NCLB Assaulted in Columbus Dispatch
From the TIB Network:
Mr. Bainbridge,
I have a couple of questions about your 5/25 article in the Columbus Dispatch that I wonder if you might answer.
Near the end of the column you list off a number of "events" that are occurring while states attempt to implement No Child Left Behind. I have a question for each event:
• Children in the majority of schools in low-wealth districts continue to lack the most qualified teachers, adequate instructional materials and access to technology.
What does this have to do with NCLB? Low-wealth districts lacked the most qualified teachers, adequate instructional materials and access to technology LONG before NCLB and the Bush administration. The bit about teachers is especially amusing since the NEA is endorsing John Kerry. Should the TEACHERS feel a sense of duty? Apparently education professionals think that capitalism has no place in the field of education, yet they continue to flee these schools for bigger, more lucrative contracts.
• About 10.5 million children have no health insurance. Many live in conditions of poverty denying them the ability to physically and mentally develop their full cognitive ability. Child poverty rates in the United States are among the highest in the developed nations.
What does this have to do with NCLB? I don't see the term "health care" anywhere in NCLB. Must we include a health care handout in EVERY piece of legislation? At what point do the American people accept some responsibility for their welfare? Child poverty is an issue that should concern all of us, but shouldn't the parents accept that responsibility?
• Millions of our children attend child-care centers that stifle creativity and hinder appropriate development.
What does this have to do with NCLB? Again, I don't see day care requirements in the legislation. Shouldn't the parents have the responsibility to check these centers out? Shouldn't the state that licensed the center assume some responsibility?
• Federal law requires special physical accommodations for children with disabilities, yet the federal government provides only a small fraction of the financial support needed for such adjustments.
What does this have to do with NCLB? Doesn't this have more to do with the American Disabilities Act?
You conclude your article with the following two paragraphs:
Earlier this month, Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager issued an opinion that states might have no legal obligation to implement the federal law, particularly if costs exceed the amount of money the federal government is providing. She characterized No Child Left Behind as an unfunded mandate, and said the law’s "language seems clear and compelling: The federal government cannot compel the states to develop or pay for specific educational programs."
This opinion could be the first step toward a lawsuit challenging No Child left Behind. In any event, it is time for a bipartisan re-examination of the law that drew bipartisan support when it was enacted.
Education is administered by the states. The states continue to beg for federal dollars. Shouldn't the government be able to instruct the states on how to spend federal dollars? A Wisconsin lawyer wasn't needed to figure out that if the states didn't want to deal with the rules of the law they could pass on accepting the money, just common sense.
I appreciate any thoughts you might have on these questions.
Sincerely,
Matt Hurley
www.massdiscussion.blogspot.com
Matt's Chat
The above is an email I sent to the author of an article that appeared in the Columbus Dispatch. I'd give you a link, but the Dispatch is one of those old media types that have registrations and fees and all that non-Internet savvy stuff. I saw the article in a posting by Lisa R. from the Ohioans for Bush/Cheney board. (The link provided is to the actual message with the article if you're interested.)As I said on our last show, NCLB has been deemed fully funded in study, after study, after study, after study. The reason why it is still being assaulted is that it is actually a good law that is getting results by focusing on accountability.
Mark's Remarks
First and foremost, NCLB has nothing to do with standards. The standards discussed in NCLB have to do with standards set up by each individual state, so if teachers and folks have problems with the standards, complain to the governor, not the President. What NCLB does is provide for accountability for federal dollars. Education has too long been a bloated sick cow, in need of some weaning and training. States have taken education money and funneled it into various resources and experimental programs, and for what? We continue to fall behind. This law says, "we are going to see results or the money will go to where it can help." This law says that schools who do not measure up to state standards will get help. If they do not improve, then the school will be shut down and reconstituted under new authority.
This law says that federal dollars are no longer going to be wasted on pet programs. We are going to get results.
The author of this article, as with most liberals, is playing the game of misdirection and dodging. Instead of talking about education and the need for accountability, instead the author talks about other social problems not tied to NCLB. It is faulty and negligent journalism. In fact, it is not journalism, but efforts at propaganda.
Every study undertaken by independent auhtorities has asserted that NCLB is fully funded. In fact, THIS administration is spending way more than the Previous one did on education. Why haven't you heard that? Because the lefty media wants to play word games and semantics.
The fact of the matter is, we need to start taking responsibility for our children's education. States have made standards. Shouldn't we live up to them? Shouldn't schools that don't live up to expectations be changed? Or do we continue feeding money into failed schools? What liberals hate is the choice involved. If schools don't work, parents can put their children in schools that do work. You see, freedom of choice is only good on abortion for liberals. They don't want the folks on their plantation to have any choice, because that throws the free market into play, and libs hate the free market. Because in the free market of ideas, they lose every time.
