home

The Narrowness of "No Child Left Behind"

I have a question for President Bush.  If he truly embraces the concept of No Child Left Behind, why does he limit such to educational performance?  Why is it seemingly okay for children to be left behind in myriad ways outside the schoolhouse doors but, once they cross the threshold, it is suddenly unacceptable?  If the federal government truly values this nation's most precious resource (hint: it's not petroleum but children), then ought there not be a commitment to the whole child, inside and outside of school?  After all, doesn't it stand to reason that a child who lags behind at home--e.g., due to poverty and its attendant ills--may as a result lag behind at school?  Is the school somehow expected to compensate for such?

Okay, so I had a handful of questions for the Big Kahuna.  But consider the following data, as reported by the National Center for Children in Poverty:

Nearly 13 million American children live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level, which is $20,000 a year for a family of four. The number of children living in poverty increased by more than 11 percent between 2000 and 2005. There are 1.3 million more children living in poverty today than in 2000, despite indications of economic recovery and growth.

Not only are these numbers dispiriting, the official poverty measure tells only part of the story--it is increasingly viewed as a flawed metric of economic hardship....Research consistently shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice the federal poverty level to make ends meet. Children living in families with incomes below this level--for 2006, $40,000 for a family of four--are referred to as low income. Thirty-nine percent of the nation's children--more than 28 million in 2005--live in low-income families.  [full text]

So some 39 percent of America's children--and their families--are left behind economically.  That has a direct bearing on school performance and future success, a fact confirmed in a recent special report in Education Week (registration required) entitled "Quality Counts 2007: From Cradle to Career":

A child who comes to school malnourished, from a poor household, having a mother with less than a high school education, or a parent whose primary language is not English is much more likely than a classmate without those factors to have academic and behavioral problems later on.

That means that radically improving children's chances for success requires reaching beyond the education system.  [full text]

But the Bush administration is failing miserably to reach beyond the education system.  And they are perversely holding schools to a standard that they are not holding to themselves!  Compounding the predicament is the fact that "children from low-income families generally attend schools that by any measure--school resources, student achievement, qualified teachers--lag behind those of their more affluent peers."  Thus, the schools themselves are, in effect, left behind.

As one who has known and worked with a great many teachers over the years and who continues to consult with school personnel, I cannot help but empathize with these folks, who are confronted with demands that are almost Kafkaesque in nature.  It is little wonder that they are often overwhelmed and dispirited.  In an op-ed piece in today's New York Times, Tom Moore reflects on how teachers and schools are portrayed in films--such as the recently-released "Freedom Writers"--and how the reality is something else entirely.  He concludes with a plea for common sense expectations:

I don't expect to be thought of as a hero for doing my job. I do expect to be respected, supported, trusted and paid. And while I don't anticipate that Hollywood will stop producing movies about gold-hearted mavericks who play by their own rules and show the suits how to get the job done, I do hope that these movies will be kept in perspective.

While no one believes that hospitals are really like "ER" or that doctors are anything like "House," no one blames doctors for the failure of the health care system. From No Child Left Behind to City Hall, teachers are accused of being incompetent and underqualified, while their appeals for better and safer workplaces are systematically ignored.

Every day teachers are blamed for what the system they're just a part of doesn't provide: safe, adequately staffed schools with the highest expectations for all students. But that's not something one maverick teacher, no matter how idealistic, perky or self-sacrificing, can accomplish.  [full text]

It takes more.  More support for schools.  More support and services for low-income families and communities.  More substance and innovation in public policy.  If this nation truly aspires to better the lives of its youngest and most vulnerable citizens and ensure that no child is left behind, then something more than shallow rhetoric and half-baked mandates must be forthcoming.  More recognition and consideration of the myriad impediments to a child's success would be a good start.  Don't you think, Mr. Bush?

< Does Bush Support Our Troops? | Roots Remembered >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    That's the Beauty of It (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:54:20 AM EST
    In their eyes. Enforcing the cycle of poverty means there will always be a ready list of those filling the slots in the volunteer army. It has to come from somewhere right?

    I've never understood (none / 0) (#2)
    by aw on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:20:02 AM EST
    why we don't invest in our own people.  We're so shortsighted.  Imagine what this country could have been like if we had.

    the "richest nation on earth" (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jen M on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 12:13:02 AM EST
    Is the one able to take care of it's children. We can't. (according to the conservatives) or shouldn't (libertarians) or won't(leftists)

    No child left behind takes money away from low performing schools. This leaves ALL the children in the same boat.

    "We leave no child behind, we leave the entire school district behind"

    Educating standard: lowest common denominator