OCR Text |
Show The ABC's of No Child Left Behind: Accountability, Benefits and Controversies Cameron Diehl enhancing data systems and supporting the development of highly qualified teachers by providing online courses and virtual communication (SETDA, 2005). Thus far, Title II, Part D funds have been in high-demand. 81% of all districts in the country receive NCLB II D funds. Between the states and the District of Columbia, states have been allocated a combined $620 million which is then in turn divided into formula and competitive grants for national technology activities, Ready-to-Learn television and Child internet safety (Mangan and Mercer, 2005). These programs are above and beyond a computer lab in each school, they provide instruction to low-income students- that would probably be unavailable otherwise-on how to become highly-skilled and functional with technology. On a state level however, funding is virtually non-existent. Twelve states have no other funding earmarked for technology in schools and 25 states depend on Title II D funds as the primary source of funds (SETDA, 2005). These technological opportunities are essential for American students in our connected global society, but would be eliminated without nearly exclusive federal funding. Students primarily served by Title IID funds would have no other access at home or at school to technology-based education and would subsequently fall further behind other students nationwide and globally. Consequently, Federal officials insist NCLB is not an unfunded government mandate. Section 9527 (a) of the NCLB statute which states: "nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal government to... mandate a state or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act" (U.S. Department of Education, 2005a). They point to the aforementioned dollars for special education, Title I, LEP, and Title II Part D as evidence of federal commitment. State and local officials see a much different picture. The unifying bond among NCLB critics is the bottom line. "If the federal government makes an education policy, it has to provide states with money to implement it," said Virginia Solicitor General William Thro, and with NCLB "the federal government puts you in a position where you have no choice and you have to take the money." That conduct, he adds, is coercion by the federal government (Hancock, 2005). As for the "historic" increases in federal funding, the National Education Association (largest teacher's union) contends that states still fund 92 cents of every education dollar and Uncle Sam's portion is about two percent of the entire K-12 spending (National Education Association, 2005). The NEA accuses the government of shortchanging schools by at least $27 billion, not including promised money for impoverished areas. The NEA also accuses the president of cutting $4-3 billion for 48 programs that primarily serve the neediest students. NCLB mandates additional costs of yearly testing, attaining grade level in reading and math for all students, and making sure that all teachers meet the "highly- qualified" banner. In a since-dismissed lawsuit, NEA argued that "states have shifted money away from such other priorities as foreign languages and smaller classes. The money gap has hurt schools' ability to meet progress goals, which in turn has damaged their reputations" (First national suit, 2005). The Center on Education Policy estimates that 80% of schools have incurred costs not paid for by federal funds (Toppo, 2005). While more than thirty states have verbalized complaints about NCLB, the state of Connecticut has taken legal action. According to state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, the state "would need to spend $8 million by 2008 to comply with the testing requirements of the law" (Hendrie, 2005). The $8 million would have to come from state coffers and would only satisfy testing. What happens to the academic programs that would have been otherwise funded? Gone. What about schools that need extra money because they don't meet AYP? Unresolved. The core argument, according to Blumenthal: NCLB is "an illegal, unconscionable unfund' ed mandate" (Hendrie, 2005). Several state cost studies detail the funding crisis faced by virtually every state. Jordan School District in Utah project' ed in January, 2004, that taxpayers would pay $1.19 billion to meet NCLB mandates through 2013-2014 (Legislative Fiscal Analyst, 2004). Even President Bush's home state of Texas is not immune to the shortfall; it is estimated that it will cost an additional $425 per pupil to simply meet the current AYP requirement and once the proficiency standards rise to 70% of all students, the extra cost will be $1,205 per pupil (National Education Association, 2005). Money of that quantity is just simply not available. Take for example the very schools that Title I is supposed to help. "Just 20% of districts nationwide with the neediest students say that they have adequate money to assist schools identified for improvement under AYP" (Wattenburgi Hansel, et al., 2005b). Robert Chanin, the lead attorney in the now dismissed NEA lawsuit, said that there is a $30 billion shortfall over the next five years in Title I funds in the difference of available funds compared to congressional^ appropriated funds, and a $70 billion shortfall between avail' able and what would be considered "full-funding" (Chanin» 2005). If school districts don't execute the law in its entirety) then waivers are denied and money is pulled. The Department of Education will not take "no money" for af answer to the question of fulfilling all of NCLB's regulations- Analysis: Again it seems that rigid NCLB regulations interfere with education. Obviously there is a finite amount of financial resources. Testing can help identify struggling schools, but earmarking significant chunks of money solely for testing as opposed to student resources, technology and teacher training impairs cumulative educational efforts. School districts afe already straining to meet needs and NCLB requirements afe 32 |