ESSAY ON NO LEFT BEHIND POLICY AND VOUCHERS IN EDUCATION
By Daryl Kamp
“No Child left behind” was the battle cry of the Republicans in the 2000 election. On Jan. 8, 2002 the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was passed. This act is based on 4 main principles. First, it calls for stronger accountability for results in individual schools. Secondly, it calls for increased flexibility and more local control of schools. Thirdly, it calls for expanded options for parents. Finally, it calls for greater emphasis on methods of teaching that have been found to be effective in the past. In 2002 $900million was allotted for a “Reading 1st Plan” specially allotted for programs that had been proven effective at teaching kids to read. However, with the possibility of war looming the president's new budget includes a 90 million decrease in the No Child Left Behind program. According to the president it is not the money, but the reforms themselves that are the important part of No Child Left Behind. President Bush was quoted as saying, “We can say that the work of reform is well begun.
One aspect of the no child left behind program that is interesting to look into is the one that speaks of expanded options for parents. Under this, if a school is recognized by the government to be a failing school (by a series of testing procedures and report cards) the parents of students that attend that school should be given government money to transfer to another school in their area. At the same time the failing school is evaluated and over a period of years is either improved or greater measures are taken by the government in making it a better place for students to learn.
The important thing to remember is that the students are not the problem in most cases where a school has been labeled failing. What to do about the problems without causing any more trouble to the student is an issue that comes close to boundaries that are far from clear.
Taking government money and giving it to parents to take to other schools in the are that are not failing if obviously in the best interest of the child that is making the switch. Whether the school itself will eventually benefit is another question. I the past this issue has been brought up in Michigan on the ballot in the form of vouchers (another name for the govt. funding give to parents to take to another school) and they have not had overwhelming support. In the two times it came up on the ballot in Michigan it was defeated by a majority.
Are vouchers in the best interest of American schools? No I don’t think so. Vouchers could do a lot of good for education in America. They would create more opportunities for some students that make it out of failing public schools and are fortunate enough to be accepted into another school. What about the child that is left behind in the failing school? Taking money from schools that need help is not a valid means of improvement. Vouchers are an attempt to reform schools like you would reform a business. There are many factors that are involved that are not taken into consideration. Vouchers do not level the playing field between the poor and the rich. Often the voucher that is provided is not sufficient to cover the cost of tuition at the alternate school. If the parents cannot afford to pick up the difference the voucher really didn’t help the student at all.
In my opinion we need to quit trying to use quick fix methods that will benefit our children here and now and focus on how we can make all of our schools stronger for future generations of Americans. Public and private schools have survived besides each other for years. According to Frosty Troy in his article on Public Schools the system is not near as bad off as some present is to be. It is clear that the public is not fully informed about the state of schools in America. If you want to compare schools to businesses, remember that just because one major company is found to be corrupt doesn’t mean that the entire business world it corrupt, and the same holds true for schools.
(ED200 Prof. Roger Finland)