Issue Brief Outline

NCLB: Good Intentions Do Not Make Good Laws

SKELETON OUTLINE

I)       Introduction (anecdotal)

II)    Brief History of Public Education Policy

              A)     Motivation by equal rights issues

1)     Department of Education (1867)

(i)    Only an office

(ii)  Full department in 1980

(iii) Focus on equal rights in education

2)     Brown vs. Board of Education (1954)

(i)    Five separate cases

(ii)  “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal”

(iii) Passing of the civil rights act

(iv)Precedent for Title IX and NCLB

3)     Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (1965): financial aid to students from low-income families

4)     Title IX (1972): prohibition of gender discrimination

              B)     Motivation by a desire for increased national productivity

1)     National Defense Education Act (1958)

(i)    creation from Sputnik

(ii)  funding for improvement in math, science, and foreign language education

2)     GI Bill

(i)    financial aid to veterans for higher education

(ii)  more money to federal government

III)  NCLB’s good intentions

              A)     A desire for equal opportunity

1)     Quote from pamphlet

              B)     A need for a national improvement in educational performance relative to the rest of the world

1)     Quote from pamphlet

2)     Quote from pamphlet

IV)  NCLB’s drawbacks

              A)     Unconstitutionality

1)     unprecedented level of federal involvement in the affairs of our public schools

2)     intrusion on education, a state right

              B)     Contradictory goals and results

1)     Goal: improvement of education through competition; Result: re-segregated schools

(i)    Discrimination in charter schools

(a)   Deleware

(1)  Racial identifiability

(2)  Proficiency of racially identifiable charters

(b)  National study of charters

(1)  Racial composition

(2)  Economic composition

(3)  Low capacity for disabled students

(4)  Lack of English language learners

(5)  Pattern of segregation

(ii)  Discrimination through admissions

(a)   Limited applications

(b)  Long, English-only applications

(1)  parent and student essays

(2)  grades

(3)  test scores

(4)  disciplinary records

(5)  teacher recommendations

(6)  medical records

(c)   Requirement of presentation of social security card or birth certificate (unlawful)

(d)  Mandatory family interviews

(e)   Entrance exams

(f)    Academic prerequisites

(g)   Requirement of reporting of disabilities

2)     Goal: improvement of education for disabled students; result: overemphasis on standardized testing

(i)    Need for improvement for yardstick for disabled students

(ii)  Lack of consideration for severely disabled students

(a)   Blatant inadequacy of questions

(b)  Injury to students

(c)   Difficulty of obtaining waivers

              C)     Overemphasis

1)     Testing

(i)    Bad for students

(a)   Narrowed curriculum

(1)  Neglect of other subjects

(2)  Limited writing

(b)  Emphasis on tests over learning

(1)  Monetary incentives

(2)  Discouragement

(c)   Failure to prepare students for later life

(1)  Lack of focus on innovative thinking

(2)  Focus on test-taking strategy

(d)  Promotion of cheating

(1)  Scrubbing

(2)  ‘the Wesley way’

(ii)  Bad for teachers

(a)   Stifling effectiveness

(1)  Overuse of class time

(2)  Forces teachers to teach curricula they did not develop

(3)  Forces teachers to use materials not catered to the students in their classrooms

(4)  Forces teachers to teach strict, scripted, paced lessons

(5)  Turns teachers into parrots rather than instructors

(b)  Teacher exodus

(1)   New teacher disillusionment  

(2)  Lack of enrollment

(3)  Early retirement

(c)   Unfair evaluation and punishment

(1)  Evaluation based on immutable factors

I.        ethnicity

II.      poverty

III.    classroom size

(2)  Awarding of bonuses

(3)  Termination

2)     Accountability

(i)    Adequate yearly progress

(a)   Achievement goals

(b)  Discipline methods

(1)  Two years: better school transfer

(2)  Three years: free tutoring

(3)  More than three years: state intervention

I.        Closure

II.      Transition to charter

III.    Federal acquisition

IV.    Other turnaround method

(4)  Reservation of Title I funds

V)     Proposed changes

              A)     Basis in analysis of drawbacks

1)     Redistribution of funds

(i)    Needy schools

(ii)  Reduction of class sizes

(iii) Intensified tutoring

(iv)Other effective strategies

2)     Imposition of more strenuous teacher requirements

3)     Reduction of accountability requirements

4)     Use of NAEP

              B)     Basis in analysis of outside bodies (no particular order) research to be completed

1)     Finland

2)     Singapore

3)     South Korea

4)     Japan

5)     Hong Kong

              C)     Problems already solved (ESSA) research to be completed

VI)  Conclusion