When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was reauthorized in 2002 and No Child Left Behind came roaring to the forefront of the education debate, it continued the fifty-year trend of increased federal involvement in America’s school system. As a public school teacher in the second-poorest congressional district in the nation, I certainly feel the strain of federal mandates and sanctions.
While the goals of NCLB are laudable—to raise student achievement while closing the achievement gap—it has caused an undeniable strain on teachers, schools, districts, and states. Supporters of the federal government’s role in education note, “when the national government has intervened, it has generally been a force for progress—ending de jure segregation, instituting Head Start, Title I, subsidized school lunches and other programs for children in poverty, the GI bill, the rights of children with disabilities, and so on.” Opponents, however, feel that “the regressive parts of NCLB are the exception rather than the rule.” (Casey, 2004) Now, in addition to state standards and testing methods, schools are required to fulfill federal guidelines, with compliance tied directly to federal funding. State and local agencies would suffer a mighty blow if the millions in federal dollars were taken away, and as a result states have reviewed alternatives to full compliance with NCLB (Schwartzbeck, 2004). By fulfilling only the parts of NCLB that are required to receive federal funding, states are exercising their traditional power in education. Minnesota, Arizona, Virginia, Texas, Connecticut and others have expressed concern about the federal government’s infringement on states’ rights (Association for Supervision, 2005). In 2005, Connecticut announced that it would cost them $41.6 million to align their practices with federal requirements through 2008, and in 2003 Minnesota was fined $113,000 for refusing to comply with NCLB (Association for Supervision, 2005). States argue that they already had rigorous standards and testing methods in place, and NCLB impedes the implementation of effective programming. Increasingly, states have sought alternatives that will give them more control and flexibility without the loss of millions in funding. While states are allowed to choose which particular test will be administered to their students, the requirements for what is tested is mandated by Washington.
High-stakes testing with prescriptive, one-size-fits-all measures for success generates additional pressure for educators and administration. Teachers in urban schools are already working with high student-teacher ratios, too few resources, limited curriculum supplements, sub-par facilities, and large numbers of English language learners. Schwartzbeck (2004) and many of her contemporaries criticize NCLB legislation that “is rooted in a flawed educational strategy that does not address the out-of-school roots of the achievement gap and…fails to look beneath the data and address the reasons a child might be falling behind academically.” While all schools should strive to improve the level of education for all students, regardless of socioeconomic status and other factors, and there should be a measure of accountability, there should also be constructive consequences in place to build schools that exact social change through access to quality education. NCLB, rather, generates fear and uncertainty, and it fails to take into account achievements outside rigidity of AYP and SINOI.
In conjunction with the increased focus on accountability, federal funding has been inseparably intertwined with AYP and test scores. Johnson et al (2008) note that “under NCLB, few rewards exist. Instead, different forms of threats and sanctions hang over states, school districts, and schools that ‘need improvement.’” While city and state leaders declare they know what is best for New York City’s schools, they simultaneously take away badly-needed funding. Massive budget cuts have left our schools to choose between cutting extracurricular activities to supplement classroom curriculum or cutting teachers and other support staff. The incentive for schoolwide success is fear-based.
Federal control of the education system extends into primary, secondary, and teacher training classrooms. When No Child Left Behind was signed into action, it sought to improve the quality of education and the quality of teachers across the country, to make American students internationally competitive, and to make education the common denominator among US citizens. It’s mandates, however, infringe on states’ rights and promote a faulty prescriptive solution for everyone. The effects of NCLB are felt every day in the classroom, from confusing jumbles of state, federal, and local requirements, to tightened budgets, to stigmatic stamps of “needing improvement.” There are a myriad of issues associated with the effects of federalism on American schools, from strings-attached funding to teacher certification, and the inflexible stringency of NCLB is hotly contested by educators, administrators, legislators, and parents.
References
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (2005). States weigh in on education reform. EDPolicy Update 4(2). Retrieved July 29, 2008, from http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/menuitem.74d518f89df7aafcdeb3ffdb62108a0c/template.article?articleMgmtId=d01e79a96e962010VgnVCM1000003d01a8c0RCRD
Casey, L. (2004). Education and American federalism. 21st Century Schools Project Bulletin, 4(1). Retrieved July 29, 2008, from http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=252320&knlgAreaID=110&subsecid=900001
Johnson, J.A., Musial, D., Hall, G.E., Gollnick, D.M., & Dupuis, V.L. (2008). Foundations of American education: Perspectives on education in a changing world (14th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Schwartzbeck, T.D. (2004). The federalism debate. The School Administrator. Retrieved July 29, 2008, from http://www.aasa.org/publications/saarticledetail.cfm?ItemNumber=1178&snItemNumber=&tnItemNumber=
No comments:
Post a Comment