Retrospective: Latino Students After Seven Years of NCLB

Elena Rocha at the Center for American Progress has a new article up: "NCLB and Latinos: No Latino Child Left Behind Matters." She does a good job profiling the Latino education crisis AND speaking on the positive gains that Latino students have made under the accountability-focused NCLB.

And then there's this:

Failure to take immediate action to improve public schooling for Latinos will be detrimental. There isn’t much time to reverse course. Latinos are and will continue to be a significant force in every aspect of American life. Admittedly, constructing a 21st century education system that properly supports Latinos and other minorities, poor children, English language learners, and children with disabilities will require greater commitment and financial investments from federal, state, and local leaders. But continuing on the existing path is not an option.

I don't take issue with her assertion that public schooling for Latinos must improve - it's true, it must. But I have to disagree that "greater commitment and financial investments from federal, state, and local leaders" is going to be the key to improving those public schools. More money does not equal a better education; take DC, for example, which consistently ranks among the lowest in the country on student achievement, yet spends over $13,000 per pupil.

Years of pouring money into our school system has not solved the Latino education crisis - 42% of Latino students still drop out of high school before graduation.

Therefore, I ask: do you want a system that supports all kinds of learners? Where students attend schools that serve their individual educational needs? Where Latino students are consistently successful, because they are learning in a way that suits them?

Give families a choice. Give them school choice.

And best of all: it won't cost us millions of dollars.

Are Latinos Disenchanted with GOP Policy?

By Guestblogger Rena Mathena

This past Wednesday, the Colorado Confidential posted this article, “State of U.S. Latinos has Suffered in Bush-led Union, Hispanic Leaders Say,” by Kate Bernuth, explaining the loss of Latino support during President Bush’s second term after noticing that nothing was much better than it had been in 2004, when Bush had 40% of the Hispanic vote, a record number for a GOP candidate.

After all the promises made by Bush during his first term that have yet to be completely accomplished, like reforming the immigration system, providing health care for uninsured Hispanic workers, and improving education opportunities for minorities and low-income families, it’s no wonder why the Republican National Hispanic Assembly of Colorado is saying that the GOP will struggle to get a high percentage of the Hispanic vote. After listening to his last State of the Union address on Jan. 28, Bush did not seem to be advocating for his Hispanic voters and he hardly mentioned the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, which he began to improve K-12 public education, especially for minority and low-income students. It almost seemed like he had given up, making it hard for most Latino voters to continue to support the GOP or to have believe that NCLB will continue and improve public education. The one vague promise is his proposed "Pell Grants for Kids" program, which has potential, but also needs to be further "fleshed out" before we can put much faith in it.

Looking at the statistics from 2004, 24% of Latino 16- to 24-year-olds dropped out of high school and only 25% of those who did graduate went directly to college. In 2006, 22.4% of Latino students dropped out of high school, and of those who did graduate, only 30.3% went directly to college. Not much of a difference when looking back on the grand promises of NCLB, implemented by Bush to repair the educational crisis.

The Big WHY

Why, oh why, Michael Gerson asks in a WaPo op-ed, haven't Democrats pursued real education reform?

Why should teacher pay be determined by collective bargaining instead of teacher competence, especially in low-income schools that need to reward and retain good teachers? Why not give districts more flexibility to fire teachers who would serve children better by changing professions?

Edbizbuzz offers a provocative - and quite poetic - response to his question.

Tomorrow's Wednesday Issue: Join the Daily Grito as we expound on what recent research on parental involvement in school choice programs means for education activists.

Parents and the Education Game

I've been reading a bit on parental involvement lately, but I promise that I will not even mention the phrase "helicopter parent."

Firstly, of particular interest to the Latino community, are the ideas of Edwin C. Darden, Appleseed's director of education policy, who writes on how to teach low-income parents to "work the system" to guarantee their children's best education. Noting that many low-income parents do not understand how the educational system operates and do not believe that they can influence it in any way, Darden cites the need for legislation like NCLB, which, he claims, "has the potential to address these problems [see above] and spark greater parental involvement throughout the United States." He also recognizes that, "The grand battles over testing, adequate yearly progress, and reconstruction of failing schools threaten to swamp efforts to strengthen compliance with NCLB's parental involvement provisions."

Obviously, Darden is right that parents are not effectively engaged in their children's education. But are the mandates of NCLB really all that helpful? Here's what NCLB gives parents: a few letters home, saying, "Your child's school did not make AYP, therefore, you may enroll him/her in free tutoring classes." Is that engaging parents, truly educating them and empowering them to make decisions about their children's education?

