Jan 7, 2:17 PM EST

Education law's promise falls short after 10 years

By KIMBERLY HEFLING 
AP Education Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The No Child Left Behind education law was cast as a symbol of possibility, offering the promise of improved schools for the nation's poor and minority children and better prepared students in a competitive world.

Yet after a decade on the books, President George W. Bush's most hyped domestic accomplishment has become a symbol to many of federal overreach and Congress' inability to fix something that's clearly flawed.

The law forced schools to confront the uncomfortable reality that many kids simply weren't learning, but it's primarily known for its emphasis on standardized tests and the labeling of thousands of schools as "failures."

Sunday marks the 10-year anniversary of the day Bush signed it into law in Hamilton, Ohio. By his side were the leaders of the education committees in Congress, Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. The bipartisanship that made the achievement possible in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks is long gone.

The same Senate committee approved a revamped education bill last year, but deep-rooted partisanship stalled the measure in the full Congress. In this election year, there appears little political will for compromise despite widespread agreement that changes are needed.

Critics say the law carries rigid and unrealistic expectations that put too much of an emphasis on tests for reading and math at the expense of a more well-rounded education.

Frustrated by the congressional inaction, President Barack Obama told states last fall they could seek a waiver around unpopular proficiency requirements in exchange for actions his administration favors. A vast majority of states have said they will go that route, seen as a temporary fix until lawmakers do act Like Obama, Republican presidential candidates have criticized the law. One, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, even saying he regrets voting for it.

"If you called a rally to keep No Child Left Behind as it is, not a single person would show up," said Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado, Denver's former school superintendent.

The view was drastically different 10 years ago, when Bush took what was an uncommon stance for a conservative in seeking an aggressive federal role in forcing states and districts to tackle abysmal achievement gaps in schools.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NO_CHILD_LEFT_BEHIND_10_YEARS?SITE=MSJAD&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Jerry Brown's budget proposes killing transitional kindergarten funds

By Kevin Yamamura
kyamamura@sacbee.com

Published: Saturday, Jan. 7, 2012 - 12:00 am | Page 4A

As California moves toward an earlier cutoff age for kindergarten, Gov. Jerry Brown has proposed axing funds for a transitional program aimed at children newly shut out of those classrooms.

In his latest budget, the Democratic governor proposed a permanent elimination of funds for transitional kindergarten, a new program designed to serve children not yet ready for regular kindergarten. It would save $223.7 million in 2012-13 and $672 million at full implementation in 2014-15.

In 2010, lawmakers passed a measure to phase in an earlier cutoff age for kindergarten over three years starting in the 2012-13 school year. Students previously could enter kindergarten if they were 5 years old by Dec. 2.

The new law requires them to be 5 by Nov. 2 in 2012-13, Oct. 2 in 2013-14 and Sept. 1 in 2014-15. The shift came after years of debate over whether California was starting some students in kindergarten earlier than was beneficial for their development.

Under Brown's plan, the state would save money by having fewer children in the school system as the cutoff age phases in.

Before lawmakers approved the 2010 bill, a major concern was what would happen to children who no longer qualify for kindergarten, particularly those from low-income families that could not easily afford private pre-kindergarten programs. State leaders compromised by providing money for school districts to run the transitional program for those students, said Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto.

"The governor is talking about depriving 125,000 kids a year an opportunity to go to school," Simitian said. "I think it's a non-starter."

"I think a lot of these kids are going to end up being at home in care that doesn't necessarily meet their needs or provide the kind of experience they need to be prepared for kindergarten," Atkin said. "I think a lot of parents; frankly, I don't know what they're going to do.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/07/4169051/jerry-browns-budget-proposes-killing.html#mi_rss=Capitol%20and%20California

Brown Holds Students Hostage to Get More Tax $$

by Stephen Frank on 01/06/2012

The Governor has decided to hold your children and your money hostage. He is giving you a choice–either lose $35 billion to government or your children will get an even worse education than they get today.

“Brown said if voters support his plan to raise sales and income taxes in November “we will eliminate the budget deficit, finally, after years of kicking the can down the road.”

For K-12 schools and community colleges new tax revenues would bring an increase of $4.9 billion in 2012-13, for a total Proposition 98 funding level of $52.5 billion. That would boost per-pupil spending from $7,096 this year to $7,815 next year. But even if the tax plan wins, most of that money will be little more than a specter in classrooms. Brown’s proposal would use $2.1 billion to backfill this year’s deferral and another $2.1 billion to start paying off the $10 billion in deferrals already accrued.

What’s more, the plan still doesn’t provide for a cost of living increase of 3.1 percent, which would be added to a growing multi-billion IOU known as the maintenance factor.”

Maybe use of the Internet, ending union ownership of the schools, enforcing our immigration laws, providing education instead of socially acceptable indoctrination, our schools could improve. Until then the $35 billion raised over five years will be wasted on schools that need reform instead of money for social experiments. What do you think–are you willing to gamble with another $35 billion of your money for government?