Be afraid of Bush's education reform plan

I don't know about you, but I am scared. I'm not scared by supernatural phenomenon such as ghosts and goblins, by the apocalypse or even by those oddly entrancing Old Navy commercials. I'm scared of a more sinister, dangerous and immediate threat: our newly elected president, George W. Bush. And, with the unveiling of his education reform plan last week, my fears are justified. \nAmong Bush's ambitious ideas is to increase the use of standardized exams to monitor the quality of public schools. The plan also mentions holding teachers and schools accountable for low scores. Both of these policies are aimed at putting an end to educational inequality between low-income and minority students and their counterparts. Vowing to "leave no child behind," Bush promises schools with improving scores will be rewarded with more funding -- a move he said he believes will motivate all schools to raise their level of education.\nIf disadvantaged schools do not raise their scores in three years, funding will be pulled and refunded to parents whose children are enrolled in those institutions. The parents then will have the choice of what school they would like their child to attend. This is oddly similar to the school voucher plan, but the political turmoil about that term keeps the "v" word under wraps. \nRiding high on the improving standardized test exams in his home state of Texas, many actually believe Bush's plans offer hope for the future of education in America. Bush's Sept. 2, 1999 Executive Summary reports, "During each of his years as governor, all ethnic groups in Texas -- in all grades -- have advanced in reading and math." \nSounds promising, right? But the statistics in Texas are misleading at best. An Oct. 26 education study by the RAND Corporation compares the statistics of the Texas Achievement Assessment Test (TAAS) test with the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test, which is mandated by Congress and performed through the National Center for Education Statistics. \nUsing Texas's results and comparing them to the national average, the NAEP reports finding "huge discrepancies" in all the analyses. According to the study, "the gap in Texas is not only very large but increasing slightly. According to the Texas scores, the gap is much smaller and decreasing greatly." \nThe study is not the only evidence of discrepancies with the exams. A Sept. 11 article in Time magazine reports that while Texas is reporting a dramatic increase in scores, the state's SAT math scores have lagged and the verbal scores have dropped to their lowest level in four years -- ranking Texas the third lowest in the United States. \nIf the scores in Texas are a misrepresentation of the actual state of education in Texas, how did Bush bring about such seemingly positive results? \nOne way is by making the standardized test drill the main curriculum in the poorest schools. Because the main source of funding for public schools is local property taxes, the disadvantaged schools Bush is aiming to improve are concentrated in predominately minority low-income areas. With many of these schools already lacking in everything from materials to teachers, the threat of failing standardized tests and accountability measures leave the schools and teachers with little choice but to narrow the school's curriculum to a mere drill for the state exams. \nWhat is the result? Children who are already disadvantaged suffer further injustice by losing valuable class time and potentially meaningful learning experiences. According to the RAND report, in many Texas schools, "low performing schools reported greater frequency of test preparation than did teachers in higher performing schools." \nWith this in mind, it might seem to be a good idea to remove these children (and funds) from the public schools and give parents taxpayer-funded vouchers to attend other schools, another one of Bush's proposed education reforms. \nWhat's the problem with this plan? One of the biggest problems is that it is based on each child's share of federal funding. \nTranslation: however much your school spends per student is how much will be refunded to parents. What happens if a child goes to a school that spends less per student than what it costs to go to a private school? Where will the balance come from? According to author and educational equality activist Johnathan Kozol in the October edition of the U.S. Catholic, "even small tuition is a lot of money if all you make is $10,000 a year. The inherent dilemma here is that the vast majority of the kids who have the greatest need are going to be left behind in public school." \nVouchers and accountability might sound nice, but behind all the political talk, there are actual students, many of whom are trapped in failing schools. Why is it that America is the only industrial nation that still funds schools based on local incomes? Germany, France, Great Britain and Japan use national resources for education. With the U.S. Department of Education reporting that less than 3 percent of the $1.8 trillion federal budget goes to education, it's easy to see education is not a priority. No matter what the cost, politicians need to stop blaming teachers and schools, and make some real reforms for education.