thernstrom, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and co-author with her husband of "America in Black and White: One Nation Indivisible," said Bush deserves credit for insisting that the new law respond to what he calls the "soft bigotry of low expectations," which he argues both underestimates and shortchanges minority youngsters.
Posted by kswygert at October 5, 2004 05:33 PM