I much prefer some of the other ideas that Darden includes, such as Montgomery (MD) County's Parent Academy, which offers more than 35 free workshops for parents. These workshops are not mandated by NCLB - but they seem to be a much more effective way to get parent's involved in their children's education and not just act as spectators.

Secondly, a thank you to the blog Historical/Present for directing me to the report Deciding on Postsecondary Education, from the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative. Some key points critical to the Latino community:

- Focus groups with first generation students revealed that it is not unlikely for academically under-prepared and/or first generation students to delay the college search process for a few years following their high school graduation.

- Research by Zimbroff (quoted in the study), revealed that youth in cultures that emphasize community values and discourage "standing out" are less likely to leave home and tend to prefer local institutions over prestigious or geographically distant colleges.

- Focus group research indicated that Hispanic first generation college students were encouraged to stay close to home for college, since they would "need the support of their families."

Some other interesting findings in the study - I suggest you check it out.

Wednesday Issue: Guestblogger Dan Lips on NCLB

Guestblogger Dan Lips, an Education Analyst at the Heritage Foundation, takes the reins today to share his views on NCLB and its effects on Hispanic children*:

Here’s a fact you probably won’t see in your local newspaper: Half of all Hispanic children in public schools in this country can not read or write the English language. Will Congress and the American people wake up to this grim reality before Congress makes a big mistake in its new version of No Child Left Behind?

The 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress reveals the depth of the crisis in education for Hispanic children. It reports that 50 percent of Hispanic fourth grade students scored “below basic” in reading. Given that statistic, it is no surprise that only 59 percent of Hispanic girls and 48 percent of Hispanic boys end up graduating from high school.

Yet parents shouldn’t look to Congress for an immediate solution. True, Congress is about to decide whether and how to reauthorize No Child Left Behind, which was originally intended to address the problem of low expectations facing many minority students. The law was designed to hold schools accountable for results through annual testing and by giving students trapped in low-performing schools the opportunity to transfer into higher performing schools.

But after five years, NCLB hasn’t solved the problems in American education. Evidence suggests that federal high-stakes testing has led some states to change how their tests are graded, making it difficult for parents to understand whether their children are making progress. Some states have simply lowered standards to make their test easier to pass.

Early discussions on Capitol Hill suggest that NCLB will become worse, not better, if Congress moves forward with reauthorization. Some of the changes that are being considered would put Hispanic children further behind in the classroom. In particular, draft legislation released by Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D–CA) would change current testing policies to give states more leeway in how English language learners are tested. Specifically, the new proposal would reform existing law to allow states to use more subjective portfolio assessments and native language tests for five or more years to measure whether children are learning.

This change would force public schools across the country to make a tough decision: tackle the challenge of teaching Spanish-speaking children English so they can pass regular exams or take the easier path of using native-language tests and portfolio assessments. Because NCLB would continue to pressure schools with high-stakes state tests, federal law would provide an incentive for states to choose the easier path. The result: Fewer Hispanic children would learn the critical skills of reading, writing, and speaking English at an early age.

If Congress doesn’t have the answer, what can be done to address the crisis facing Hispanic children in the classroom? Fortunately, there is a promising solution.

A growing number of states and communities are enacting school choice policies that let parents use their children’s share of public education funding to choose the best school for their child. This gives parents the power to ensure that their children receive a quality education. If a child isn’t thriving in his or her current classroom, parents can pick a new school where the child will receive a better education. Giving parents choices puts pressure on schools to succeed.

And giving parents more control in education is a popular idea. For example, a recent poll conducted by Harvard University researchers found that school choice reforms are popular among Hispanics. Sixty percent of Hispanics support providing school vouchers to disadvantaged students, and 54 percent support giving all children scholarships to transfer out of failing schools.

For far too long, parents have been waiting for government and politicians to fix our schools. Instead, government and politicians should give parents a chance by letting them choose the best school for their children.

From the Daily Grito: I agree with Dan that NCLB is an imperfect law, but I don't necessarily believe that NCLB and school choice are mutually exclusive reform strategies. Although parents should have more educational options (and children have the chance to attend better schools NOW, not ten years from now), I also see the accountability of NCLB as a positive measure to improve public schools. Certainly, NCLB can be improved, but I don't think that it should be abandoned. In an ideal world, America's public schools would be so phenomenal that they would satisfy every child's learning needs. But since they aren't there yet, let's work on improving them while we give children other options and a fighting chance.

* Please note that this has also been published in the Heritage Foundation's Education Notebook.