January 22, 2004
Drug mention leaves some wondering why
| Rachel Hazlett Sports
Editor |
|
President Bush talked about college education as well as
the No Child Left Behind act of 2001 (NCLB) at MCC and in his State of
the Union Address, citing America’s “changing economy”
and technology as reasons for the need for workforce training and continued
concentration on quality education.
NCLB and secondary education have a lot in common. Education that starts
in our elementary schools is continued in our colleges. Skills that begin,
as Bush said, with the “basics of reading and math” are honed
in community colleges and workforce training.
There is one more important similarity – the implementation of NCLB
and the road ahead to execute Bush’s plans for community colleges.
Both are based on admirable goals, and both work toward badly needed changes.
This is why we can stand to learn a lesson from the faults of NCLB, and
apply those lessons to better enhance community college education and
workforce training.
NCLB “seeks to change the very nature of public education, from
a culture of compliance to a culture of achievement and accomplishment
and performance,” according to U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige.
Likewise, to help with secondary education, Bush advocated additional
college funding and workforce training, including $250 million to community
colleges, Jan. 21 at MCC.
Just as this plan strives to improve education on the secondary level,
NCLB seeks to improve K-12 education. NCLB proposed a game plan to improve
education, increased funding for schools and aid to needy and disadvantaged
students, hindered the shuffling of struggling students from grade to
grade and made schools accountable for using funding to enhance the quality
of education.
This was the plan. However, in practice, there have been several speed
bumps. The game plan is often unrealistic, and penalizes schools that
struggle. Schools don’t receive enough funding. Student shuffling
still exists, as parents can transfer their children out of failing schools
in many cases. The deadlines and requirements are often impossible to
meet, plunging some schools into automatic failure. When schools give
progress reports, numbers are easily manipulated, giving a false success
rate for time since the act was passed. “Failing” schools
may well be improving but still in need of additional help, and schools
that are “meeting standards” may be adjusting figures to do
so. The latter was the case with Paige’s home district, Houston
Independent School District, where an earlier version of the act was implemented.
Paige’s program, and reported success rates, led Bush to nationalize
the plan – unfortunately, with its faults intact.
Bush’s attention to MCC’s Business and Industry Institute
presents the same opportunity to nationalize a successful program. The
lessons NCLB presents for community college strategy are clear. Provide
adequate money, and follow through on funding promises. Focus on struggling
areas and students, rather than penalizing them. Establish a clear and
reasonable accountability plan, one which both encourages improvement
and provides flexibility. Create uniform methods of measurement, and adhere
to those figures, even when touting a program.
I applaud and admire Bush’s goals in both NCLB and his plans to
aid community colleges, and I’m eager to see them realized. However,
for those goals to be achieved, changes must be made. Let’s not
repeat the mistake of allowing ideals to overshadow plans.
|
