Obama: U.S. must reform "No Child Left Behind"
President Barack Obama gestures during his speech at Kenmore Middle School in Arlington, Va., Monday, March, 14, 2011.
/ AP PhotoPresident Obama on Monday called for a major overhaul to the Bush-era education policy "No Child Left Behind," emphasizing the need for more effective measurement tools in assessing the success of teachers and schools, and pledging that "we cannot cut [funding for] education" despite the nation's economic woes.
In remarks at an Arlington, Virginia, middle school, Mr. Obama challenged Congress to send him an education bill to sign "before the next school year begins," and outlined a series of proposed reforms that he argued would make American students more competitive in the global arena.
"The best economic policy is one that produces more college graduates," he told the audience at Kenmore Middle School. "We need to make sure we're graduating students who are ready for college and ready for careers."
"We have to reform 'No Child Left Behind,'" he said, arguing that "the [program's] goals... were the right goals," but that the methodology of the legislation was not effective in actually producing them.
The current iteration of the law has been largely criticized for imposing inflexible federal guidelines on schools and teachers, and abandoning institutions determined as "failing."
"What hasn't worked is denying teachers, students and states what they need to meet these goals," he said.
Under the law as it currently stands, schools are graded on a pass-fail scale based on the results of standardized tests administered to students. Failing schools - many of which serve low-income communities - are punished, and often shut down altogether or turned over to a charter operator or private firm.
Presenting examples of schools that had successfully turned themselves around, Mr. Obama pledged his commitment to incentivizing improvement in schools, and announced the administration's decision to let local school districts apply to "Race to the Top" - a federal competition designed to reward states for major improvements in education.
"Race to the top has led over 40 states to raise their standards for teaching learning and student achievement," Mr. Obama said. "But we need to make sure we're reaching every child in America - not just those in states or districts that take place in Race to the Top."
Mr. Obama emphasized the need to move away from labeling schools as "failing" based on standardized test scores alone, and said the system needed to "fix how schools are labeled and identified."
Noting that he was "not talking about teaching to the test," Mr. Obama said "we do need to know whether [students are] making progress" - and reiterated the need for outstanding teachers, particularly in "some of our worst schools."
"Teachers are doing a heroic job for their kids," he said. "In South Korea, teachers are known as nation builders. I think it's time we treated our teachers with the same level of respect right here in the United States of America."
The president acknowledged that improving America's school system would require money, but argued that America couldn't afford to skimp on education.
"Fixing our failing schools costs money," he said. "We cannot cut education. We can't cut the things that will make America more competitive."
"A budget that sacrifices our commitment to education would be a budget that's sacrificing our country's future," he added. "And I will not let it happen."
"Yes, I am determined to cut our deficits - but I refuse to do it by telling the students here who are so full of promise that we were not willing to invest in your future," said Mr. Obama.
Popular in Politics
- Obama forgets to salute while boarding Marine One Play Video
- The Ted Cruz conundrum 103 Comments
- Senators lack votes on immigration despite progress
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen. 207 Comments
- GOP Rep.: Obama elected because of Reagan's immigration reforms
- Petraeus biographer regrets affair
- As summer approaches, sequestration threatens holiday fun
- Obama prom pictures surface
Then, when in junior high, these drop-outs-in-progress could drop out without the nation feeling responsible. We are NOT responsible. I don't mind my taxes going to educate children who are willing and ready to learn, but when it takes 15 years for a child to get through what used to be 12 years of basic education, I want to draw the line.
You say "15 years - NOT". Fifteen years - YES! Headstart, preschool, kindergarden, and then, if a child is held back because of poor performance, add another year or two. It costs at least $5,000 per child for a school year. Three or four years extra really adds to the total dollars spent.
Before the Federal Government created the Federal Board of Education in the 80's, states paid for grades 1 through 12. Any preschool was paid by parents. States didn't coddle students who repeated grades. They were encouraged to make the college grade or go into a curriculum that would better prepare them for work after 12 years of school.
WHAT was wrong with that? Nothing! The Federal Government needs to get out of education and STAY out of it.
If everyone gets a college degree:
1) Who is going to bag my groceries?
2) Who is going to greet me at Walmart?
3) Who is going to drive the school buses?
4) Who is going to make my burger at Micky D's?
5) Who is going to build my roads and interstates?
6) Who drives the tractor that cuts the side of the roads?
7) Who is going to use the nail guns to build houses?
8) Who is going to drive the tractor to plow the fields?
9) Who is going to empty my bedpan when I'm in the hospital?
10) Who is going to be at the customer window in:
the dentist office?
the doctor's office?
the banks?
the department stores?
the county offices?
the state's offices?
the lawyer's offices?
11) Who is going to fix my lawnmower?
12) Who is going to keep the power plants going?
13) Who is going to work at the paper mills, the furniture manufacturing plants, the car manufacturing plants....
Come on, folks. This 'no child left behind' is just a crock designed to throw more money into the school system in order for administrators, principals, and school boards to draw more pay.
It is not to help children learn. If every school were shut down today, children would still learn. Those that want to learn would learn book learning. Those that don't want to learn book learning would learn street smarts. Just as they do NOW!
If there were no schools, most children would NOT naturally gravitate toward self-directed "book learning". Only those whose parents embraced some form of home schooling would receive/achieve an education. And of course, the children that populate your imagination would run off to spend their days in the libraries.
As to who would do the menial, unskilled labor, that was the threat that parents used to motivate their children to excel in school -- do good or flip burgers for the rest of your life.
