from my congressman

["Nancy Patterson" <patterna@gvsu.edu>]

Like a good little soldier, I periodically send messages to my elected officials to register my concern over their muddling of education.  Here is the most recent response from Vernon Ehlers.  Raise your hand if you think it's a canned response.  It does give a good indication of how the republicans are going to argue their position regarding NCLB.  Actually, it sounds like Art wrote this.
--------------------------
Dear Dr. Patterson , 

           Thank you for your recent letter regarding elementary and secondary education. I appreciate hearing your thoughts. 

           Elementary and secondary education is the responsibility of state and local governments. However, the federal government has historically provided about seven percent of all elementary and secondary education funding. 

           Since 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) has guided the spending of federal education funds. In the late 1990s, Members of Congress realized that only 17 states (including Michigan ) were complying with the ESEA's accountability requirements to demonstrate that students were learning. Congress desired that states and school districts demonstrate results in return for receiving federal education funds. This led to President Bush signing the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act into law in 2001. This education law is a comprehensive overhaul of the ESEA with the overarching goal of raising student achievement. 

  

Clearly, in order to maintain our national security and economic competitiveness, we must ensure that our future workforce is equipped with the education needed to succeed in the jobs of tomorrow. NCLB requires that 100 percent of students demonstrate proficiency in math and reading by the 2013-14 school year. 

  

I have heard concerns that the federal government overburdens states and local school districts with the NCLB Act's requirements. Let me make a few comments to this concern. First, the Act is merely an extension of the previous ESEA law designed to add accountability and demonstrate results. More importantly, states can decide whether to participate in the NCLB Act's requirements and in exchange for receiving federal funds. In 2003, Michigan (along with all other states) decided to participate, and submitted its State Application Accountability Workbook to the U.S. Department of Education. This Workbook contains the plan Michigan designed for implementing assessments and defining accountability. As an example, Michigan 's workbook contains a pathway for reaching 100 percent student proficiency target, but you may be surprised to learn that Michigan requires that only 43 to 56 percent of students demonstrate proficiency in the 2005-06 school year. A copy of Michigan 's Workbook is available at http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/micsa.pdf. 

In addition, I have heard concerns that the NCLB Act shines attention on student performance in math and reading and away from other subjects. The NCLB Act requires that students are assessed in reading and math (and science, beginning in the 2007-08 school year). While I strongly believe that students should be exposed to a broad array of subjects, math, reading and science were selected since many believe that they serve as the foundation for understanding other subject areas and are keys to future learning and jobs. That said, states are certainly welcome to test students in other areas, and many, including Michigan , do. It is worth noting that the law explicitly prohibits the federal government from being involved in curriculum design. 

I have also heard concerns that that the federal government does not provide enough funding. F ar more money is flowing from the federal government to states and schools than at any other time in American history. Federal funding currently makes up about 8.2 percent of the estimated $555 billion that America is spending on elementary and secondary education in the 2005-06 school year. Since the NCLB Act was enacted, federal funding has increased about $7 billion (or 40 percent) to $23.3 billion in fiscal year 2006. Congress will be considering appropriations legislation for fiscal year 2007 later this year. 

There have been some implementation problems and other issues with the NCLB Act. For example, schools with large numbers of English language learners or students with disabilities have been identified as "needing improvement" when the majority of the students at the school are showing progress academically. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Education appears to hold some states to a higher standard than other states. Clearly, both of these issues have led to concerns in Michigan . However, we must remember that NCLB's overarching goal is to ensure that students are learning, and approach major changes to the NCLB Act with caution. 

The NCLB Act is scheduled for reauthorization in 2008. I anticipate that Congress will hold hearings on the implementation of the Act and on ways to improve the Act. I will certainly listen carefully to your concerns and suggestions as Congress considers how to ensure that our children are learning. 

Thank you again for contacting me. With best wishes, I am 

  



                                                                                                    Sincerely, 

                                                                                                    Vernon J. Ehlers
                                                                                                    Member of Congress


Nancy Patterson, PhD
Literacy Studies Program Chair
College of Education
Grand Valley State University 
920 Eberhard Center
301 W. Fulton
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49504
616-331-6226
patterna@gvsu.edu
http://faculty.gvsu.edu/patterna