No Child Left Behind Reform
Washington,
May 24, 2007 -
Mr. Speaker:
I rise this evening to bring information before this body about the current status of education in our nation. I had the distinct pleasure of speaking before the Committee on Education and Labor during their “Member Day” last week regarding No Child Left Behind Reauthorization; but I am compelled to come before all of my colleagues here tonight and reiterate my concerns with the current state of education and what I hope to see come out of this year’s reauthorization.
I share, along with all of my colleagues here in Congress, the ultimate goal of providing a high quality education for every child in America. But surely we can do better than what has been done so far. What, then, to do? I have looked back at past reauthorizations of the ESEA, and I noticed a troubling trend. With every reauthorization new problems are identified with America’s schools. And with every reauthorization the solution proposed by Congress is for the federal government to become more involved in education. With this reauthorization, I have to ask, what has this interference wrought? In 1983, a famous report entitled “A Nation at Risk” said that America had fallen dangerously behind the rest of the world in education. Today, new studies say many of the same things: according to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2003, U.S. fourth-graders were outperformed by their peers in 11 countries, including four Asian countries and seven European countries. U.S. eighth-graders were outperformed by their peers in nine countries, including five Asian countries and four European countries. Yet, as a percentage of GDP, we spend more money on education that at any time in our nation’s history. In fact, The U.S. spends more on K-12 education than the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, or Sweden spends on everything. We’ve increased federal paperwork, requiring increased taxpayer dollars to pay for increased administrative staff; but we’ve decreased teacher flexibility, decreased accountability to parents, and decreased student performance.
For this year’s reauthorization, I propose something very different. Very soon, I will be introducing legislation that would allow a state to opt-out of the majority of the requirements of No Child Left Behind, but at the same time, allow states taxpayers to keep their education funding through a refundable tax credit.
I understand that this is very different than what many Members are proposing, but I feel that only by allowing the State and local governments to bear the burden of educational accountability will we ever, as a nation, make the progress we need to make in the classroom to stay competitive in the 21st Century.
I recently held a town hall meeting in New Jersey about No Child Left Behind. Every person who showed up had something negative to say about the administrative requirements under the current system. At one point in the meeting I asked how many people had contacted and met with their local principal or school board about their respective problems. Everyone raised their hands. I then asked how many had contacted and met with the New Jersey Department of Education, and about half raised their hands. I then asked how many had contacted and met with the U.S. Department of Education, and only one person raised their hand. My point is this: By transferring these requirements for NCLB in Washington, DC, we are moving the accountability for education farther and farther away from where it belongs: close to the parents and students, and with the educators and school boards.
In addition, the reporting mechanisms under NCLB have created a confusing system that ends up punishing our nation’s best schools. One of the high schools in my district, consistently cited in publications as one of the top performing high schools in the State, was placed on the early warning list two years after NCLB was instituted. This was not an underperforming school. Every year, nearly 100% of students graduate and attend college; the average combined SAT score of students taking the test is nearly 1100; 14 AP tests are offered; and so on. I worry that while trying to meet the requirements of NCLB, students attending this high school will be held back by burdensome regulation, rather than pushed to excel at already high standards that their school has set for them. And I am certain there are many other schools in similar situations across the nation.
Under my proposal, states that feel that the regulation of NCLB is both necessary and beneficial for their schools, teachers, and students can elect to remain under its purview. However, if a state’s residents feel that the responsibility for educating their children is best left in the hands of the state, then this legislation will empower them to do so, and not force the state to shift the financial burden of foregoing the federal funds to the states taxpayers.
This proposal will not only empower states to reclaim their autonomy in education, but also encourage a highly accountable, more competitive education system. I urge my colleagues to return local control to their constituents and support this legislation.
