A couple weeks ago the Des Moines Register ran a story about the decline in enrollment in education at Iowa's colleges and universities.
The pattern threatens to fuel teacher shortages in some subjects and toughen competition for top talent, officials say. Iowa is a longtime exporter of educators.
"People view teaching as something that is not really as rewarding as it used to be," said Judy Jeffrey, the state's top education official. "It's very troubling."
At the heart of Iowa's trend is an unprecedented dropoff in new elementary schoolteachers.
Candidates for teaching endorsements in elementary education have dropped by nearly a third since the 2003-04 school year, a new Iowa Department of Education report shows.
I see the cause of this is twofold. One reason is the increased pressure to increase test scores due to No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which was passed in 2001. The efforts by educators to increase test scores isn't always matched by parents in the community. Many schools have cut the amount of time teaching art, music, science, and social studies in order to focus strictly on teaching reading and math because those are the subjects being tested. This creates a stressful and negative work environment where creativity is looked down upon because it might hurt test scores.
Second, teacher salaries remain low nationwide. A teacher with their masters degree makes far less than other profession who have master's degree such as engineers, accountants, and lawyers.
Until teachers are seen as valued professionals in the community, fewer people will decide to go into the profession.
I heard Lily Eskelsen, Vice President of the NEA, speak in January. She gave a great speech on the possibilities of the new Obama administration to strengthen the middle class, including reforming No Child Left Behind and fixing our broken health care system.
Here is a look at the the issues I am looking at when trying to decide which candidate to support for president.
I want a candidate for president that...
is strongly against Free Trade and recognizes that NAFTA ships US jobs overseas and is a driving force behind our immigration problem.
is in favor of universal health care
sees the major flaws in NCLB and will drastically change the program or just get rid of it
is committed to ending our addiction to foreign oil and sees renewable energy and green technologies as a way to create millions of jobs in the country
sees Iraq as a distraction from fighting al Qaeda and dealing with terror threats around the world, will bring our troops home from Iraq ( the British withdrawal from Basra reduced violence in the city by 90%), and understands the only solution in Iraq is a diplomatic one
has been a longtime supporter of these issues and has the votes and real world experience to back it up
John Edwards stopped in Marshalltown on Monday evening on the first day of his 8 day bus tour across Iowa. Edwards spoke in front of 154 people at Marshalltown High School. A long time Marshalltown Democrat and former county chair told me this was the first time a presidential candidate has come to the High School.
This was my 8th time seeing Sen. Edwards and I noticed some differences tonight compared to past speeches. First, the message was toned down. A couple months ago the headlines were about John Edwards being too angry. Tonight, Edwards took the high road and even joked about the silly campaign antics of Clinton and Obama arguing about a Kindergarten essay. A few times throughout the event Edwards made distinctions on policy with Clinton and Obama, but they were very minor.
I also noticed more emphasis on his rural upbringing. Edwards mentioned growing up with the same kind of people, being born in a small town, and yes, being the son of a mill worker.
Edwards stayed on his theme of power in America being concentrated in the hands of a few. The problem is that regular people are being left behind and their voices aren't being heard. He mentioned problems in health care, the prescription drug plan, and Blackwater and other paid mercenaries running around Iraq. Edwards brought up unfair trade agreements that ship jobs overseas more than he has in past events.
He discussed the responsibility of leaving a better country, calling it the moral test of our generation.
He then told the story of James Lowe, who was born with a clef pallet that was easily fixable and was unable to speak. However, Mr. Lowe did not have health care and could not get it fixed until, through the generosity of others, had the simple operation when he was 50.
James Lowe finally got his voice. Now it's time for you to get yours.
Edwards then transitioned into his new theme of America rising.
...the great thing about America -- and this has happened over and over in this country's history -- when America's faced with great obstacles, what do the American people do? They rose up; they stood up; they spoke up; they faced these challenges, and they brought about the change America needs. Well, we're in that place again. It's time for us to stand up. It's time for us to rise up.
