Debating Myself

Vindication through coursework is a rare part of the college experience, but this past week has really been a rewarding one for me. Having recently completed my senior thesis in political science–a study of the effects of No Child Left Behind on school governance and rural schools–I was more than pleasantly surprised to see that the Reading First Initiative, the focus of the case studies in my research, was in the news. Both the Washington Post and the Economist carried stories on the program that can be found here and here respectively.

My thesis is largely critical of the way in which the Reading First program is administrated. Federal grant money is distributed to states, who then subgrant the money out to local school districts. For rural school districts the grant process by itself proves problematic enough, but further complicating matters are the stipulations that the aid comes with, often conditioning the types of reading instruction to occur in the classroom. Decentralization and localization have long been hallmarks of the American education system, and No Child Left Behind purported to continue those traditions, but clearly the Reading First program is an exception–the Washington Post gets it right:

A 2006 report from the Education Department’s inspector general, John P. Higgins Jr., said some program officials steered states to certain tests and textbooks.

Mix in a little classic Bush cronyism just for good measure:

Congressional testimony last year also revealed that some of those people benefited financially…

This was bad enough, but the pattern of unfair benefits was distributed unequally along ideological lines as well–essentially deciding a long standing debate about how reading should be taught:

Critics say that Reading First officials have promoted intensive phonics instruction, in which children focus on learning to sound out words, and that schools have been discouraged from using the whole language approach, which emphasizes teaching reading through literature.

In the case study I used for my thesis, a rural Pennsylvania school district was forced to abandon a highly successful whole language approach due to lack of funding, apply several times for a Reading First grant, and only after a change in party (from elephant to donkey) was a grant for a new type of reading program approved. Rural schools thrive on the whole language model and can be highly successful, because, by their very nature, these schools afford their students considerable individual attention from teachers. Under the Reading First program whole language instruction funding is now highly inconsistent and politicized. The Reading First program unfairly squashes this and tramples on the ability of local school districts to resist federal and state mandates about instructional programs and be classroom innovators.

That said, Reading First has for the most part been a success for non-rural schools, and the phonics method of reading instruction is an acceptable and worthwhile practice. Unlike many aspects of NCLB, Reading First seems to be getting results (again WP):

The Center on Education Policy, based in the District, reported in October that officials in 37 states said the curriculum and assessments helped boost achievement.

So I guess it doesn’t make sense to me why Democrats would cut the funding of this program by more than 60 percent. But that is just what it did. The Washington Post searched for the best answer they could:

“We all agree that the goal of the Reading First program — to help all children learn to read — is incredibly important,” said Rachel Racusen, a spokeswoman for Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.)… “We must have every assurance that Reading First funding is being used as intended — to benefit our nation’s schoolchildren, not to line the pockets of Bush’s cronies.”

Wait what? It is benefiting our nation’s schoolchildren as is–even if it was conceived in an improper way. Children are learning to read from this program. It doesn’t get any clearer! (I’m a critic, and even I can’t disagree that it works.) File this under further evidence that representatives from really big states are generally up to no good and/or certifiably crazy. But, more importantly, Mr. Miller has completely missed the point.

1. The program is currently under administrative review for the transgressions involving yet another case of Bush cronyism. Those involved will be punished, reports will be issued, etc.
2. In the meantime, the program borne out of cronyism appears to be one of the few bright spots in this administration–it is actually helping impoverished American children learn to read.
3. Cutting funding to the program will not kill the benefit to textbook manufacturers or those who sell reading curricula–schools know these programs work and will now secure outside funds to continue these government programs. Unfortunately, it is only better off schools who have the resources to do this, while poor, rural or underfunded schools who need these programs most will actually just cut back reading instruction.
4. The Democrats have proposed no alternative or amendments to the Reading First program to allow reading instruction to continue, while rolling back Bush cronyism.

So instead of taking a stand against President Bush in the Iraq War, around which a public consensus now exists, Democrats have opted to take a much bolder position… punishing children for alleged Bush cronyism. Those Democratic Senators and Representatives are much braver than me; I would have meekly pushed an alternative policy through fixing the improprieties of the program and making it more flexible, while the program continued to quietly improve reading scores across America . Instead the Democrats hope to convince American children learning to read that they need to sacrifice their extra reading education in the name of slapping a few textbook manufacturers on the wrist for allegedly earning an extra 5% in profits. Oh, and the opportunity to stick a finger in President Bush’s eye.

This is just a sickening example of partisan politics at its absolute worst; in this case on the part of a Democratic Congress seeking to exact retribution from a Republican executive at any price. Is a policy that has widely benefited millions of poor and disadvantaged American children really the policy the Democrats want to choose to punish President Bush on? Shouldn’t they take their rage out on him in a more benign and sensible policy area–choosing randomly of course–like the Iraq War, the nuclear deal with India, etc ad infininum?

The Washington Post piece ends on a sober note that readers should be left with:

“Reading First has made so much of a difference in the lives of so many people,” said James Herman, the program’s director in Tennessee. “We’re going to punish the children. I don’t understand that at all.”

I don’t either Mr. Herman.

Tags: Democrats, education, No Child Left Behind

This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 8th, 2008 at 9:00 am and is filed under American Politics, Society and Culture, US Law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.