OPINION & EDITORIAL
Obama, Clinton being schooled?
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Jason Smathers:
- Dems political muscle atrophies (March 4, 2008)
- Voting far from 'absolute' injustice (February 26, 2008)
Related Stories:
- 'Oprabama?' No thank you (December 10, 2007)
- Obama's charisma essential to victory (January 29, 2007)
- Cry not, Edwards has sights on 2012 (February 1, 2008)
- Nevada caucuses expose flawed system (January 24, 2008)
- '08 hopefuls test political climate (November 15, 2006)
by Jason Smathers
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
For just a second, forget who you want picking up the phone at 3 a.m.
Instead, think about what your children will be doing at 7 a.m. Because it could make the difference in which presidential candidate you vote for.
Boarding the biennial carousel of campaign issues, Americans usually contemplate education for a moment or two before the far more attractive horses of economy and foreign policy come along. And who can blame them? While education, recession and the war in Iraq are all major stumbling blocks in this nation’s current set of policies, these latter two should take precedent over all others. After all, the war in Iraq has a detrimental effect on our economy, and our stumbling economy will hamper efforts to improve public schools.
But that doesn’t mean we can’t address the problem directly. While the educational pitfalls are spread far and wide across the nation, one sinkhole has continued to sideline teachers’, students’ and states’ efforts to improve our public schools: No Child Left Behind.
The act was the perfect example of good intentions paving a road to hell: All legislators wanted to do was increase standards for all children. Low-income students were taught in crumbling schools by an ever-changing lineup of unqualified teachers and the achievement gap kept on growing wider. Congress formulated a plan that would enhance testing standards for reading and math, focus on the inequity in classrooms, ensure all teachers are up to the task and fund those students who needed the most.
Of course, the act ended up being the public school equivalent of structural adjustment. Schools that consistently failed to meet requirements received less funding or were threatened with firings and closure; extra training for teachers ended up being unfunded; and educators had to skew curricula for a bunch of bubbles on a sheet of paper, severely limiting the scope of K-12 education.
With the problem identified, one might expect the twin minds of Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to parrot the same proposals.
Well, undecided voters, your time has come. Mr. Obama acknowledges NCLB was a good idea and wants to undo the kinks. Ms. Clinton, on the other hand, thinks the only way to fix the flaws is to eliminate it entirely.
Ms. Clinton’s rejection of NCLB sounds good on the surface — it’s done more harm than good, so get rid of it. However, there are two caveats to keep in mind. First off, Ms. Clinton voted for the bill. If the Iraq authorization was a case of bad intelligence, then the NCLB bill is one of bad judgment. Obviously, Hillary either didn’t look at the bill enough before voting for it or didn’t think hard enough about the consequences. Plus, doesn’t her vote indicate that the idea of the bill had some significant merit?
The second problem is that her alternatives don’t seem to fully address the issue. Ms. Clinton would provide $1 billion for a program aimed at cutting the minority dropout rate in half. First off, if the wording in her press releases is correct, either she is providing another $1 billion for “at-risk” students or has designated all minority students as “at-risk” youth. How pleased they must be.
Secondly, the plan seems piecemeal. While one of the most important things states and schools need from the federal government is money, her plan to cut dropout rates seems to assume not only that K-12 means K and 12 — as her omission of elementary schools and promotion of alternative “early childhood” and “early college” programs indicates — but that all of this funding will work without NCLB’s emphasis on testing and evaluation. Sure, the testing was a skewed measure of performance, but at least it provides some red flags and direction for funding. Is throwing money at a problem really the best we can do?
Of course not, Mr. Obama would chime in. His plan would basically fund what NCLB didn’t — rework the testing standards to ensure our educational barometer is measuring the right markers and help failing schools rather than punishing them.
Sounds great, right? Well, he’s also going to fund increased teacher training. And after-school programs. And summer learning. And outreach programs. And milk and cookies and everything nice.
Mr. Obama’s problem is the exact opposite. Instead of removing the federal government from a primarily state and local task, he seems to want to fix it himself. Mr. Obama is like the overzealous mechanic you bring your car to for a tune-up: You find yourself paying for a new alternator, transmission and rims on your tires. While all those items could use some repairs, all you needed was an oil change.
We may need more than a tune-up, but we don’t need a new car. If Mr. Obama is going to make fixing NCLB a priority, he should focus on that first. One of the biggest problems with education reform is biting off more than you can chew. Especially when schools can live or die by federal promises.
No Child Left Behind had the right idea in raising the bar; it just had the wrong approach to helping students and schools clear it. Ms. Clinton’s aim to destroy NCLB might have had some merit if she had something to replace it with, but considering she didn’t give enough thought to education the first time this bill came around, why should we assume she will this time?
Mr. Obama’s plan isn’t perfect, and he needs to be able to go into that bill and distinguish exactly what does and doesn’t work. Yet, the fact that he’s willing to bring this crippled piece of legislation back up to speed shows that he’s actually ready to take on this fight.
And if there’s anything schools need right now, it’s a fighter.
Jason Smathers (jsmathers@badgherherald.com) is a senior majoring in history and journalism.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 4:51am):
"No Child Left Behind had the right idea in raising the bar; it just had the wrong approach to helping students and schools clear it."
Very well put.
Interesting article yet a little jumpy and too encompassing. Whats the main point?
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 8:48am):
"No Child Left Behind had the right idea in raising the bar; it just had the wrong approach to helping students and schools clear it."
What does this mean? Did it try to raise the bar, but ended up lowering the bar? This needs explanation.
Additionally, NCLB has purportedly been a disaster from day one, but the only people who actually believe that are teachers. The teachers union is as much to blame from making lemon students as the UAW is for making lemon Fords.
Teachers, it's about time you had a little pressure placed on your cushy, tenured 180 day work year.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 9:36am):
Yet another Badger Herald opinion article supporting OBAMA. This one was pretty good, though.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 10:59am):
"No Child Left Behind" also means that the "No Child Can Get Ahead".
The NEA is the biggest obstacle to good education - they protect incompetent teachers in all situations.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 12:58pm):
So Obama's problem is he's going to give too much money to NCLB?
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