Edwards opened it up for questions, which I shot some video with my digital camera of a few of his responses.
There is a proposed coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown. A citizen who is concerned about the power plant asks Edwards about coal plants and the importance of conservation.
Here Edwards is asked about No Child Left Behind. This was the first time that I have heard him say that he might totally ditch the law.
John Edwards ended his speech by asking people to caucus for him, but then did something a little unusual. He said that if he wants you to caucus for him then it is his responsibility to answer every question.
I thought the entire event was very good. Edwards was on message, he drew distinctions between himself and the other candidates, and his rhetoric was toned down. He gave a very good final push and came across as a nice guy with bold ideas who will stand up and fight.
I drew a different feeling from observing the audience. At times, when I expected more applause, there were little. However, when I looked at the crowd I would see heads nodding up and down in agreement. These people weren't here to cheer on their candidate. These were undecided voters who are thinking long and hard about who they want as their next president. The question is if they will be rising in support for Edwards on caucus night.
The top two lawmakers on the Senate Education Committee said Friday they are putting off consideration of a new No Child Left Behind law until next year.
Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., have decided that there's not enough time this year to complete work on the legislation, which has not yet been formally introduced.
This means the the No Child Left Behind bill will be pushed back until next year, which might make it more difficult to pass meaningful reform because it is an election year.
However, it may be even more difficult to pass a rewritten No Child bill next year because it is a presidential election year. It is harder to get the bipartisan consensus needed to pass major legislation against the backdrop of an intense presidential campaign.
"No Child Left Behind is important to our children's future. We will not and cannot rush it," Enzi said in a statement. "Sen. Kennedy and I have agreed that our goal must be to produce solid legislation — not to meet an arbitrary deadline."
T.M. Lindsey has an interesting story about our education system over at Iowa Independent about an event with Jonathon Kozol, an award winning author. Kozol had some truthful comments about the No Child Left Behind act...
Jonathan Kozol's contributions to public education and role in exposing the educational inequities between the rich and poor have left big footprints in our nation's public education narrative. Kozol, a 71-year-old Boston native, addressed a room full of educators, administrators and prospective educators at the Marriott Hotel in Coralville Tuesday. The event, co-sponsored by Prairie Lights Bookstore and The Iowa City Public School, was billed as a reading of Kozol's new book, "Letters to a New Young Teacher," but the real elephant in the room, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), could not be ignored.
"I have a theory about No Child Left Behind," Kozol told more than 400 people who gathered to hear his reading. "I believe the right wing's agenda underlying No Child Left Behind is not to help students on the bottom end of the spectrum, but to serve as more of a shaming ritual in the public spectrum to soften the ground for vouchers."
The Iowa City Press Citizen has a story about Rep. Loebsack and No Child Left Behind that is set to expire in September.
"I have serious concerns about No Child Left Behind," said Loebsack, a member of the House Education and Labor Committee, which is working on reauthorizing the law.
"The intent of it is noble, but it has some serious flaws," he said.
Loebsack said Congress is likely to reform the law to give states more flexibility to measure student academic growth, especially those students with special needs.
"We don't want a one-size-fits-all approach, which really NCLB does under its current form," he said. "In a perfect world, we would not have it for Iowa in the first place, but we are going to reauthorize it."
It is still unknown if No Child Left Behind is going to changed or repealed and a new program put in its place. There is support from both sides of the aisle to just do away with the law.
Read the rest of the article for more information on these bills.
The No Child Left Behind Act is up for renewal this year and discussion is getting underway in Washington about what to do with the act. US News has this story about Bush losing Republican support for the bill.
Bush supports a fast renewal of NCLB, and his secretary of education, Margaret Spellings, is working hard behind the scenes to get it. The Republican legislation introduced yesterday would not just delay that process; it would gut the law, releasing states from testing and restructuring mandates without forcing them to lose federal funding. The legislation will almost certainly not win approval, but it did send a clear message: Republican leaders no longer stand strongly behind the Bush administration on education.
