SAN DIEGO -- You
have to hand it to critics of No Child Left Behind. In trying
to preserve the status quo, they're wrong. But at least they're
persistent. In fact, they're persistently wrong.
Made up of teachers,
administrators, school board members and anyone who turns a blind
eye to the mediocrity of public schools, the critics are relentless
in their attempts to discredit the education reform law.
They'll get another
chance to blast away over the next several months as a bipartisan
commission holds public hearings across the country to get an
earful on what works with the law, and what doesn't. The commission
will send recommendations to Congress, which is expected to renew
the law in 2007.
It's easy to see
why those who prefer the status quo detest No Child Left Behind.
Under the law, children in every racial and demographic group
in every public school must improve their scores on standardized
tests in math and science. No excuses. Schools that fall short
of that goal can be shut down, and their students can transfer
to another public school.
The critics hate
requirements like that for one reason -- because good tests not
only tell you if kids are learning but also if teachers and administrators
are holding up their end. If the truth comes out, disgruntled
parents might go from demanding accountability from schools to
demanding it from the individuals who work in them.
The critics are nothing
if not versatile. First they insisted that No Child Left Behind
was unfair to schools because it was a one-size-fits-all approach
with no flexibility. Then they said the law was unfair to teachers
because it tied them to student performance when not all children
learn at the same pace.
Now they're insisting
the law is unfair to some students because it benefits middle-class
white kids and hurts Latinos and African-Americans. At least that
is the conclusion of a troubling new study by the deceptively
named Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
Troubling because
the agenda it advances is dangerous and the thinking behind it
is backward. Deceptively named because if this group cared about
civil rights, it would push in the opposite direction.
It goes back to the
flexibility the critics requested and eventually received. Now
that 49 states have either amended the law or waived some of its
provisions, the critics have the chutzpah to insist that the thing
they wanted has produced a result they find unacceptable. They
claim that schools that educate white and middle-class students
are more likely to take advantage of loopholes and dodge accountability
than those that teach poor kids and Latinos and African-Americans.
As a result, they say, schools with poor and minority kids are
more likely to report low scores on exams and are thus more likely
to incur sanctions. That is, according to the critics, an education
law intended to help black and brown kids is, in fact, racist.
That criticism is
half-right. There is racism here, but not in the law. Rather,
it is built into the educational system that the law seeks to
reform.
It begins when a
teaching corps that is three-fourths white approaches minority
students with what President Bush calls the soft bigotry of low
expectations. It continues as those teachers, at a loss to explain
why these students don't do as well in school, cling to the racist
assumption that minority parents don't value education. And, finally,
it is compounded when those who want to preserve the status quo
do everything they can to undermine testing -- not to protect
black and brown children but to protect the adults who are disenfranchising
them.
The No Child Left
Behind law didn't create racism in education. But it just might
be helpful in exposing it.
I suspect that the
Harvard study is right about one thing -- that some schools, including
those that educate white and middle-class children, have come
up with creative ways to skirt the law by taking advantage of
waivers and the like.
But so what? The
schools that resort to such maneuvers are only hurting the kids
they're supposed to be teaching. Minority students, far from being
disenfranchised, are much better off for being held accountable
with no exceptions and no excuses.
That can be messy.
But whom are we kidding? It's nothing compared to the mess that
the special interests have made of the educational system.
©
2006, The San Diego Union-Tribune
