NCLB: More than just an unfunded mandate
I really thought the whole debate was more interesting back when states were asserting their rights, not just asking for more money. So instead of focusing on whether or not the federal government has any right to direct the educational decisions of the states, the states finally read the law and found buried within it a provision for sufficient funding in Section 9527 (a):
So the only objection left now is paying for the federal government’s intrusion into states’ rights. How much are our states’ rights going for these days? There is no real consensus, but studies range from claiming that the increased federal funding more than pays for its requirements to Rep. Rubén Hinojosa’s (D-Texas) claim that there will be a $39 billion shortfall.
So the states will sell their rights for $39 billion. But will anything change?
In an insightful article first appearing in Edweek, the authors point out how many of our international competitors would fail at our proficiency standards.
On a 1991 international math exam, Taiwan scored highest. But if Taiwanese students had taken the NAEP math exam, 60 percent would have scored below proficient, and 22 percent below basic. On the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, 25 percent of students in top-scoring Singapore were below NAEP proficiency in math, and 49 percent were below proficiency in science.
On a 2001 international reading test, Sweden was tops, but two-thirds of Swedish students were not proficient in reading, as NAEP defines it. — Schools Matter
No amount of funding will accomplish the impossible. This is not to say there are not ways to improve our education system and to make greater strides toward closing the “achievement gap.” But in attempting to overhaul our education system with legislation with nice slogans, we have lost sight of any rational discussion of the real problems affecting education and how communities can be empowered to solve them.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.