NEA Letter On NCLB



CLOSING AMERICA'S EDUCATION GAP
New York Times -- March 5, 2004
Letters to the Editor

To the Editor:

Re "Rescuing Education Reform" (editorial, March 2):

The No Child Left Behind Act did not invent standards-based education.
For many years, states and school districts have worked to review
standards and raise expectations.

Much of this work dates back to the 1989 education summit meeting
convened by the first President Bush and led by Bill Clinton, then
governor of Arkansas.

The National Education Association and its affiliates enthusiastically
supported these efforts and continue to work with officials to raise
expectations, align the curriculum with new standards and push for the
necessary programs.

We cannot just dictate what students will learn. They need qualified
teachers and the time to learn.

The gap in educational opportunities for low-income and minority
students is extreme; the need to close that gap is urgent.

The Bush administration is trying to deal with only one side of the
equation: outcomes. If we do not provide resources like early
childhood education, small classes and qualified teachers the formula
will never add up.

REG WEAVER
President,National Education Association
Washington, March 3, 2004

"

To the Editor:

The No Child Left Behind Act is a sorry excuse for an education reform
policy (editorial, March 2). It takes the focus off education itself and
instead places it much too heavily on standardized testing. The same
children are still "left behind."

If we want equality in education, we must improve the financing of
public schools and make sure that children with an economic disadvantage
are not repeatedly left in the dust.

NATASHA MARWAH
Williamsburg, Va., March 2, 2004

"

To the Editor:

"Rescuing Education Reform" (editorial, March 2) is partly right: we
must not allow partisan positioning to destroy the chance offered by the
No Child Left Behind Act to end substandard education for poor and
minority children.

But the law needs more than "tinkering here and there." While requiring
high standards, regular testing and the public reporting of test results
by student subgroups is sound, the act's entire remedial approach needs
to be changed.

Instead of sanctions for failing to meet "adequate yearly progress," we
need to get states and localities focused on expanding the capacity of
teachers to teach, administrators to lead school improvement and parents
to support high-level learning.

Otherwise, what happens in classrooms and at home will not significantly
improve, and we will continue to fail the children who need our help.

GARY M. RATNER
Bethesda, Md., March 2, 2004
The writer is executive director of Citizens for Effective Schools.

"

To the Editor:

"Rescuing Education Reform" (editorial, March 2) takes a constructive
approach to education reform and the 2004 elections. With the No Child
Left Behind Act, we have a chance to fundamentally transform American
education, leveling the playing field so every student has the chance to
learn. Unfortunately, with this year's elections, education is in danger
of becoming little more than a political football.

Too often, voters are presented with superficial arguments and false
choices. If reform is to succeed, politicians must reach out to teachers
and parents, to answer their questions and listen to their concerns.
Candidates should foster a greater understanding of how standards and
testing support learning, so Americans can make informed judgments about
our schools. Only then can we reach our goal: an education system marked
by excellence in student performance and elimination of the achievement gap.

KURT LANDGRAF
President and Chief Executive, Educational Testing Service
Princeton, N.J., March 3, 2004

"

To the Editor:

"Rescuing Education Reform" (editorial, March 2) and its arguments in
support of the No Child Left Behind Act offer a classic illustration of
the divide between rural and urban populations.

In Montana, the law is untenable, primarily because of demographics.
Rural schools are often so small that one instructor must be responsible
for multiple subjects, and sometimes multiple grades. Yet the new law
requires teacher certification in each subject area.

Schools in rural communities, which might have only 20 students in
kindergarten through eighth grade, struggle to find any teacher to fill
a vacant position, much less one with multiple certifications. Depriving
these schools of federal funds because of conditions they cannot control
does nothing to improve education in these communities. This country is
too large and too diverse for a "one size fits all" education policy.

MICHAEL DOWNEY
Helena, Mont., March 2, 2004



 

 
To Rich Gibson's Home Page