Now, if you are suggesting that some kids should be restricted from school in order to supply the unskilled labor market, you can just stop right there. I'd sooner see McDonalds closing stores due to a diminished labor pool before feeding them with an equivalent of forced labor. This would be the most un-American of approaches.
If on the other hand you are suggesting that the lower end of the normal Bell curve should fuel the unskilled labor market, that is the traditional approach. It worked for so long as the wages of jobs not requiring much education were still enough to feed and house a small family. Anyone lacking in motivation, direction or ability could still find an honest days wages. This is likely not true in today's economy, so the answer to "Who is going to build my roads and interstates?" is not so easy to answer as you may believe.
To me your "who would..." questions fall into three catagories:
1) jobs that were traditionally taken by students (burger flipping, bagging groceries, lawn mowing, etc)
2) jobs that required no special training or education (driving tractors, emptying bedpans, manning reception desks and telephones, etc)
3) jobs that require specialized education, but perhaps not a college degree (construction, manufacturing, power plant operators and yes, lawnmower repair)
In years past, a kid could save some money doing #1, people used category #2 as a stepping stone to something else, usually working while attending school, and people could make a decent wage, support a family and feel useful with jobs from #3.
A simplistic (and oddly idealistic) view is that Americans all get college degrees and high paying jobs, and the low end of the labor market is imported from developing nations. I doubt that this is even possible -- not everyone is capable or desirous of a college diploma.
your paragraph 1: My point exactly. Good parents would see to children's learning. The same children who are disrupting classes and costing the US billions more in education would no longer do so.
Paragraph 2: That threat doesn't work any longer, because the Federal Government has made Federal assistance too easy to get.
Paragraph 3: I didn't suggest anything of the sort. I only emphasized that there will ALWAYS be low-skilled labor needs in any country.
Paragraph 4: People can always pick apart any written word, and that is just what you have done here. I made the points; you argued them.
Everybody needs to have some "skin in the game". We need to hold parents responsible for the behavior of their kids. I don't know if you've been to a high school classroom lately, but the accepted behavior would not be tolerated in the professional work place.
I pay alot in taxes and I sill have to educate my kids at home. Not much of a fair deal.
I agree that parents need to be held accountable, but how do we do that? They already have significant "skin in the game": the very futures of their children! If failing schools do not motivate parents to take matters into their own hands, what would? And I don't count doing more education at home (as opposed to home schooling) as an extreme measure.
Like you, my parents paid their hard earned taxes, partly towards public schools, when I was growing up forty five years ago, and guess where I learned to read, learned my multiplication tables and learned my way around a world map? At home! School was simply a way to reinforce what my parents taught me -- the same went for my siblings.
If you want to go further back in history, you will find that the real reason that public education was created was... are you ready? It was to ensure that everyone had the mental faculties necessary to read and comprehend the Bible. I'm sure that would go over real well now.
Doesn't it occur to some of you politicians that some children will never be high school, let alone college, material?
Some people are not inclined to book-study. Hands on learning in crafts or trade skills is what is needed. We need to take a step back to the days of trade schools that taught and gave certificates in electrical wiring, plumping, cosmotology, nursing as an LP, and many, many more needed skill areas.
Everyone is not college material. A college education is not needed to earn a good living. Trades skills are needed.
Stop the nonsense "no kid left behind" and start the vocational schools up again. You would see people stay in school if they knew that come 9th grade, they could learn to cut boards and build houses instead of failing at chemistry and algebra.
The rest of your comment comes from a time when trades people could earn a wage sufficient to provide food and shelter for a family. Either that is still true, OR it is true that a college education for everyone is indeed a necessity. And by the way, vocational schools never went away, so I don't know what you mean by "start them up again."
I would argue that everyone who is capable should have at least a high school education or, at least, what once passed for a high school education. People should have enough education to know what they are missing by not going to college -- only then can they make a rational decision to be satisfied with less.
If no "child left behind" is not intented to be taken literally, why say it at all? Every child has an opportunity for a high school education; if they drop out, it is because they don't want the education.
Your posts are full of the same excuses that got us providing priceless education for a nation in which about 25% of the children don't want an education.
That's the problem. Not poor teachers; not "not enough money".
Not enough "want to" is the real problem.
We care about educating our kids, and keeping our schools open. Right now, we are gutting our whole education system in Texas. Rick Perry is running for president, and needs the tea party vote, so he is cutting 8 billion from Texas schools.
Reforms? Don't tell me the education system is bloated. Every year for the past 15 years, we have cut millions from the our school district budget. There is no fat to cut. Just essentials. (Well, I do think that sports are too sacred of a cow for most people, and that is one area left to cut that isn't scholarly.)
The Bell curve and "failure is not an option" are mutually incompatible. Yet, our educational paradigms attempt to embrace both. I think an appropriate response is, "How's that working out for you?"
We also do not hesitate to burden our school systems with political agendas, which is simply a way of shifting the consequences for our political rancor to our children.
We deny teachers professional standing (through a wide variety of interferences, chief among which are poor pay, poor evaluation standards and enforcement of status quo).
Then we perform the coup de gras: throw money at the problem, and punish the schools when the problem doesn't magically go away. We have this simpleton's belief that money magically cures all ills.
The relevant tired old saw is this: insanity is repeating the same actions over and over, expecting different results. The state of public education in America (and the politics in which it is ensnared) is sound evidence of mass insanity.