Bush's No Child Left Behind Education Plan Gets Failing Grades

[papau]

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=nifea&&sid=ajSis_cdNYFg

Bush's No Child Left Behind Education Plan Gets Failing Grades
Sept. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Michael McGill climbs the terrazzo steps to a balcony above the newest wing of Scarsdale Middle School, part of a $22 million renovation that includes two-story tinted windows, a 31-classroom addition and a light-filled central indoor courtyard overlooking weeping willows.

The freshly tiled walls are lined with awards won by high achievers in the 4,569-student school district in Westchester County, New York, where McGill, 60, has been superintendent for six years. Almost every senior attends college, and one in three is awarded National Merit scholarships or academic honors based on test scores, McGill says.

With all of its honors and accomplishments, Scarsdale Middle School is failing to comply with President George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind law, which Bush, 58, describes as ``the cornerstone of my administration.''

One-third of the 90,000 U.S. public schools, from affluent suburbs like Scarsdale to poor cities like Reading, Pennsylvania, didn't make adequate yearly progress during the first year of the law, which has the practical effect of labeling them as failures, according to the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers union.

In high-achieving Scarsdale, where home prices range from $600,000 to more than $6 million, the middle school failed to meet the New York State Education Department's criteria under the 2002 law because 85 percent of the eighth-graders took the state's math and English exams instead of the required 95 percent participation rate. <snip>

[MatrixEscape]

1. So, then ...

Our children isn't learning?

Don't worry, no billonaire has been left behind! That means more ... ah, something or other, for us all! Yay!

[markus]

2. Bush: No Child Left A Dime

Best bumper sticker I've seen in about a month.

[DesEtoiles]

3. NCLB is a disaster - underfunded and crushing school districts:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48703-2004Sep24.html

New Review of Data Shows Bush Education Policies Contributing to Taxes, Teacher Layoffs


New website offers parents info on tax levies, teacher layoffs, and funding cutbacks


Columbus, OH -- Communities for Quality Education (CQE) today unveiled a website that examines how the under-funding of the rules and regulations from President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act have contributed to school districts pushing for tax hikes and laying off teachers. The education advocacy group reviewed data from the State of Ohio and other sources.


"The Bush Administration's expensive education policies cost Ohio billions of dollars," said Rhonda Johnson, President of the Columbus Education Association. "In tight financial times, schools have few options: teacher layoffs when our kids need to get ahead or raise taxes."


The Bush No Child Left Behind law has significantly cost Ohio schools and taxpayers. An independent study commissioned by the Ohio Department of Education determined that the law annually costs Ohio $1.5 billion in additional costs that are not met by the federal government. As Ohio's schools reel under an unconstitutional school funding system, these additional costs fall to the expense of local districts.

_____________________
http://www.schoolfunding.info/states/oh/1-29-04NCLBCostOut.php3

OHIO DEPT OF EDUCATION STUDY SAYS NCLB WILL COST OHIO $1.5 BILLION

Study Finds NCLB Will Cost $1.5 Billion in Ohio

The first detailed analysis of the costs to a state of complying with the federal "No Child Left Behind" Act (NCLB) has been completed in Ohio, and it calculated the cost at $1.5 billion. The Ohio Department of Education commissioned the study, prepared by the firm of Levin, Driscoll and Fleeter, at the behest of the Ohio General Assembly.

The study concludes that it will cost the State of Ohio a total of $1.447 billion dollars (in current 2004 dollars) to implement the provisions of NCLB fully. The actual cost estimated by the researchers is $1.491 billion, however, they estimate that the federal government will contribute $44 million in additional funds to aid in compliance with NCLB. The $1.447 billion figure represents an 11% increase in education spending in Ohio.

__________________

http://www.ode.state.oh.us/reportcard/state_report_card/

Only 64% of Ohio school districts met AYP for 2003-2004


________________


THE NEA DOES NOT SUPPORT NCLB IN ITS CURRENT FORM

http://www.nea.org/esea/eseanews.html


Third of districts miss school goal


More than one-third of school systems in Massachusetts, including affluent, high-performing Weston and Shrewsbury, have been put on a federal watch list because of substandard test scores, state officials said yesterday.


