ask-mark.com

David Dunn is the Chief of Staff to US Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. This pair is partially responsible for the No Child Left Behind Act, legislation that is interesting at the very least. Dunn was at Motorola’s Schaumburg headquarters last Friday to talk to teachers from across the country about NCLB. I’m not sure that anyone from a local school district was invited, and you’ll see why.

The Daily Herald published a Q&A with Dunn and Staff Writer Erin Holmes. I am finding it difficult to get past this question and Dunn’s answer to it:

Q: In Schaumburg, where we’re sitting, the two nearest high school districts and several elementary districts have opted out of taking Title I funds, which bind them to the federal [NCLB] ramifications, simply because they can afford to. Frankly, they don’t get a lot of Title I money. Do you believe that kind of thing curbs the effect of NCLB, in districts that can afford to not take the money?

A: We certainly find that disappointing. [But] we’re not seeing it. It happens that we’re in Schaumburg, and there are a couple high schools that have done it here. It’s not prevalent across the country. In New England, there are a few schools that have elected to do the same.

Frankly, we think it’s disappointing. Not just because of the money. But the key thing is, in doing so, these schools are - I don’t know if it’s rejection - but they’re not accepting the goal that the president and the Congress have laid out. And that’s what’s truly disappointing.

They’re not accepting the goal of 100 proficiency. They’re in effect saying, "We’re willing to leave children behind." That’s what disappointing.

Holmes follows up Dunn’s answer with this:

Q: I’m sure they would argue that they’re not, and their biggest defense is that they’re still held to the state’s own set of [NCLB] ramifications.

A: Fine, don’t take the money. But accept the challenge. Accept the expectation. It seems to me they’re saying they’re not willing to do that by not taking the money.

I’m not familiar with the specifics; I don’t want to comment specifically on what’s happening in the high schools here, but in general, it’s disappointing.

I am not writing this on behalf of the school district, nor am I writing this as an official representative of the school district. I am writing this as a graduate of one of the high schools in District 211, and as a citizen and taxpayer of Schaumburg. I find Dunn’s answers to be insulting. I am especially peeved by his view that districts like District 211 are failing their students simply by not accepting the federal funds, a sweeping generalization he makes while simultaneously admitting to not knowing the specifics of our situation.

How does one even jump to that conclusion? Dunn does not base his view on fact, just rhetoric. Our school district is working very hard to ensure that every student leaves with a solid foundation upon which to build their knowledge and skills. We promote life-long learning at all levels of education, not simply at the college-bound level. We have implemented programs to assist students who are failing to meet educational standards. There are a number of other ways in which we support our students, and I believe not accepting Title I funds is one of those ways.

While I agree with Dunn that NCLB is not a perfect law, and that there has yet to be a perfect one on the books, I wish Dunn and those like him could see that there is a reason that there hasn’t been a perfect law: the education of our youth is a complex matter that cannot be solved by underfunded legislation. How would you improve education in the US?