Introduction: 

Setting the Stage for Bold Action to Improve Schools

In 1998, midway through the current authorization of federal programs for elementary and secondary education, the Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights observed:

[T]he central elements of standards-based reform are not “Democratic v. Republican” or “liberal v. conservative” ideas.  High standards for all children is a goal that is generally embraced, and holding schools and school systems accountable for producing academic progress is a strategy espoused by conservative business leaders as well as liberal academicians.  It may well be that an Administration prepared to make its case for reform and for the limited but critically important role of the national government would gather broader support than it apparently expects.  Few people anticipated in advance the coalescence of views that led to passage and effective enforcement of equal educational opportunity laws and policies in the 1960s.[1]

            Now, President George W. Bush has outlined his education proposals, which in many significant respects, would continue and build upon the reform legislation adopted in 1994.  At the same time, President Bush’s proposals, by embracing block grants and failing to provide resources, could undermine many of the goals for reform he espouses.  The result is that many children would be left behind.  No Child Left Behind provides an outline for more detailed legislative proposals to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).  In this plan, the

President calls broad public attention to the persistent achievement gaps between rich and poor and between white and minority students.  And like his predecessor, he understands the primary importance of - and federal interest in - assuring that all children can read competently by the third grade.  These recognitions are commendable, as is the Administration’s acknowledgement that  “the federal government is partly at fault”[2] and his advocacy of a “more effective federal role” in education.

            In advocating a strong federal role in raising academic standards and in closing the achievement gap, the President parts company with powerful political constituencies in both major parties - many of whom have, for far too long, excused or accepted the depressingly low academic performance of many poor and minority children.  For example on one question that never seems to go away - “does money make a difference?” - The President has repudiated both the notion embraced by conservative advisors that improvement can be had without increasing education spending, as well as advocacy of some in the education establishment for major increases in funding with only weak accountability for results. 

Significantly, the President seems to recognize what is undisputed among leading experts:  that money wisely spent and targeted to effective strategies can significantly increase outcomes for disadvantaged students.  Consistent with this approach, for example, the President’s recently released proposals for an early-grade reading initiative would provide additional funds, over and above Title I, but would also require that schools utilize research-based approaches to literacy development.  Moreover, the President recognizes the importance of holding adults responsible for making sure all children are able to read and to succeed in school.

            At the same time there are elements of the President’s plan that could leave many children behind, especially children who are trapped in substandard schools in high-poverty neighborhoods.  Such children are disproportionately children of color and include children from migrant, homeless and immigrant families, children with disabilities and those who are not yet proficient in English.

Back to contents