The list of school systems labeled "in need of improvement" under the federal No Child Left Behind Act cuts across socioeconomic lines.


The Boston Globe article by Peter Schworm
Sept. 16, 2004


Schools plan to file suit over federal initiative


The Coachella Valley Unified School District plans to sue both the state and federal government over what it considers unreasonable progress goals required by the federal No Child Left Behind Act.


The Desert Sun article by Jennifer Larson
Sept. 14, 2004


Chuck: Feds Owe Schools


The feds are shortchanging schools in New York City, Long Island and Westchester by more than $1.1 billion, Sen. Charles Schumer charged yesterday.


New York City could be out $914 million, Nassau County $52.5 million, Suffolk County $82.3 million and Westchester $52.2 million, Schumer said.


New York Post article
Sept. 7, 2004

_________________________



And more bad news on healthcare

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48703-2004Sep24.htm


l

[DesEtoiles]

4. The basics of NCLB

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), signed into law by George W. Bush, requires school systems to meet rigid, one-size-fits-all requirements or face harsh penalties - including state takeovers - after just 5 years of so-called “failures.”

NCLB was designed to cause a school or district to fail unless each and every annual state-wide performance standard (the “adequate yearly progress” standard, called AYP) is met. For example, a school will fail if less than 95% of all students simply fail to take the required proficiency test. If 94% of students took and passed the proficiency test, the school would still fail. If 97% of students in the school took and passed the proficiency test, but less than 95% of all students in any one of the designated sub-groups (poverty, race and ethnicity, disability and limited English proficiency) took the test, the school would still fail.

What happens if a school or district “fails” under NCLB?

Schools that haven’t met AYP for 2 years in a row are designated as “needing improvement.” Every student in the school may transfer to another school in the district, and the school must pay for transportation out of its Title I funding. Receiving schools generally may not deny a transfer based on a lack of capacity, even if such transfers put the receiving schools over their building capacity or class size limits. Such schools must expand capacity at their own cost. This also increases the risk that the receiving school will not meet its yearly AYP requirements.

After 3 consecutive years of failing to meet AYP, the district must spend part of its Title I funds (approximately $500 to $1,000 per child) for supplemental services for low-achieving disadvantaged students in the school – including tutoring, after school services or summer school programs. Twenty percent of Title I funds at the local school district level must be used for school transfers and these supplemental services.

After 4 consecutive years of failing to meet AYP, a school will be subject to “increasingly tough” corrective actions - including replacing certain school staff, “significantly” decreasing management authority at the school level or fully implementing a new curriculum.

After 5 consecutive years of failing to meet AYP, the school could face restructuring -- meaning a state takeover or being placed under private management.

According to the Ohio Department of Education, 83% of Ohio schools and only 64% of districts met AYP requirements for 2003-2004, putting the “failing” schools and districts on track for the disruptive and costly sanctions under NCLB’s punitive provisions. 80% of those districts that “failed” -- 219 districts -- were classified as “needing improvement” for missing AYP requirements by only one designated sub-group.


Another little known but controversial provision of NCLB – NCLB gives U.S. Military officials the right to obtain lists from high schools of student’s names, address and phone numbers for recruiting purposes. Schools are supposed to inform parents that parents have to the right to opt out of providing this information.

[DesEtoiles]

5. This is how the White House spins it

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020108.html

[DesEtoiles]

6. Ohio's BEST SCHOOLS FAIL under NCLB

http://www.cleveland.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1093858352204330.xml

State's best schools listed as troubled by federal law

Examples: Hudson, Mentor, Twinsburg

Monday, August 30, 2004
John Horton
Plain Dealer Reporter


Stellar test scores pour out of Hudson High School like water from a faucet. In the inaugural Ohio Graduation Test for 10th graders, 87.4 percent of the students passed math - far above the state average.


Hudson students passed the reading portion of the test a rate of 89.5 percent, again far above the state norm.


But it appears the school has some work to do.


