DOA, PART II
Skip Oliva pointed out that President Bush is pounding the pavement (and the lectern) pushing for more federalization of education:
I believe the federal government has a role to play. As you can tell, I believe the federal government had a role to play in primary education, and I believe the federal government has a role to play in secondary education. Up to now, the reforms, as I’ve explained to you, focus on the primary schools. Today, I propose a $1.5 billion initiative to help every high school student graduate with the skills necessary to succeed. (Applause.) Before you get too nervous, please understand that I strongly believe in local control of schools. I don’t believe you can have innovation at Stuart High School if the federal government is trying to teach you how to run your school.
The role of the federal government is to — is to serve as a funding source for specific projects, and an instigator for accountability systems. The accountability system is, of course, devised by local people. The state of Virginia has devised its own accountability system. I don’t believe in a federal test. I believe a federal test leads to federal control, and I believe federal control of the public school systems leads to failure. (Applause.) And so I believe the federal government has an obligation to help in a way that helps local districts and local schools achieve our objectives. Some of that money ought to be — that I’ve just announced will go to early intervention programs.
… To ensure that the intervention programs are working and graduates are prepared, we need to be certain that high school students are learning every year. So the second component of my high school initiative is to measure progress with tests in reading and math in the 9th, 10th and 11th grade. (Applause.) Listen, I’ve heard every excuse in the book not to test. My answer is, how do you know if a child is learning if you don’t test. We’ve got money in the budget to help the states implement the tests. There should be no excuse saying, well, it’s an unfunded mandate. Forget it — it will be funded. I’ve heard people say you’re teaching the test; if you teach a child to read, they’ll pass the test. Testing is important. Testing at high school levels will help us to become more competitive as the years go by. Testing in high schools will make sure that our children are employable for the jobs of the 21st century. Testing will allow teachers to improve their classes. Testing will enable schools to track. Testing will make sure that diploma is not merely a sign of endurance, but the mark of a young person ready to succeed. (Applause.)
This has some potential to affect homeschooling. Assuming Bush gets this (which I highly doubt), it makes it awfully easy for state legislators to point at private schoolers and at us: “Why don’t they have to test, too”? Keep your eyes open, folks.
7 Responses to “DOA, PART II”
 Comment by Eric Holcombe January 20th, 2005 at 2:46 pm |
As long as he keeps saying this… Homeschoolers already have. |
|
Comment by Anonymous January 20th, 2005 at 9:17 pm |
Code? You’re kidding, right? Bush is absolutely convinced that federalization of education is the way to go. He just knows that he can’t come out for it directly or his base would revolt. So, he goes the NCLB route by holding out a carrot (more money) to the schools in exchange for them “volunteering” to follow his rules. |
|
Comment by Eric Holcombe January 21st, 2005 at 8:40 am |
The penalty for not following the carrot never existed before. Sure, they may get a little more federal dollars, but if they fail they lose them all, kids transfer and then the school also loses state funding. Granted some of the academic benchmarks being used are pitiful (i.e., 40% passing score), but they all have to improve over time. They are whining about the small stuff like 100% tested and attendance – I don’t think a lot of them will make it past the second or third hurdle (Of course, by then I’m sure the requirements will get relaxed). If they don’t, that federal money goes back into the bottomless pit. If they do, the schools improve – at least academically. With the exception of D.C.(not a state), these dollars make up less than 10% of most state’s education budgets. I suggest more will follow Utah’s example and “just say no”. NCLB is going to shed a lot of light on their business. |
|
Comment by Daryl Cobranchi January 21st, 2005 at 8:47 am |
So far, no state (including UT) has opted out of NCLB, though several have threatened to. VA is currently requesting a waiver from some of the requirements based on their home-grown accountability program. |
|
Comment by Eric Holcombe January 21st, 2005 at 9:22 am |
Okay. I guess I was remembering this: A logical conclusion. If the federal dollars can’t ‘pay’ enough to justify working for them – they will stop working for them. |
 Comment by Adrian January 23rd, 2005 at 12:20 am |
What I’d love Bush to make plain (do correct me if he already has) is whether the NCLB testing is to make sure every child in America is at a certain point by a certain age, or whether every child is being served well by a public school. If it’s the latter, than the homeschool and private school argument is very simple: NCLB and the test provisions are to hold public schools taking federal money accountable for their actions. We accept no federal funds, so we’re exempt. (They can make that argument now, though Bush’s clarification would make it much easier.) |
|
Comment by Daryl Cobranchi January 23rd, 2005 at 4:34 am |
There’s nothing about NCLB that’s plain. From the speech linked above, one would think it’s all about making sure that the schools are spending tax money wisely (that is what “accountability is supposed to mean”). But the very title of the Act, No Child Left Behind, implies something else entirely. I think in Bush’s ideal world he’d test our kids, too. |