Posted on 12/05/2001 2:53:56 PM PST by Refinersfire
Action on "No Child Left Behind"/HR1
Leaders of the education conference committee have presented a proposal that establishes a national test, violates local control, expands requirements for Washington-based standards, and continues all of the policies of Goals 2000, School-to-Work, outcome-based education, and the Workforce Investment Act.
Leaders of the House-Senate conference committee on HR1, "The No Child Left Behind Act," issued a summary of a proposal last Thursday night. They presented their proposal to the full conference committee on Friday, saying it "would resolve most of the remaining issues and clear the way for passage soon of a final conference report." Conference committee leaders are: Senators Ted Kennedy and Judd Gregg; Representatives are John Boehner and George Miller. The conference committee was meeting all weekend, and it expects to finish its work by this Thursday.
Unfortunately, the proposal summary consists of disinformation likely to mislead both conferees and the public. For example, the first issue the proposal addresses is National Testing. It states: "Explicitly prohibits federally sponsored national testing."
Later in the report, however, the summary contradicts this statement when it states, "the proposal would require a small sample of students in each state to participate in the ... NAEP [National Assessment of Educational Progress]." The NAEP is a federally sponsored national test! The summary explains that this test is for "verifying the results" of the federally mandated state tests. The NAEP, in fact, is the primary enforcement mechanism for the national curriculum.
We have heard this propaganda before. Sadly, it is all too familiar. Goals 2000 of 1994 stated unequivocally that the standards were "voluntary." That same year, however, the education funding bill (HR6) directed the federal government to withhold federal money from states that did not comply. That is what "voluntary" means to the federal government.
The NAEP is a federally created and funded test. It was first created by the federal government in 1969 amid much protest that it would ultimately create a national curriculum which all states would be forced to adopt. NAEP advocates insisted that since states could choose whether to use the NAEP, it would not create a national curriculum.
Critics of the NAEP have always suspected, however, that the NAEP would become a required national test. The requirement is now here. The summary proposal by the leaders of the conference committee tells us that all states must use the NAEP to "verify" that the state curriculum conforms to the national curriculum. (Unfortunately, the national curriculum consists of attitudes and values, with very little academic achievement. See our article on the NAEP Test.
Critics of the NAEP have also suspected rewards and sanctions would be associated with the NAEP. This proposal claims there are no direct federal rewards and sanctions based on the NAEP. At the same time, however, the bill directs states to enforce rewards and sanctions based on the NAEP and the NAEP-based state assessments. The net effect is the same.
The proposal summary claims that states would design their own standards -- "not standards dictated by Washington." The truth is that, because of Goals 2000, there are no state standards independent of federal standards. All state standards mirror federal standards.
The state standards are then "verified" by the federal NAEP test. Washington has dictated state standards since 1994 when Goals 2000 and its companion HR6 were passed. Removing references to Goals 2000, as this bill does, does nothing to change that. The standards are already written and are being rapidly implemented in every state, as has been mandated under federal law. (For example, see the government publication, "Assessment and Accountability in the Fifty States: 1999-2000")http://www.cpre.org/Publications/mn.pdf)
This proposal does nothing, for example, to eliminate funding for the Center for Civic Education (CCE) for continuing to establish the National Standards on Civics and Government. These CCE standards primarily deal with attitudes, values and behaviors -- the very type of standards that this summary claims would be eliminated! (See our article on "Civic Virtue and National Standards") The doublespeak in this bill becomes rather tedious.
Overall, the leadership proposal summary claims to prohibit a national test, but it establishes a national test. It claims to protect local control, but it establishes federal control. It claims to prohibit Washington standards from dictating the curriculum, but it solidifies the standards dictated from Washington. It claims that there are no rewards and sanctions associated with the NAEP, but state rewards and sanctions will be based on standards "verified" by the NAEP. It implies that Goals 2000, School-to-Work, outcome-based education, Workforce Investment Act and higher order thinking skills are eliminated from federal education mandates, yet each of those policies is fully operational with different names.
Over the years it has become evident that the radical education bills which advance the new education system repeatedly claim they shall not do exactly what they are actually designed to do. HR1 is cut out of the same cloth; it is intended to advance the new radical system of centralized federal control of schools, curriculum and teaching. Nothing in the proposed revisions slows down that agenda.
Julie Quist Maple River Education Coalition, Vice President
Come visit us at Freepathon Holidays are Here Again: Let's Really Light Our Tree This Year - Thread 6
and be a part of something that is larger than all of us.
Alone, we are a voice crying in the wilderness. Together we are a force for positive action!
Don't be left out!
Be one who can someday say..................... "I was there when..................."
Thank you to everyone who has already come by and become a part!
Consider the source... ringleader.... Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy...
GW and Teddy are chums now.
Do freepers really have such short memories?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.