Orwell Award Announcement SusanOhanian.Org Home

NCLB In Your Face

Ask About the Administration's Suggestions to Revise the ESEA

You can borrow Stephen Krashen's fine questions for the Administration. Send them in! Use them for newspaper op eds. Share them with your PTA.

by Kent Williamson, NCTE Executive Director

NCTE members are invited to join Massie Ritsch and Brad Jopp from the U.S. Department of Education and NCTE Executive Committee Member Jennifer Ochoa to discuss the Obama administration̢۪s suggestions for revising the ESEA during a complimentary web seminar on May 25 at 5:30p.m. Eastern time.

This seminar is a great opportunity to learn about the Blueprint for Education Reform. NCTE members are invited to attend on their own or with their local colleagues. Simply register one person in the group to reserve your virtual seat, and then invite as many participants as you would like to join you around your computer, all complimentary for NCTE members. Note that only 100 virtual spaces are available for this Web seminar, so please register now to secure your seat.

Whether you can attend or not, you can submit questions (write to advocacy@ncte.org) that we will try to work into the discussion. In June, a recording of the discussion will be available to NCTE members online. So, please take advantage of this special opportunity to learn more about the ESEA as it develops!

Questions submitted by Stephen Krashen
Feel free to use them in the questions you send in.



According to the Blueprint for Reform, released by the US Department of Education, the new standards will be enforced with new tests, which will include "interim" tests in addition to those given at the end of year.

No Child Left Behind only required reading and math tests.

The Blueprint recommends testing in other subjects as well. The Blueprint also insists we measure growth, which could mean testing in the fall and in the spring, doubling the number of tests. This means billions of dollars will be spent on test construction, validation, revision, etc. at a time when school are already very short of funds, when many science
classes have no lab equipment, school libraries (those that are left) have few books, many school bathrooms lack toilet paper, school years are being shortened, and teachers are
losing their jobs.

How can this increase in testing be justified, in light of the fact that schools are so short of money, and the fact that there is no evidence that increasing testing increases

Do we have to test every child every year to see how our schools are doing? When you get a check-up, they don't take all your blood, just a sample.


The current administration is insisting on college for everyone. The standards are clearly college-prep oriented and a high school diploma will soon certify the completion of a college prep program. This will have the effect of making a high school diploma irrelevant for all those who are not interested in college, who have different interests, talents and career paths. It will also mean a continuation of the decline of vocational classes of all kinds, and a disrespect for vocational education.

Former US Cabinet member John W. Gardner pointed out that we all lose when we lose respect for non-academic work: "The society which scorns excellence in plumbing as a humble
activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy: neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water."

Has the administration considered this? Have they considered the data showing that most new jobs will not require a college degree (see J. Steinberg's recent article in the NY Times summarizing this data, ( Plan B: Skip College May 16).


The administration has assumed that education in the US is in trouble, based on student performance on international tests. This is not so.

Students from well-funded schools who come from high-income families outscore all or nearly all other countries on international tests. Only our children in high poverty schools score below the international average. The US has the highest percentage of children in poverty of all industrialized countries (25%, compared to Denmark's 3%). Our educational system has been successful; the problem is poverty.

If this is true, our first priority should be to deal with poverty and to help schools give high-poverty children at least some of the advantages middle class children have: e.g. nutrition and access to books. Our first priority should not be more "rigorous standards" and tests.

Is the administration aware of this?


One of the major priorities of the Race to the Top is to "Prepare more students for advanced study and careers in the sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics." There is, however, no shortage of STEM-trained professionals in the United States. In fact, studies show that there is a surplus.

In addition, the US ranks at or near the top of the world on all categories related to STEM education and availability of expertise: According to the World Economic Federation, the US ranks 5th out of 133 countries in "availability of scientists & engineers," second in "quality of scientific research institutions" and first in "university-industry research collaboration."

Why the push for STEM?

Stephen Krashen's questions for Administration


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.