no child left behind in art? - university of north...

No Child Left Behind in Art?

LAURA H. CHAPMAN

In June 2004, three out of fourpublic schools in Florida failed tomeet a new federal standard forschool improvement, includingone arts school that had earned

"A" ratings on statewide tests for fourconsecutive years (Shanklin 2004).How can so many schools, including"A" schools, be failing?

The answer: the No Child Left BehindAct of 2001 (U.S. Congress 2001). Theact is reshaping public education in theUnited States. In this article, I identifykey terms and regulations in the law andindicate how it is related to the compan-ion Education Sciences Reform Act of2002 (U.S. Congress 2002). At the close,I consider the impact of NCLB on ourschools, including our best ones.

Early reports about the NCLB lawwere confusing. In pursuit of moreinformation, I downloaded the wholelaw and have since focused on under-standing the vision of excellence that itpromotes, the implications of thisvision, and their relationship to largerpolitical currents. The law also hasmany implications for arts education,but I find it difficult to see how thesecan be positive. Although I am not alonein that judgment, it is also important torecognize that NCLB earned substantialbipartisan support in Congress and thatneither political party, at present, pro-poses major changes in it.

In theory, the law articulates the ideathat all students can learn far more thanteachers may currently expect of them.NCLB is intended to close achievementgaps among students. It requires thatschools use teachers who are well qual-ified in the subjects that they teach andseeks greater engagement of parents inmonitoring the quality of the schoolsthat their children attend. Nevertheless,the thrust of the law is punitive. In seek-ing improvements, it deploys moresticks than carrots.

The Alphabet Soup:NCLB, ESRA, and AYP

According to the U.S. Department ofEducation Web site, NCLB is "based onfour basic principles: stronger account-ability for results, increased flexibilityand local control, expanded options forparents, and an emphasis on methods thathave been proven to work."' NCLB has aparallel in other, less publicized legisla-tion, the Education Sciences Reform Actof 2002 (ESRA 2002). The two laws areclosely related. In funding educationalresearch, ESRA says, federal officialswill seek scientific proofs of effective,low-cost, user-friendly, and replicable"best practices" in education. The bestpractices, identified by ESRA's criteria,must be used for school improvementsundertaken with funds from NCLB.

If NCLB stresses back-to-basics with a

vengeance under the guise of excellence,ESRA offers an image of scientificresearch as "secular, neutral, and non-ideological." This is a position at oddswith the uses of research in human affairsand particularly at odds with No ChildLeft Behind (for example, Berliner andBiddle 1995, Ewen 1996).

In matters of school management, forexample, both NCLB and ESRA use theidea of continuous improvement inorganizations (Demming 1982), recast-ing it as "adequate yearly progress"(AYP). This means that schools mustproduce annual increments in test scoreson statewide tests. The goal is to ensurethat 95 to 100 percent of students score"proficient or above" in reading, mathe-matics, and science by 2014. As thehumorist Garrison Keillor might put it,the goal is to ensure that "all the chil-dren are above average" (1985).

In subtle and not so subtle ways,NCLB creates the illusion of not intrud-ing on local decisions about schoolswhile using incentives and mandates tomicromanage them. For example, thelaw says that "core academic subjects"include foreign languages; civics andgovernment; economics; arts; historyand geography; English/language arts,mathematics; and science. At the sametime, only the last three subjects aretreated as vital in many sections of thelaw. The law offers incentives for teach-

Vol. 106, No. 2, November/December 2004

ing "traditional American history, apartfrom social studies," and thus keeps at adistance multicultural and critical per-spectives (Title II). In relation to foreignlanguage, the law actually specifiesminutes and days per week for instruc-tion in elementary schools (Title V).

Although states are responsihle forinterpreting the law under guidancefrom USDE, federal control of publicschools moves forward with NCLB andwith an authoritative role for ESRA indeciding which practices may he usedfor school improvement (Manzo2004a). Indeed, NCLB is the most com-prehensive federal effort to microman-age puhlic schools in United States his-tory. Because every puhlic school islikely to he affected hy the draconianrequirements of the law, arts educatorsshould understand key provisions of it.(Figure 1 offers a brief history of trendsbearing on NCLB and what the lawrequires until 2014).

Some Key Terms In NCLB

NCLB is a massive document filledwith legalistic language and layers ofparts, sections, and subparts. In a sidebarbelow ("Summary of Titles in NCLB"), Iindicate the structure of the law and com-ment on selected topics. Some key termsin NCLB are delineated helow.

Best practices. "Best practices" aredefined as (a) aligned with national andstate standards for achievement, {b)"scientifically proven" to be least costlyand with best outcomes, and (c) "ahle tobe applied, duplicated, and scaled-up"for wide use. Scientific proof means thatevidence for best practices comes fromexperimental research, with randomassignments of students to "interven-tions," not qualitative research alone(ESRA Title I, Olson and Viadero2002). The goal is a limited set of off-the-shelf teaching methods, guaranteedto work and available from a USDEaffiliated Web site, "What Works," athttp://www.w-w-c.org/.

