Views expressed in guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media.
Visit the complete Guest Column archives.
The Failure of Federal Intervention
Guest Column | By Paul M. Weyrich | May 6, 2008
Since Congress
enacted No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in January 2002 at the behest of President
George W. Bush there has been no shortage of criticism from both the right and
the left. Much of this has been well-deserved, as the program created a massive
new network of bureaucracy without producing significant results. In fact, one
could argue that the only real positive consequence of NCLB was that it brought
attention to the pitiful state of American education. Otherwise it left much to
be desired.
Aware of some
of the inadequacies of the program, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
announced new proposed regulations to “strengthen and clarify No Child Left
Behind.” The regulations address several problems with the program. They
would: demand school
systems be accountable for results and transparent in their reporting to parents
and the public by posting student test scores on national reading and math tests
alongside state test scores, require that States publish data from the Nation's
Report Card alongside data from their own tests for students (so that they do
not exclude too many scores from minority students), allow schools to use
multiple types of questions and multiple assessments within a subject area to
measure progress (as opposed to the current emphasis on a single test in each
area), provide parents with timely information about tutoring options available
to help students improve, and ensure the inclusion of all sub-groups of students
(generally those from impoverished backgrounds and those in specific minority
groups) in each State's accountability system.
In addition,
Secretary Spellings proposed the creation of a new National Technical Advisory
Council, “made up of experts in the fields of education standards,
accountability systems, statistics and psychometrics,” to advise the Department
of Education on “highly complex and technical issues and ensuring state
standards and assessments are of the highest technical
quality.”
Among the new
proposals the one which has garnered the most attention would establish a
uniform measurement of graduation and dropout by 2013 among all 50 States to
measure more accurately how many high-school freshmen graduate in four years.
Currently States calculate graduation rates by their own standards, and many
have been criticized for understating, through rather disingenuous measurements,
the number of students who do not receive a
diploma.
Most of these
proposed new regulations are, in theory, good ideas. The problem is that
education was and will remain a local issue in spite of the Federal Government’s
attempts to micromanage every elementary and secondary school in the country.
The variety and quantity of student and teacher needs are too numerous for the
Federal Government adequately to address them. In fact, these proposals do
little more than shuffle students through a monotonous, homogenous factory.
There is no creativity; no focus upon improving the quality of local curricula
and teaching; no flexibility for students whose interests may be as diverse as
automobile mechanics, ancient history, biology, music or agriculture; and no
ability to adapt to the needs of local communities. In short, everything
valuable about local control of education is missing. It is what is missing,
not what is included, that is necessary to improve American
education.
Instead of a
one-size-fits-all bureaucratic education plan, what we need are higher standards
in the classroom, meaningful discipline, a return to rigorous curricula
(including proper grammar instruction, the study of foreign languages and a
return to primary sources in history rather than watered-down textbooks), better
teachers, more parental and community involvement and greater flexibility to
address local needs. These would begin the process of reforming American
education. As it stands, it is highly unlikely that that expectations saddled
to NCLB will be fulfilled.
Paul Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.
© This column is the property of the Free Congress Foundation and may not be reproduced without their permission. For comments and inquiries, contact Phyllis E. Hughes at . Visit our website at http://www.FreeCongress.org.
Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.
3 Comments | Post a Comment
It’s just as fair as taxing the rich to give to the poor.
Your daughter is helping those students who do not have the capacity to take AP course by boosting their class rank comparative to hers.
You both should feel proud that you are helping to raise up the unfortunate, illiterate and plain old stupid.
Public education is so horrible that it should be eliminated altogether. All the income and property taxes stolen from us to pay for public education need to be eliminated also.
Only when people have to earn an education for themselves or their children will it have value to them. Only when people are paying the bill directly out of their pockets will they take interest in the cost-effectiveness of the school and teachers.
All education should be private and competitive. That’s when we’ll get excellence in education and educators.
May 7 at 9:06 am | #1 | Link
I’ve noticed that students taking higher level courses in high school such as Advanced Placement (AP) courses are penalized instead of rewarded.
For Example, Students are ranked based on standard course grades. My daughter’s Advanced Placement (AP) courses average are not included in her overall GPA and puts her at a lower ranking than students that do not take AP Classes.
State college scholarships are rewarded based on a student’s ranking.
How is this fair