By Daniel Pryzbyla
One might perceive “The ex-emperors had no clothes” after reading former U.S. Department of Education czars William J. Bennett and Rod Paige attempting to justify a new “national test” to replace the already high-stakes testing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) education act. According to B & P analysis, NCLB is starting to “suffer from the law of unintended consequences.”
“Unintended consequences”? Gee! That sounds like President Bush’s nightmare in the War in Iraq. Their pessimism continued. “Out of respect for federalism and mistrust of Washington, much of the GOP has expected individual states to set their own academic standards and devise their own tests and accountability systems,” B & P noted in their September 21, 2006 Washington Post commentary. “That was the approach of the No Child Left Behind Act – which moved as boldly as it could while still achieving bipartisan support. It sounds good, but it is working badly.” This they concluded while musing over the pro-voucher Fordham Foundation report stating “most states have deployed mediocre standards, and there’s increasing evidence that some are playing games with their tests and accountability systems.”
However, a few weeks earlier U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings was glowing to reporters, “I talk about No Child Left Behind like Ivory soap: it’s 99.9 % pure…or something. There’s not much needed in the way of change.” The USA Today AP story August 31, 2006, said her comments “signal what amounts to the Bush administration’s starting position as the law comes up for renewal next year.” Already, it noted, the House education committee is holding hearings on how to improve the law.
She didn’t mention when Ivory first came out with its soap, it was marketed more for its capabilities of “floating” in bathtub water than its alleged “purity” factor. While she was focusing on NCLB purity to save the day, the ex-director she replaced in George W’s second term and his cohort were now acting as the joint-mouthpiece for pro-voucher factions aiming to sink her bar of Ivory to the bottom of the tub. That’s politics, Margaret.
Bennett was selected in 1985 by former Republican President Reagan during his second term to head the education department. One of his more ignoble claims to fame was discrediting the federal education department. “A suitable reformed Department of Education would resemble a three-room schoolhouse.” Recently, he joined the private education gurus with his K-12, Inc. venture, a computer home-schooling business enterprise. Its website lists Chester E. Finn, Jr. as a member of its board of directors. Finn is also president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation – the same foundation referenced by B & P in their calling for a “national test.”
It’s difficult to imagine Dr. Paige not fidgeting in his chair when his Fordham Foundation allies accused several states “playing games with their tests and accountability systems.” That’s exactly what Paige was accused of doing after taking the helm as superintendent at the “failing” Houston, TX school system. In one example, “When he took over as Houston superintendent, only 26 percent of the city’s 10th graders were passing the state math test; the year he departed for Washington, 99 percent were passing it,” wrote Jim Trelease in his 2005 website. With these assumed achievements, then Texas Governor George W. hyped his new-found wizard of the “Texas Miracle,” bringing him to Washington in 2001 to be Secretary of Education. However, soon thereafter, investigations of Houston Independent School District had unearthed lots of corporate-style juggling of education data, concluding instead: “The Texas Miracle that wasn’t.”
“So while the act (NCLB) is clearly starting to get results, it is also starting to suffer from the law of unintended consequences. We can now see that it gives states too much discretion over standards and tests while giving federal bureaucrats too much control over how schools operate,” they argue. Well, Paige could certainly confess to his outlandish “control” shenanigans during his tenure. “The remedy? As both of us have long argued, Washington should set sound national academic standards and administer a high-quality national test. Publicize everybody’s results, right down to the school level. Then Washington should butt out.” Don’t bet on it. With King George W. still at the helm, “butting out” of anything is comparable to political surrender.
When complaining of states administering their own tests, they relied solely on comparisons with the National Assessment of Educational Progress data. Is this what they have in mind for their new “national tests”? If so, NAEP credibility in not a given either, still knee-deep in rampant pedagogical debate of its validity.
What the B & P commentary also implies when it says “Washington should butt out” is public education – like other public services – should be downsized or dismantled and then outsourced to the private sector or non-profits. This was exposed when NCLB warlords challenged public school teachers in alleged “failing” schools to provide tutoring for their students, instead requiring private tutoring companies. After protests, Washington did “butt out” on this issue, but not willingly. Contracting out public school services is exactly what Bennett had in mind earlier when suggesting “A suitable reformed Department of Education would resemble a three-room schoolhouse.” It doesn’t take a lot of space to dole out private contracts to your voucher education supporters.
In similar mindset, B & P are on the same page as the original NCLB planners. Their major education goal – voucher inclusion – was defeated politically from the original bill. NCLB high stakes testing is used to chart “academic yearly progress (AYP).” This too proved painstakingly cumbersome and costly for public schools to implement. Voucher inclusion would have allowed tax dollars to flow with any student attending an alleged “failing” public school not making AYP into a school of their “choice.” Vouchers would have made the privatization pathway to the taxpayers’ ‘til easier and more profitable for private and religious schools. In turn, these private schools would be able to adjust their fees and academic costs, and/or remodel, repair, paint, etc. – at taxpayers’ expense. But don’t think their K-12 teachers would reap any of the public funds. Due to economic stagnation in the lower and middle classes, private and religious teachers have been forced to leave for better pay and benefits elsewhere. Forever chastising and belittling public school teachers and personnel, voucher zealots neglect they’re also, in effect, aiming their wrath at many former private and religious teachers.
“States that prefer to cling to their own standards and tests – and endure the rules and meddling of federal bureaucrats – would be free to do so. Some surely would. But many would welcome a new compact (national tests) with the Education Department,” B & P projected. This represents the “good cop, bad cop” scenario. If enduring “meddling of federal bureaucrats” represents one iota of what public school districts had to put up with under Paige’s tutelage, states would get a triple dose of threats and harassment if their “national test” demand is included in congressional NCLB language.
Is everything perfect in the public education setting? Of course not. But if you’ve had time to read the “business pages” and ongoing economic firestorms in local, state, national and Globalization arenas, they certainly balance the otherwise rosy “choice” and “free marketplace” voucher panorama. In his book “Common Sense for a Fair Economy,” Jared Bernstein pointed out some less than rosy, unsettling news. “By mid-2005 the only groups to see fairly strong and consistent job growth were those with the lower levels of education.” The senior economist and director of the Living Standards Institute at the Economic Policy Institute added, “The employment rate, or the share of given population at work – a proxy for the extent of a group’s job opportunities – was up for high school dropouts and down for college graduates. (The reason had much to do with the boom in construction and health services, and the bust in informational technology).”
“But such facts,” he said, “were not admitted to challenge the hyper-individualistic ‘you’re on your own’ (YOYO) analysis, which by definition ignores the possibility of a structural imbalance in the way economic growth is distributed.” As is often the case, the only solution – “Get more education” – handed the problem “back to the victim.”
“When an economy is failing to produce enough jobs for those at all levels of education, including college graduates, and when it’s failing to distribute the fruits of its growth to those in part responsible for the growth – the workers as opposed to the investors – more significant intervention is necessary,” said Bernstein.
His argument proved valid. For the first time, Forbes magazine’s 400 richest Americans list only had room for billionaires. Yes, “billionaires.” Combined, their net worth totals $l.35 trillion dollars. B & P don’t have to worry. No public education personnel made the Forbes list, nor did any private ones.