But the mutiny is against more than Bush. It is also against the law itself. In just five years, the law has transformed public education, giving the federal government more say over what and how children learn than perhaps ever before. To maintain federal funding, all levels have had to change practice: States have had to develop detailed math and reading standards for third through eighth grade, teachers have had to devote weeks of their school year to testing those standards, and schools have had to live by the tests' consequences, facing sticks like forced restructuring or mandatory after-school tutoring if their students don't perform.
While the Bush administration has declared this revolution a success, pointing to higher test scores in elementary and middle school, teachers, parents, and administrators across the country have railed against it, saying it actually hurts their ability to educate children–and they have not been quiet.
Republicans are falling by the wayside because they disagree with the federal government having more control over education at a local level and Democrats are against it because the law is underfunded, impossible to accomplish, punishes the schools that need the most help, and forces schools to teach to the test. This makes it nearly impossible for the No Child Left Behind Act to be renewed without major changes. That means the act will have to be fully funded, have more flexibility in testing, or be totally scrapped. What we do know is that this will be a hotly debated issue this spring.
On Saturday, Tom Vilsack spoke at the DNC Winter Meetings. I caught most of the speech on CSPAN and thought Vilsack did very well. Radio Iowa has a very good writeup on the speech.
Vilsack's theme was pushing for real change. Vilsack spoke against No Child Left Behind and the need to teach creative thinking.
Let me be clear: I'm not talking about small change. I'm not talking about incremental change. I'm talking about bold and courageous change. Let me give you a few examples: adding a few dollars and tweaking a reauthorized No Child Behind is not real change. Ending No Child Left Behind as we know it is real change and replacing it with a real, true commitment to the children of this country. In this competitive world we live in we cannot be afford to be a nation of great, standardized test-takers. We must be a nation of creative and innovative thinkers and that's what our education policy should be.
Vilsack gained huge points with me when he discussed the birth tax by saying...
Balancing budgets, making real choices and eliminating what I call the birth tax is real change. Think about it. That's what the deficit is. That's what the deficit is. It's a tax on our children and we need to eliminate that tax.
I will admit that I have not been a huge fan of Vilsack when he was governor or when he announced he was running for President. However, if Vilsack keeps using the word "birth tax" and taking a strong stance against the Iraq War, I might have to reconsider his candidacy.
Here is a good article that outlines some of the reasons why No Child Left Behind is not working and will never work.
You can have 100 percent proficiency or you can have a meaningful definition of proficient. You cannot have both. Think about it. Whatever variable you choose to measure about us--height, weight, distance between pupils, time needed to run a mile--we vary. Ditto for proficiency, however defined. We usually vary in a regular way, lining up in the oft maligned bell-shaped curve. The shape of the curve isn't important, but the fact that we vary is. We could pass a law saying that all six graders must be X inches tall, but given the large differences among kids, not to mention differences in the onset of adolescent growth spurts, X would have to be a very small number.
The law effectively guarantees that we cannot obtain 100 percent proficiency because it requires that the tests that measure whether or not we are proficient be keyed to "challenging" standards. But challenging standards are those that, by definition, not everyone can meet. If everyone could, they wouldn't be challenging.
There's another problem: By defining achievement in terms of the percent attaining some level labeled "proficient," we're not actually measuring--we're counting. We're just setting up a barrier for people to jump over. We know how many got over it, but we have no idea how high the barrier really is or how high the kids actually jump.
The No Child Left Behind act is up for renewal this year and I think it will hard for it to get passed without at least some changes to the law. The question is if they are going to make changes or just scrap the thing altogether.
The Culver campaign released this press release yesterday that pretty much outlines one of the things wrong with NCLB. Despite the unrealistic goals and massive paperwork, it is drastically underfunded. Nussle has played a big part in the underfunding of our children's future.
