NYTimes Letters to the Editor on NCLB

[Bob Schaeffer <bobschaeffer@earthlink.net>]

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