|
Article Excerpt
IN 2002, PRESIDENT BUSH SIGNED INTO LAW THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND (NCLB) Act, which changed the requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA) of 1965. This new law focuses on policy and distribution of funds to public schools. Federal funds under NCLB are mostly distributed to school districts whose populations come from lower economic levels and represent culturally diverse populations (African Americans, Native Americans, Asians, and Latinos). Proponents of the No Child Left Behind Act claim that its mission is to close the achievement gap by holding school districts and states accountable, encouraging the use of flexible educational approaches, and supporting parents' rights to school choice (Meyer, 2005).
On the surface, no one would argue with this goal; however, one must question the means by which the Bush administration's public school agenda attempts to deliver this "high quality education." A critical analysis of the law, according to education scholars (Coles, 2003; Garan, 2004; Meier and Wood, 2004), confirms that NCLB is specifically harmful for the children described as "disadvantaged students," the same socioeconomic groups that have historically received inferior education. In fact, NCLB's goals are highly restrictive for lower-income families whose children attend low-income schools.
In analyzing the current legislation from the perspective of equity, educational access, and social justice, it is important to explore the distribution of NCLB funding and the requirements imposed upon low-income schools. Whose interests are served? Who is profiting from the implementation? Which students are being affected? This article attempts to respond to these questions and provide insights into the effects of NCLB. We closely examine this law in relation to corporate profit-making, its direct impact on a student population consisting of 4.4 million English Language Learners enrolled in U.S. public schools (Peterson, 2001), and the growing grass-roots resistance by educators, teachers' unions, and parents (Apple, 2001; Eslinger, 2005). The act has come under scrutiny by a wide range of citizens, including state legislators who are concerned with the direction of public education (Eslinger, 2005; Connecticut State Department of Education, 2005).
Who Is Profiting from No Child Left Behind?
Education has become a major issue of discussion among politicians, the media, corporate leaders, and fundamentalist religious groups (Apple, 2001). The unanimous approval and bipartisan support for NCLB came from efforts by lobbyist Sandy Kress, a Democrat, who played a key role in crafting and passing No Child Left Behind. Kress was instrumental in putting together the bipartisan push behind the bill, pulling Democratic lawmakers Ted Kennedy, George Miller, and John Boehner into the president's court (Pyle, 2005). Apple (2001) describes this example of coalition building as conservative modernization, in which unlikely interest groups cooperate on a common goal. He views this conservative coalition as intentionally promoting a hegemonic ideology (a common culture and traditional white American values) that penetrates all levels of U.S. society. This movement or coalition consists of several groups: neoliberals, neoconservatives, authoritarian populists, and the professional/managerial middle class.
The neoliberals appear to be committed to free markets, individual choice, and expansion of consumerism. They prefer a less involved state that supports expanding "free enterprise." Neoliberals align with neoconservatives to attack government spending on social services, including education. Yet they support government spending that benefits corporate interests, whether for educational assessment tools, military contractors, or the prison-industrial complex (Giroux, 2004). NCLB has opened many avenues for private industries to make a profit from federal funds (Miner, 2004), thus creating a corporate welfare state (Giroux, 2004).
The neoconservatives seem to firmly support a strong state that promotes conservative policies, a strong defense, deregulation, and limited social services funding. Their Eurocentric ideology advocates traditional, white, patriarchal values and structures. They seek a return to a mythical past rooted in an image of 1950s "America." Meanwhile, the authoritarian populists represent a significant mix of religious fundamentalist and conservative evangelicals, whose actions suggest that they wish a return to (their) God in all our public institutions.
The final group consists of a fraction of the professional-managerial middle class. In Apple's (2001) view, they are the mapmakers and experts who are facilitating the conservative, modernized agenda. This group has been instrumental in designing and promoting NCLB mandates for strict state testing, high test scores, and placing education within a marketing context. Their perspective is reflected in their questioning of how much the federal government should spend on the poor, "the disadvantaged," and culturally and linguistically diverse populations.
Presently, U.S. funding for education rests primarily on the backs of state and local governments. The federal government shoulders very little responsibility for education. Of an estimated $852 billion spent nationwide on education at all levels for the 2003-2004 school year, about 90% came from state, local, and private sources (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). Though the Bush administration espouses its commitment to education, there is little evidence of this in federal contributions. In 2004, only about 10% of the total education expenditure came from the federal level. The $63.3 billion appropriation of the U.S. Department of Education represents about 2.7% of the federal government's nearly $2.3 trillion budget (National Center for Education Statistics, 2004). Why does this administration steadfastly subject low-income school districts to such high levels of accountability through NCLB, and why are states so quick to comply?
The Bush administration represents the ideological and economical interests of a conservative modernization coalition. As noted, this alliance's strong ideology promotes individualism, self-sufficiency, and free enterprise. The following section will focus on the role of free enterprise in the implementation of NCLB. Why have private investors and corporations taken such an interest in the implementation of No Child Left Behind?
The most prominent profit-makers are the educational publishing companies, whose subdivisions develop standardized tests. Public review of these corporations is almost nonexistent. Some, such as McGraw Hill, Harcourt, Pearson, and Riverside, have a market monopoly on testing materials. Pearson and Riverside, both smaller at one time, have expanded tremendously (Gonzales and Goodman, 2004). Riverside is a subsidiary of Houghton Mifflin, a major publishing company with a branch in textbooks for reading, social studies, and children's literature. In 2003, Houghton Mifflin bought the San Francisco-based Edusoft. This company provides web and computer-based tests and databases to store test results (Miner, 2004).
Once considered a small, nonprofit company, Educational Testing Service (ETS) in Princeton, New Jersey, is responsible for analyzing standardized tests throughout the U.S. and has also expanded due to the overzealous use of tests. In 2003, ETS managed to flex its power and...
|