The Ohio Department of Education listed Hudson High School among 179 Northeast Ohio schools in need of improvement or considered at-risk for not meeting testing goals. The reason? A small portion of the school's student body - a subgroup of 45 special needs students - didn't pass a reading test at a high enough rate.


EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[DesEtoiles]

7. Costs to local districts = de facto tax increase

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=34039

The Bush Tax Increase


February 20, 2004
Download: DOC, RTF, PDF


President Bush said on 2/12/04 that "we cut taxes, which basically meant people had more money in their pocket." However, for the majority of Americans, the tax cuts meant very little. By next year, for instance, 88% of all Americans will receive $100 or less from the Administration's latest tax cuts. But even above and beyond this, the tax cuts and the deficits they have created have forced the Administration to raise fees and cut services for most Americans – which is an effective tax increase on average Americans. In many ways, the Administration's fiscal/budget policies are actually taking more money out of people's pockets.

[DesEtoiles]

8. More on NCLB funding gap

http://www.misleader.org/special_reports/

No Child Left Behind? The Funding Gap in ESEA and Other Federal Education Programs

From the National Education Association.

Visit the NEA Web site for more information.

Download the Full Report (PDF).

Download the State-by-State Report (PDF).

The current reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), raises high expectations for achievement and imposes stringent measures of accountability on students, teachers, and schools. Yet it fell short of full funding by more than $32 billion in 2003. Eight other federal education programs serving Americans from preschool age through adulthood had funding gaps totaling almost $49 billion for 2003. ESEA/NCLB received less than half of its full funding in 2003. Given current trends, it appears likely to remain drastically underfunded. That suggests the advisability of carefully reexamining the reauthorization now-while it is still relatively early in NCLB's 2002-2007 lifespan.

....

This study finds that the federal government is not providing the resources that the ESEA/NCLB legislation and other federal education laws stipulate to help students and schools achieve. Federal funding is crucial now, as state and local governments, already contributing more than 90 percent of total education funding, struggle with fiscal crises of their own. In addition, the 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act has raised achievement goals and accountability measures substantially. These measures require states to implement universal testing. They also impose federal sanctions on schools that do not meet stringent measures of adequate yearly progress (AYP). These sanctions begin with potentially disruptive shifting of students from school to school. They may ultimately lead to widespread "reconstitution" of schools, involving dismissal of a school's entire administration and staff.

The funding gaps in ESEA/NCLB and other federal education programs are daunting in magnitude:
ESEA's Title I-A program had a funding gap of $16.5 billion in 2003. ESEA as a whole had a gap of more than $32.6 billion.

Eight other federal education programs, including Head Start and the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) had a funding gap of an additional $48.8 billion in 2003. The total 2003 funding gap was $81.4 billion. In all, the 2003 federal appropriations were only about 43 percent of the full funding level.

Federal education funding for 2004 is not yet final. It is already clear, however, that Title I-A is likely to have a funding gap of about $28 billion. The funding trend is getting worse, not better.

To derive the summary numbers for full funding and the funding gaps, along with detailed calculations for ESEA/NCLB and other federal programs, the study used formulas written into the relevant legislation. Where the legislation did not contain formulas, the study used current or previous congressional authorizations. The calculations also adjusted for inflation and program changes. The study's methodology evaluates what it would cost to serve all those who are eligible for the programs-that is, to leave no child behind. It cuts through ambiguities in the laws (e.g., authorization levels that do not fulfill the law's own funding formulas, and lack of specific authorizations for ongoing, funded programs). The paper also clarifies different, and sometimes misleading, usages of "full funding" in the media and on Capitol Hill.

Providing a quality education for the coming generation of students is a challenge. This study does not argue, however, that the president or Congress should simply "throw money" at all federal education programs. It does suggest that the gap between present funding and full funding for ESEA/NCLB, for example, is far too large. Clearly the current reauthorization, now "celebrating" its second anniversary, requires swift and careful reconsideration and much more realistic alignment of resources and expectations. Partial funding coupled with full accountability is a recipe for failure. In contrast, full funding of the right programs and of appropriate testing and accountability measures provides a foundation for success.

[Moderator]

9. IANM

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source.


Thank you.


DU Moderator