The United States Education Department is constantly under fire these days, especially as American students continue to lag behind the rest of the world in most of the key subjects. But the issue isn’t only one of school size and teacher quality, as politicians are pointing to the other party’s failures with education to help sway elections. Last week, Mitt Romney took the opportunity to trash President Obama on what he perceives as too much input by special interests in our public schools. The U.S. Department of Education has responded with a renewed effort to unshackle states from federal control. It all comes down to the repeal of the No Child Left Behind policy, the 2001 education law that most consider a failure. According to Arne Duncan, the U.S. Secretary of Education, eight additional states will no longer be beholden to this policy.
Under the broad regulations of No Child Left Behind, all students in the country had to take a standardized test in math and English skills, and the results could lead to federal sanctions on a school district. Now, states are being allowed to use aspects of Obama’s education policy to get around many of the No Child Left Behind provisions. Basically, a school district can submit their own standards, accountability systems and teacher evaluations, and if the Department of Education accepts them, the districts would be freed from NCLB.
The first approvals were handed out three months ago, to eleven states that applied. Now eight more states will join them, including Louisiana, Delaware, New York, Maryland, Connecticut, Ohio, Rhode Island and North Carolina. Washington D.C. and seventeen additional states applied, but are still under review, and Vermont dropped out of the application process.
NCLB expired five years ago, and Obama wanted the law overhauled by Congress by the end of 2010, but no reform found consensus on both sides of the aisle. NCLB is thought to have failed because it encouraged mediocrity on the part of the educator, and held widely disparate school districts, with vastly different resources, to the same arbitrary standard. But until the bipartisan debate finds some sort of middle ground, it is unclear when a long term fix will be implemented.
It was surprising that the Department of Education announced these changes so closely on the heels of presidential candidate Romney’s comments. Obama has declared on record that fixing our educational system is an issue that can’t wait, while Romney is using the delay to prove that the change Obama promised during his initial presidential campaign has not materialized. It makes for striking rhetoric, but doesn’t seem to further clarify a hugely important issue to our children, and the future of the country.
Romney has offered up his own plan, which confusingly calls for more state autonomy as well as additional federal control. His focus is clearly directed at giving parents more choice as to where they send their kids to school. But besides an increase in distance education, there doesn’t seem to be any strategy for holding schools more accountable. All in all it’s pretty vague. What the education system really needs are answers, but this latest round of NCLB rollback and political commentary only seems to cloud the issue with more and more questions.
Evan Fischer is a freelance writer and part-time student at California Lutheran University in Thousand Oaks, California.
I would like to see educators take a hard look at child development research. Give kids more recess, active learning opportunities fieldtrps and music and art. Give fewer long closed minded tests and busywork homework. Some kids are labeled behavior problems and ADHD because they have a lot of energy or aren’t a verbal learner
Brandy, I hate to simply post I agree, but I truly don’t know what more to add. Clearly, options need to be carefully researched, and a complete overhaul of our broken educational system must be done, or we’ll be left behind in this new, global economy.
OMG, Brandy, I also agree, and I am an educator. A part of my job is trying to help when children are labeled inattentive or “having trouble focusing” but one look at the school day and you realize that half the class would be going nuts without some free time for a break or a chance to run around.
Ok, first point. I really wish politicians would not use education as a weapon in political campaigns. I know. I know. Wishful thinking. Just want to point out the obvious – both Democrats and Republicans want the best education system for our children. It would be great to work together instead of nitpicking the other guy’s plan.
.
Very interesting comments from the first three posters. I don’t have your expertise, but I agree with everything you have to say. I do understand the good intentions behind the move for more testing, but the reality has proven the downside for many students.
I can agree to some of the article, but the NCLB act is a terible education plan. My state implemented this for dollars to pour into their system. Many higher scores of top students were punished for students who could not write or speak English. I’m all for giving a fair eduation to all students, but when is enough a enough. We have open enrollment here also. We need communication in the schools between students, debates, plays, sports, etc. so that kids are part of a program that teaches team work, not just sitting behind a computer all day with no interaction with others. Some schools don’t even have books in the classroom anymore, and then wonder why their children can’t read. You must at least provide the basics in early education.
Ann, I have nieces and nephews in elementary school that don’t get the breaks that adult workers are entitled to by law. At my last job we got a fifteen minute break every two hours. They go from 8 to noon with no break, the only reason the teacher gets a break is because they go to their specials class. I am not against testing, but I don’t think it needs to be all standardized paper and pencil tests that expect everyone to be the same. I agree that NCLB had good intentions but as schools are so afraid to lose the funding that they ignore the needs of the students who test well.