No Child Left Behind not the answer to schools' problems
Staff writer
Gerald Henderson doesn't want to see any child left behind in school. But the USD 408 superintendent doesn't believe the "No Child Left Behind" law advocated by President George W. Bush, and passed by Congress in 2001, is the answer.
He doesn't think it will work, or that its goals can be met. And it's another unfunded mandate assigned by Washington to local school districts.
"I have no quarrel with the idea," said Henderson. "But I'm not optimistic it'll be allowed to mature or be implemented, any more than the initiatives of 1985 and since then have been."
Henderson said he thinks first lady Laura Bush pushed the No Child Left Behind legislation as much as her husband did. Mrs. Bush is a former librarian.
"They had some success with it (NCLB) in Texas. It's expedient to be the 'education governor,' or president, senator. It generates a certain number of votes," Henderson said.
Henderson said USD 408 will be sending a brochure to district patrons explaining how the district plans to aim for NCLB compliance.
The number-one national goal in education in 1985 was that by the year 2000, no child would enter kindergarten not ready to learn. This was after the "A Nation at Risk" report on the dire state of American public education came out in 1983, during the first Reagan administration.
"But very few resources followed (were poured into) that," Henderson said. "It was not even close to being realized by 2000, or even now.
"Some kids never catch up — if they don't learn certain things between the ages of zero and three years, they will always be behind," Henderson said.
If a sub-group fails to meet the mark expected of all students at a certain grade level, on a standard exam, this can count against a school district.
However, this sub-group has to total at least 30 students to count against the district.
One sub-group is LES children (those with low socio-economic status).
As far as any added costs to districts, they won't be great, Henderson said. The state will have some extra costs, since it will be testing math and reading skills in each grade, three through eight, and one year in high school.
"That's more of these assessment tests than we now give," Henderson said. "Scores here have been going up yearly, in general. And no child should be left behind."
Some of the sub-groups that will have to improve their assessment showings are children for whom English is a second language. Minorities, too, in general, will have to improve.
"Even if the total school system shows AYP (adequate yearly progress), if one sub-group does not show it, the whole school can be placed 'on improvement,'" he said, which is like being on notice, or "on the carpet."
"We have kids in kindergarten now ranging all the way from knowing their sounds, their alphabet, counting, on day one, to those who are unsure of their last names, and everything in between those," Henderson said in a recent interview.
"And it's like that in every kindergarten in the United States — a great disparity in skill levels.
"If in 18 years we couldn't make a bigger impact on kids, zero to five years old, in 12 years (by 2014) now we're to have all kids, 100 percent of them, up to the no child left behind skill level? I don't think it'll be possible," he said.
"I have no quarrel with the idea of educating everyone, leaving no one behind. But it requires a commitment much, much greater than I've seen since 1985.
"In Marion County, our foster care system is abysmal. I've seen no effort to improve circumstances for these kids who need help. I'm sorry, but some kids have made a lousy choice in parents, as the famous old 'joke' says.
"Is it the responsibility of all of us, of society? I think so. Every dollar you spend on a kid with learning needs, between ages zero and three, will save you up to $7 over the person's lifetime in special education or additional education costs, department of corrections costs, whatever.
"In 1985, we should have taken that goal for kindergartners to heart. It would have saved us money by a 7-1 ratio.
"So why didn't we? We've known this for a long time: It's an exponentially better period of learning, from ages zero to three. So why haven't we invested the time and money?
"If we had, No Child Left Behind would be a piece of cake now," Henderson said.
Editor's Note: First of two parts.
