« NEA vs. homeschoolers | Main | Poverty and education »
July 07, 2006
Why Spellings's sudden change of heart?
Alexander Russo looks at the USDE's ultimatum to California to make good on NCLB transfer provisions, notes that the USDE had pretty much given up enforcing NCLB choice, and asks, "So what I want to know is are they going after other states about lack of choice -- I'm told they haven't -- and what prompted the action now? Was it the threat of lawsuits, a fit of self-improvement, or what?"
As to whether they are going after other states, we certainly can't say. But our administrative action in Los Angeles and Compton might have been part of what got Spellings moving. As Clint pointed out at the time, “The No Child Left Behind Act isn’t worth the paper it’s written on so long as children are forced to remain in failing schools."
As Alexander accurately notes, the USDE seemed to have settled into a policy of nonenforcement of NCLB transfer provisions. But two weeks after we filed our action, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings indicated in an address in New York that she was about to start rattling her saber:
“As some of you know, recently, two advocacy groups filed a complaint against two California school districts for failing to give parents the chance to take advantage of transfer options. And while I can’t comment on the specifics of the case, the fact that we’re even talking about holding districts and schools accountable shows No Child Left Behind is doing exactly what it’s supposed to do.”
Spellings said she has directed Henry Johnson, head of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education at the Department of Education, to look into these matters.
And about a month later, Spellings jumped into the game with a letter sent to the state's DOE, requesting a response to our action. No deadline was given, but Spellings made it clear that she was watching the situation.
The final straw for Spellings may have been LAUSD's and Compton's howler of a response, which was made all the more ridiculous by the results of a recent poll. Of the 409 parents surveyed:
- 86% do not know their children are in a failing school
- 2% report to have received a letter from their school informing them of the school’s failing designation
- Of the 46 parents who knew their child’s school was failing, only 9 of them (19%) had received written notification from the school
- 54% were not aware that their child is eligible to transfer to another school
- 63% would transfer their children if money was not an issue
- 82% would transfer their children in they were eligible to exercise the “parent choice” provision of NCLB
- 73% are likely to transfer their child knowing that the child qualifies to transfer to a different or better school at no cost
In light of numbers like these, you'll forgive our skepticism at this statement from LAUSD superintendent Roy Romer from the NPR story:
The L.A. school district has done everything possible to give parents options, Romer says, but it simply doesn't have the room for all of those students to transfer.
"We're 160,000 seats short. Where do you transfer to?" he says. "Give us some time. We'll have new buildings built. We're building them now."
Romer says the district is building 160 new schools at a cost of $19 billion to deal with the crowding. But, he adds, parents like Decatur have to be patient.
"I've got to say to that parent, 'We are making more change in the right direction than any other urban school district in California,'" Romer says. "You can't turn one of these things around in a month, a year or five years. It takes 10 to 12 years to do it."
That's not good enough for Yolanda Decatur.
"Tell my son, you look in his face and tell him he that he has to wait for a better school," she says.
As pointed out in the article, Decatur's son is 8 years old. By Romer's own math, her son will be out of high school by the time this ship is righted. And yet, the family should simply stay put until the district has enough desks? LAUSD and Compton have had literally decades and billions upon billions of dollars to get their issues under control. And what do the districts want? Yet more money and time.
The bottom line is this: parents in failing schools are no longer trapped. Under federal law, they have options. LAUSD and Compton have no business continuing to mislead parents into thinking otherwise.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.edspresso.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/414
