Some School Districts Challenge Bush's Signature Education Law. A growing number of school systems are beginning to resist the No Child Left Behind law, saying it is too costly and cumbersome. By Sam Dillon. [New York Times: Education]
This is not surprising at all. (Happy New Year, I've been away for a while.) They are right that it is indeed cumbersome to try to meet adequate yearly progress without the necessary funding to do so. One of the criticisms of No Child Left Behind from early on has been that it is an unfunded educational reform act. It expects didtricts to come up with resources to accomplish things mandated by law. "If your school is labelled failing, you must bus kids to other schools, or, you must provide tutoring services." Well, these things cost money.
One thing I will say I would advocate, even though I am a believer in teacher's unions and protecting the rights of employees, is some freedom for principals to fire less-than-satisfactory personnel. Example: At my school there is at least one counselor whom, if I were principal, I would have wanted to fire years ago. She has caused several students more difficulty in attaining gragduation simply by her incompetence an unwillingness to do her job correctly. Ans she's miserable in her job. It would probably be in her own best interest to be fired too. Not only in the students' best interest. There are also teachers who need to move on.
I guess if schools are expected to be "competitive," like businesses are competitive, then they would have to be able to engage in competitive staffing practices. Wouldn't they? Such freedom would help us better meet the demands of impositional laws like No Child Left Behid, anyway.
12:38:03 PM 
|
