Education Reform: A Storm Brewing?

by Frank Dexter Brown
SeeingBlack.com Contributing Writer

WASHINGTON—Even while President Bush has focused most of his attention on the "war against terrorism," he has taken time to continue pushing what he's called his main domestic policy agenda item—his so-called "education reform" plan—a plan that calls for drastic, unprecedented changes in the way the nation's public school system operates and educates children.

Early in October, Bush went on the offensive. He again began making speeches pushing his education agenda, kindergarten-12th grade. Then he took a break from the month-long bombing of Afghanistan to call a White House meeting with a select bipartisan group of congressional leaders on education issues. He reportedly told them it was time for Congress to get moving on his early literacy plan requiring students grades 3 to 8 to be tested annually in mathematics and reading, and holding students, schools and state and local governments responsible for failing grades.

"Our educators need to get ready for the new accountability era that's coming to our schools," the president has argued, while emphasizing what will happen if students and schools don't improve.

This includes altering the way federal funds are used to pay for education services. In what some education analysts are calling the most striking changes in federal education policy since the "Great Society" programs of President Lyndon Johnson, the Bush administration has proposed that parents be allowed to use federally funded vouchers to pay for private schooling or private tutoring. The administration also wants parents to have the option of moving their children from consistently failing schools to other public schools. Further, it proposes to close those schools whose students consistently test below basic levels on standardized tests, or the replacement of teachers and administrators. The administration also proposes that consistently failing schools could be converted into charter schools.

While on the surface, these proposals may not appear radical, opponents say the proof is in the details. These changes would be so severe, so unprecedented, progressive educators warn, that public schools and education systems nationally would be devastated.

"Teachers have a somewhat different take on the education reform bill," says Bob Chase, president of the National Education Association (NEA), the largest group in the nation representing the interests of teachers and students. "We respect tests as an indispensable tool of our trade. However, we believe in using tests not for punitive purposes, but to diagnose strengths and weaknesses so we can give every child the individual assistance he or she needs to succeed. By contrast, many politicians apparently favor using tests as high-stakes instruments for determining winners and losers among our children. School reform is about ensuring that all children have access to high-quality schools and qualified teachers. And it is about mobilizing tough-minded interventions to ensure that low-achieving students have a fighting chance to succeed."

Most African-American leaders agree with Chase. They argue that Blacks and other students of color, who disproportionately attend public schools, will especially be negatively impacted unless reform is balanced, properly funded and comprehensive.

The National Urban League endorses the basic thrust of President Bush's plan but not all of it. Urban League President Hugh B. Price says, "We steadfastly oppose federal support for schools vouchers and extension of tax-sheltered education savings accounts to K-12 education. Congress should reject these proposals. Universal free K-12 education is a core responsibility of government. We staunchly oppose any measures that weaken the ability of public schools to meet this obligation.

"How cynical it would be if, in the name of educational accountability, Washington allowed vouchers and education savings accounts to shift precious public resources to nonpublic schools that are unaccountable for their academic results. The Bush plan explicitly exempts nonpublic schools that receive public support from the testing requirements of the federal legislation. With more than 90 percent of African-American youngsters enrolled in public schools, the key to improving their academic performance is improving the academic performance of public schools."

Rep. Major Owens (D-N.Y.), the senior Congressional Black Caucus member focusing on education issues, agrees that it is a myth that national testing alone will improve student achievement. He warns that the Bush plan will instead result in massive failures in public schools, and promote the massive assignment of schools to private contractors.

"Where there is no effort to improve school facilities or to provide adequate libraries, laboratories, computers and other learning necessities, the burden of improving education is dumped solely on the backs of the pupils. Under this condition, with gross sins of omission, national testing with high stakes and scores that will remain with students for a lifetime become instruments for the oppression of students. Without adequate resources, students attending schools located in poor urban and rural areas will not have the opportunity to perform to their potential on these tests."

Even some Republican governors and education specialists have expressed concern that the proposed standard for "adequate yearly progress" on the tests virtually guarantees that most schools will be labeled failures. "Two things happen," says Michigan Gov. John Engler, a Republican. "One, you dumb down the test. Two, every school, even good schools, get labeled non-performing."

The timing of Bush's meeting with congressional leaders was especially strategic. The group included Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), and Reps. George Miller (D-Calif.) and John A Boehner (R-Ohio), the chairman and senior party members of a "conference" negotiating committee of legislators from both the Houses of Representatives and the Senate.

This conference group has been meeting off and on since last summer to iron out the differences between versions of the revised "Elementary and Secondary Education Act" (ESEA), which passed separately in each legislative branch last spring. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, however, committee members have met only once. Now it seems action may soon be forthcoming.

But an agreement will not be easy. Differences between the two versions of the bill primarily shake out along party and ideological lines.

Beyond the typical party differences over vouchers, the conferees also disagree over the amount of freedom states and local school systems should be given in defining what is a failing school, and how funds will be spent by states and local governments.

Senate and House Democrats have argued that the Bush administration's proposed funding levels are too low for what states and local school systems are being asked to do. They contend that if students and schools are to be held to higher standards, and if states and school systems are to conduct costly testing annually of all students 3-8 grades, then adequate funding is necessary. Bush has requested a $2.5 billion increase over the $18 billion presently budgeted for K-12 education. The Republican-controlled House proposal is for $23 billion, a $5 billion increase above current spending levels. The Democratic-controlled Senate has approved funding provisions of $33 billion. The Senate measure includes a $15 billion increase in funding for federal programs for lower-income students, and $3 billion for teacher training.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) says education reform is too important to be underfinanced.

"While investment in education without accountability is a waste of resources, demanding accountability without making investments is a waste of time." She contends that the federal government already shortchanges states in funding support appropriated for lower-income students, noting that one in five schools nationally that serve mostly poor students do not receive the $9 billion intended for these students. "Money alone won't improve schools, but as we raise standards and increase accountability we must also invest in excellence," Landrieu has said.

But the furor for change has been building at such a rate that non-action by Congress is doubtful. Indeed, the nation's governors and education and business leaders ended a major meeting just as the congressional leaders were being called to the White House in October. And while the results of the summit were mixed, summit attendees agreed they should use standardized test results not to rank students or embarrass under-achieving schools, but to diagnose problems in order to allocate resources to improve achievement. They also agreed that governors should create more incentives to attract the best teachers to the worst schools.

In fact, educational standards, including regular testing and the holding of students and teachers accountable, has become the norm over the past decade. While only about 12 states had developed standards in core subjects in 1996, today 49 states have such standards.

Nevertheless, the Bush administration is pushing forward with its agenda. And with polls showing his popularity at an all-time high, Bush is attempting to make it difficult for Congress not to adopt all of his proposals. As Bush said even before the Sept. 11 attacks: "Some, for whom the increases this year may not be enough, are threatening to stall these much-needed reforms. That is a tactic of the past in Washington that has neither worked for our country nor, more sadly, for our children."

Can all of these issues be overcome?

Chase of the NEA says this approach must be on the scale of the Marshall Plan implemented to rebuild Europe and Japan after World War II. "The great majority of America's children, especially in affluent suburban communities, attend public schools that range from good to outstanding. Most of these kids will be able to meet the new standards, pass the tests, and graduate,"

By contrast, Chase warns, "millions of other children—notably the one in five who live in poverty —attend schools with rundown facilities, meager resources, and too many unqualified teachers. If we impose high-stakes tests on these young people but do nothing to improve their schools, we are setting them up to fail."

-- November 30, 2001

© Copyright 2001-05 Seeing Black, Inc. All Rights Reserved.