Standards. Each state is required tohave the same achievement standardsfor students in puhlic schools. The stan-dards must identify what studentsshould know and be able to do at fourlevels: below basic, basic, proficient.

1994. National and state standards for most subjects were established under the Goals2000 project. These standards, in tandem with NAEP definitions of proficiency, becomereference points for aligning tests, curricula, and instruction to the standards (Council ofChief State School Officers 2002). Under the Elementary and Secondary Act, schoolsreceiving Title I funds administer statewide tests in mathematics and reading three timesduring a K-12 span. Compliance was uneven. Even so, these scores count as a haselinefor NCLB compliance.

2001-02. NCLB is passed. Prior scores in reading and mathematics are used to sanctionfailing schools (now dubbed "in need of improvement" or "corrective action"). Theimmediate result is that 8,600 Title I schools must create a school improvement plan andmake AYP in 2002-2003 or face additional sanctions. States begin to determine their tar-gets for AYP. A charter school movement, taking root since the late 1970s, is given amajor boost by NCLB.

2002-03. Statewide plans and targets for AYP in reading and mathematics are filed forUSDE approval. Targets are calculated backward from 2014 according to various formu-las, including not less than a 5 percent to 10 percent annual increase in test scores(Christie 2003). Students for whom English is a second language must be tested for Eng-lish proficiency. States set targets for "highly qualified teachers" in every classroom with-in the next three years.

2005-06. States must have standards for science. Students must be tested in reading andmathematics annually in grades 3-8, and once more in grades 10-12. Middle and highschool teachers must have a degree in the subject that they are assigned to teach.

2007-14. Annual statewide science tests are required in at least one of three grade spans(3-5, 6-9, 10-12) along with tests in reading and mathematics in grades 3-8. Some stu-dents also take NAEP reading and mathematics tests in grades 4 and 8. In 2014, 95 per-cent to 100 percent of students must score "proficient or above" in reading, mathematics,and science.

FIGURE 1. A brief time line bearing on NCLB.

and advanced. States must also identify,develop, and disseminate "high quality,effective" curricula aligned to nafionaland state standards. These mandates areintended to reduce variability in educa-tional aims, content, methods of teach-ing, and measures of achievement.

Assessments. All public schools arerequired to administer statewide tests.These state-approved tests must be "rig-orous," "demanding," "academic," "sec-ular, neutral, and non-ideological." Testsmay be norm or criterion-referenced,uniquely developed for the state or incollaboration with other states. Testsfrom commercial vendors may be usedfor a school to receive any credit formaking adequate yearly progress; 95percent of enrolled students must takethese mandated tests.

Only 1 percent of students, those withthe most severe cognitive limitations, areexempt from tests. Students with limitedproficiency in English are expected topass statewide tests presented in Englishwithin three years after beginning stud-ies of English. Nationally, nearly 20 per-

cent of students speak a language otherthan English at home, and these percent-ages double in some states (Rumbergerand Gandara 2003).

States must also agree to participate inNational Assessment of EducationalProgress (NAEP) tests in reading andmathematics at grades 4 and 8. NAEPtests help to identify states where stan-dards and tests in these subjects are notsufficiently rigorous (Porter 2002). Testsmust include an itemized score analysisso that teaching can focus on "the needsindicated by the items" (Title I). Scoreson specific items thus become part of adiagnostic-prescriptive method of teach-ing aimed at improving test scores. Thisis just shy of saying, "teach to the test."

Adequate yearly progress. In NCLBand in ESRA, the centerpiece of reformis "adequate yearly progress" (AYP).AYP is a measurable target for improvedtest scores in reading (or English/lan-guage arts), mathematics, and science.There are rewards for schools that meetor exceed the target and penalties forschools that do not. Scores must be

Arts Education Policy Review

sively to leverage additional funds from private-sector investors in an arrangement analogous to a bank or credit union underwriting loansfor charter schools. In this pattern of funding, it is not clear where the line might be drawn between proportional investments from publicand private sources and, therefore, whether a school initially chartered as "public" must remain public.

Subpart 3, "Voluntary Public School Choice Programs," provides funds for other programs that offer parental choice in schools, espe-cially schools that prevent dropouts and focus on academic achievement in reading, math, and science. Among the "new opportunities" forchoice are transfers across districts, with tuition reimbursements from the sending and receiving districts.

Title VI. Flexibility and Accountability. Most of the funds are for administrative oversight. Some flexibility in using funds is permittedif these arrangements are clearly related to academic achievement. In exchange for flexibility, SEAs (state education authorities) and LEAsmust undergo rigorous "performance reviews" and face penalties if there are problems in (a) accountability for AYP or {b) equalized spend-ing for private schools. A "Rural Education Initiative" for low-income schools is targeted for elimination.

Title VII. Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education. Grants are for "integrated services" that improve educational oppor-tunities for children and adults in these demographic groups. The use of funds is to be coordinated with programs offered through theDepartment of the Interior and other agencies.

Title VIII. Impact Aid. Funds are reserved for communities with schools that serve large numbers of children whose parents are in theArmed Forces or federal employees. Many of these schools are adjacent to military installations.

