NCLB and consent of the socialized
The Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University ran an online survey May 19, 2007 asking what respondents thought should be done with the No Child Left Behind Act. The results are telling.
Renew law 23%
Change law 48%
Cancel law 14%
Don't know 14%
Other 1%

I would like to know exactly what changes the respondents think would improve No Child Left Behind. For Hillary Clinton, it is about $12 billion. For the NEA, it is about modifying the testing requirements, reducing class sizes and certifying teachers. In other words, it needs more money and greater protection for the union.

The phrase "highly qualified teachers" sounds good, but it only means certified. And evidence suggests that there is little difference in student performance between those who have begun teaching through the traditional route or alternative certification programs. In fact, principals who work with recruits from Teach For America frequently report that these uncertified teachers outperform new teachers who have gone through the traditional certification process. Student performance backs that up. And these recruits have all of 6 weeks training to add to their college degree.

I wish I had greater faith that the average American sought more fundamental change to this law, but the mantra of "it is a good law, but an unfunded mandate" has gone on too long. When states stopped asserting their rights and submitted to the lure of more federal monies, the future of the law was secured. A national test and a national curriculum are close behind.

And of course, since early childhood has been proven critical to educational success, so is universal preschool. And a $10 billion increase in funding, if Senator Clinton has anything to say. So the states again will be lured into selling their rights.

And polls will suggest that "we the people" have consented with minor criticism.

, ,