CLOSING AMERICA'S EDUCATION GAP

New York Times -- March 5, 2004

Letters to the Editor

To the Editor:

Re "Rescuing Education Reform" (editorial, March 2):

The No Child Left Behind Act did not invent standards-based education.

For many years, states and school districts have worked to review

standards and raise expectations.

Much of this work dates back to the 1989 education summit meeting

convened by the first President Bush and led by Bill Clinton, then

governor of Arkansas.

The National Education Association and its affiliates enthusiastically

supported these efforts and continue to work with officials to raise

expectations, align the curriculum with new standards and push for the

necessary programs.

We cannot just dictate what students will learn. They need qualified

teachers and the time to learn.

The gap in educational opportunities for low-income and minority

students is extreme; the need to close that gap is urgent.

The Bush administration is trying to deal with only one side of the

equation: outcomes. If we do not provide resources like early

childhood education, small classes and qualified teachers the formula

will never add up.

REG WEAVER

President,National Education Association

Washington, March 3, 2004

"

To the Editor:

The No Child Left Behind Act is a sorry excuse for an education reform

policy (editorial, March 2). It takes the focus off education itself and

instead places it much too heavily on standardized testing. The same

children are still "left behind."

If we want equality in education, we must improve the financing of

public schools and make sure that children with an economic disadvantage

are not repeatedly left in the dust.

NATASHA MARWAH

Williamsburg, Va., March 2, 2004

"

To the Editor:

"Rescuing Education Reform" (editorial, March 2) is partly right: we

must not allow partisan positioning to destroy the chance offered by the

No Child Left Behind Act to end substandard education for poor and

minority children.

But the law needs more than "tinkering here and there." While requiring

high standards, regular testing and the public reporting of test results

by student subgroups is sound, the act's entire remedial approach needs

to be changed.

Instead of sanctions for failing to meet "adequate yearly progress," we

need to get states and localities focused on expanding the capacity of

teachers to teach, administrators to lead school improvement and parents

to support high-level learning.

Otherwise, what happens in classrooms and at home will not significantly

improve, and we will continue to fail the children who need our help.

GARY M. RATNER

Bethesda, Md., March 2, 2004

The writer is executive director of Citizens for Effective Schools.

"

To the Editor:

"Rescuing Education Reform" (editorial, March 2) takes a constructive

approach to education reform and the 2004 elections. With the No Child

Left Behind Act, we have a chance to fundamentally transform American

education, leveling the playing field so every student has the chance to

learn. Unfortunately, with this year's elections, education is in danger

of becoming little more than a political football.

Too often, voters are presented with superficial arguments and false

choices. If reform is to succeed, politicians must reach out to teachers

and parents, to answer their questions and listen to their concerns.

Candidates should foster a greater understanding of how standards and

testing support learning, so Americans can make informed judgments about

our schools. Only then can we reach our goal: an education system marked

by excellence in student performance and elimination of the achievement gap.

KURT LANDGRAF

President and Chief Executive, Educational Testing Service

Princeton, N.J., March 3, 2004

"

To the Editor:

"Rescuing Education Reform" (editorial, March 2) and its arguments in

support of the No Child Left Behind Act offer a classic illustration of

the divide between rural and urban populations.

In Montana, the law is untenable, primarily because of demographics.

Rural schools are often so small that one instructor must be responsible

for multiple subjects, and sometimes multiple grades. Yet the new law

requires teacher certification in each subject area.

Schools in rural communities, which might have only 20 students in

kindergarten through eighth grade, struggle to find any teacher to fill

a vacant position, much less one with multiple certifications. Depriving

these schools of federal funds because of conditions they cannot control

does nothing to improve education in these communities. This country is

too large and too diverse for a "one size fits all" education policy.

MICHAEL DOWNEY

Helena, Mont., March 2, 2004