Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

TIM PUGMIRE: When President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law in January 2002, he dramatically increased federal involvement in the way states and school districts do their jobs. The original elementary and secondary education act, signed in 1965, began the commitment of federal money to schools to help poor children get a good education and escape poverty. US Secretary of Education Rod Paige says billions of dollars were spent over the years with no expectations for classroom results.

ROD PAIGE: No idea in politics has hurt children more than the false and misleading assumption that spending alone determines how well students learn.

TIM PUGMIRE: No Child Left Behind increases federal education spending. But the money comes with lots of strings attached. The new rules require all states to adopt specific testing and accountability systems. Underachieving schools that receive federal Title I money must make progress toward meeting state standards or allow students to move to other schools.

Persistently failing schools could face state takeover. The law also requires states to raise the qualifications for teachers and classroom assistants. Paige says the federal government wants to see improved student achievement in every state as a return on its investment.

ROD PAIGE: We don't tell the states what standards they should set for their students in that state. We simply say set standards. The state will determine what standards will be. Then, we say measure against those standards to determine whether or not the standard is being reached or not. And that would not be, I think, in any reasonable person's mind, the federal government meddling in states business.

TIM PUGMIRE: But federal meddling is exactly how many local school leaders describe the law. They object to what they see as inappropriate intrusion into their decision making. Minneapolis school board member Audrey Johnson criticized the new federal requirements during a recent public hearing on district budget cuts.

AUDREY JOHNSON: This is a federal bill that has encroached upon local issues more than any other bill in educational history.

TIM PUGMIRE: Johnson says she agrees with the basic concept of No Child Left Behind and its goal to close the achievement gaps between students of color and their White classmates. She says she also wants to see all students succeed in the classroom. What she doesn't want is micromanaging from Washington.

AUDREY JOHNSON: The federal government, I feel has a role to play, and that's where they have to set certain parameters. And they have to look at the bigger picture and the outcomes. And say the state needs to have a plan to include all these kids and allow the states the flexibility because it's really a state constitutional responsibility is education. It's not a federal one. That's one that's clearly left to the states.

TIM PUGMIRE: Conservatives are also questioning the reach of No Child Left Behind and how it fits into their less government view of the world. Morgan Brown, a senior fellow at the Center of the American Experiment, says he supports the new federal mandates with some reservations.

MORGAN BROWN: From a conservative perspective, ideally, you should have policymaking and funding at the state and local levels exclusively. But we have reached a consensus in this country that that's not going to happen anytime soon. We are going to have some level of federal involvement in K-12 education. So if we're going to do that, then let's move towards providing the funding to the states, but only focusing on holding them accountable for the results.

TIM PUGMIRE: Brown is a big proponent of parental choice in education. He says he's disappointed the law didn't contain more options, such as private school vouchers. Some critics claim the whole approach of No Child Left Behind is aimed at setting the stage for vouchers by discrediting public schools.

Thousands of schools could quickly fall short of the performance targets and be placed on the needs improvement list. Each student subgroup, including English language learners and special education, must also make improvements. The law requires all students to meet proficiency standards in 12 years.

Edina Superintendent Ken Dragseth, the recently named National Superintendent of the Year, says even top performing schools like his will be labeled as failures. He says 90% passing rates on tests are no longer good enough.

KEN DRAGSETH: At some year, I'm a failing school. Might be the first year, might be the sixth year, but I'm not going to get all my kids to 100%. As much as I want to, as much as we love those kids, and as much as hard as those teachers are working, there is no way that we're going to give them 100%.

TIM PUGMIRE: Education Secretary Paige is unapologetic about the tough accountability provisions of No Child Left behind, including the need for a list of underperforming schools.

ROD PAIGE: The reason to identify a school as in need of improvement is so that we can improve the school. It doesn't mean that the school is to be punished or that the school is a bad school. It's a school that needs help. And whether or not we identify that school as one that needs help, the school still needs help.

TIM PUGMIRE: The only option for state officials, if they feel the regulations are too restrictive, is give up millions of dollars in federal money for underprivileged students. Minnesota, for example, receives about $250 million in Title I funds. But some wonder if 3% of the state's total K-12 education budget is worth a mandate of 100% accountability.

Renee Doyle, founder of the Maple River Education Coalition, has spent the past five years fighting to scrap the state's profile of learning graduation standards and preserve local control of education. Doyle opposed previous federal education initiatives, such as Goals 2000. And she doesn't like No Child Left Behind.

RENEE DOYLE: The teeth have been put in it. It's more stringent. And yes, we highly object to what they're doing to the schools. It's totally something that is such a huge cumbersome thing that they will not be able to even operate under.

TIM PUGMIRE: Republican representative Alice Seagren, Chairwoman of the House K-12 Education Finance Committee, also has concerns about the federal mandates. But she says when lawmakers are struggling to solve a more than $4 billion state budget deficit, giving up any federal funding is not an option.

ALICE SEAGREN: If you just look at the initial numbers of Title I of around $250 million, that might have been doable if we had had a surplus or something. If people really were concerned about this federal mandate and the impact, we have no money to cover that kind of an impact. So I don't think that it's realistic that we're going to be walking away from the federal dollars.

TIM PUGMIRE: Seagren says she hopes, instead, that lawmakers and state education officials can develop a workable testing and accountability system for Minnesota that is palatable to teachers and parents. I'm Tim Pugmire, Minnesota Public Radio.