“Culver accused Nussle of voting for the No Child Left Behind Act and then refusing to fund it adequately. Nussle’s campaign denied those claims. ‘I’d say the Culver camp is playing fast and loose with facts,’ said Maria Comella, a spokeswoman for the Nussle campaign.” [Omaha World Herald, 8/4/06, emphasis added
FACT: Congressman Jim Nussle Voted for No Child Left Behind. [House Vote #497, 12/13/01]
FACT: Congressman Jim Nussle Voted Against Increased NCLB Funding in 2003. Jim Nussle voted against an amendment to increase funding for No Child Left Behind. [House Budget Committee Vote, 3/12/03]
FACT: Congressman Jim Nussle Voted Against Increased NCLB Funding in 2005. Jim Nussle voted against an amendment stating the sense of the Congress that No Child Left Behind should receive full funding. [House Budget Committee Vote, 3/12/03]
FACT: Congressman Jim Nussle Voted to Cut NCLB Funding by $806 Million. Jim Nussle voted for an education budget that cut $806 million from the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) initiative, a more than 3 percent drop. [House Vote #321, 6/24/05]
FACT: Congressman Jim Nussle Voted to Cut NCLB Funding by $784 Million. Jim Nussle voted twice for the 2006 Education Appropriations conference report that included a $784 million cut from No Child Left Behind programs. [House Vote #598, 11/17/05; House Vote #628, 12/14/05]
FACT: “STATES AND DISTRICTS LACK BOTH THE FUNDING AND THE STAFF CAPACITY TO CARRY OUT ALL OF THE DEMANDS OF NCLB.” – Center for Education Policy. The nonpartisan Center for Education Policy issued a study in March 2006, stating: “States and districts lack both the funding and the staff capacity to carry out all of the demands of NCLB, according to our surveys. Some 80% of school districts said they had costs for NCLB that were not covered by federal funds. Thirty-three states reported that federal funds have been inadequate to assist all schools identified for improvement, and less than half of school districts said they have enough money to assist identified schools at least somewhat… The President and the Congress must provide adequate funding for the Act. Both the President and the Congress moved in exactly in the wrong direction last year by approving a cut in federal education spending.” [Center on Education Policy; From the Capital to the Classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act Summary, March 2006, emphasis added]
WHO’S Playing Fast and Loose With the Facts?
**Update**
Ames Wire has asked a few questions about this post and since he doesn't allow comments on his blog, I thought this would be the best place to discuss those.
1. Why limit the focus of screwing to only one politician? What's the motive? This one is easy. Nussle is the only candidate running against Chet Culver. If Nussle was running against Harkin, Boswell, Grassley, or any other Iowa politician then it would be an entire different story. 2. Leonard Boswell I am not a huge fan of Boswell. I am pretty sure that I haven't even written about him on this blog and just posted the link to his campaign on this site this week. 3. Then there is this quote:
"But the restriction that NCLB is bad only if it is underfunded is not Common Iowan's point of view. Re-read his post:
Despite the unrealistic goals and massive paperwork...
The bill itself was unrealistic and overly bureaucratic, with or without the funding issue. And yet, all of our politicians voted for it.
If it is agreed that NCLB is bloated and unrealistic, a rational solution is to eliminate it, not to score partisan political points."
The goals of NCLB are admirable, but they fail to look at the statistical realities that walk through the school door everyday. Because of the politicians of both parties, the act is underfunded, so these unrealistic expectations will not even be close to being realized. The act is doomed to fail everytime they vote to underfund it. By not funding it, NCLB has been left behind by the politicians who voted for it.
When it is all said and done, we won't know if NCLB failed because of the unrealistic expections and overly bureaucratic management or lack of funds. At this point, I would say most teachers would say that eliminating it is the only way to go.
From a July 2002 memo from the military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency...
The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel.
Posts