Title IX. General Provisions. This is a compendium of procedural rules indicating how SEAs and LEAs may apply for grants and meetfederal requirements. Some rules are uniform for all federal agencies and some can be waived or modified at the discretion of the secretaryof education. This title treats faith-based initiatives and school prayer permitted in accordance with state law. Limitations are placed onnational testing and certification for teachers, "federally sponsored testing" of students (except for NAEP), and a national database trace-able to individual students.

Title X. This is a compendium of minor amendments and technical corrections, with cross-references to federal legislation that bears onNCLB.

tracked in relation to race, ethnicity, gen-der, socioeconomic status, attendance,mobility, status in special education,limited English proficiency, qualifica-tions of teachers and paraprofessionals,and more. In combination, these cate-gories require 120 levels of analysis, cre-ating a statistical quagmire for decidingon best practices (Harvey 2003).

Report cards. Report cards for stu-dents are based on test scores, which arealso used to measure the effectivenessof teachers. Scores must be summarizedfor each subject, teacher, grade level orcourse, class, and subgroup of students.In order to track AYP, report cards alsoinclude retrospective data for one ormore years.

These reports flow upward to the dis-trict and state level, then to USDE,allowing for comparisons among states.Federal officials report to Congress ondegrees of compliance with forty keyrequirements of the law, including thesuccess or failure of public schools inclosing achievement gaps, employingwell-qualified teachers, and other mat-ters beyond the scope of this article(USDE 2003a). The data-gatheringchallenge is formidable and expensive.As of March 2004, only five states hadmet or were close to meeting theserequirements (Education Commissionof the States 2004).

This business model of educationalexcellence extends to a USDE partner-ship with Standard & Poor's (known forcredit ratings and stock analysis). S&P'sSchool Evaluation Service is compilingan online database for all publicschools, including reports on AYP and a"return on resources" index. This S&Pindex reflects how well each school per-forms in relation to district spending(Clark and Gutierrez 2004).

Types of Schools and EducationService Providers

Within the maze of NCLB regula-tions, I found a typology of schools andservices, not evident at first glance, butof use in tracking how the law works.

Traditional public schools. A "tradi-tional public school" is one that studentsattend by virtue of living in a geographiczone that also forms a tax base for aschool district. An elected school boardgoverns the district. It receives and allo-cates funds in accordance with its mis-sion while complying with regulationsfrom federal and state agencies. Tradi-tional public schools are classified inrelation to {a) the percentage of econom-ically disadvantaged students attendingthem and {b) the status of the school rel-ative to AYP, irrespective of the incomelevels of the students attending them.Thus, a school that previously earned an

"academic award," or status as a "distin-guished school" may be reclassified if ithas a significant drop in test scores forany subgroup of students (Cook 2001;Hardy 2002, 20).

In any given year, a traditional publicschool that fails to make AYP is classi-fied in one of two major ways, eachwith different consequences. The classi-fications are as follows.

Schools in need of improvement(INI). These schools have failed tomake AYP for two consecutive years.Schools are notified of their statusbefore the beginning of their third yearof operation. During this third year ofoperation, they have three months todevelop a two-year plan for improve-ment. The plan must identify the causesof failure and scientifically based strate-gies for improving AYP for each sub-group of students. The plan must beready to implement at the start of thefourth year. The school must make AYPin this fourth year or face "correctiveaction." In the meantime, students mayseek tutoring at district expense. It isworth noting that the "three months toplan" and "one year to improve"requirement leaves no time for staffdevelopment on what to improve orhow. The schedule is analogous to theidea of rapid turnaround for corpora-tions through a quick-fix process and


reveals the influence of business think-ing on school reform.

Schools in need of corrective action(UCA). These schools have failed tomake AYP after they have been under an"improvement plan" for one year. Fourcorrective options are available and maybe combined: (a) replace the teachers ofstudents who did not make AYP, (b)replace the entire curriculum with onescientifically based and require teachersto implement it, (c) reduce the manage-ment authority of the principal andteachers, or (d) hire outside experts toadvise on corrective action. During cor-rective action, students have the optionto transfer and qualify for tutoring andtransportation at district expense, withpriority given to students at the lowestlevel of achievement.^

Corrective action must result in AYPfor two consecutive years. If not, theschool must be closed or totally restruc-tured through options that include (a)reopening as a charter school, (b)replacing all staff whose students failedto make AYP, (c) hiring a for-profit man-agement company, or (d) yielding to astate takeover. In eifect, local control ofschools is lost by the intervention of thestate, and the state intervenes becausefederal law requires intervention.

Schools engaged in school-widereforms. Only traditional publicschools engaged in a school-widereform plan before NCLB can continuewith the reform. The reform muststrengthen the core academic program,use methods based on scientificresearch, and meet AYP targets. I con-clude from this that arts-based and arts-magnet programs in place beforeNCLB may continue if these schoolsconsistently make AYP.

Districts in need of corrective action.If all schools in a district are in need ofcorrective action, the district has oneyear to develop a new plan, and oneadditional year to make AYP under thenew plan. In the meantime, students areeligible for transfer to another districtwith transportation paid. If AYP is notmade for two consecutive years, theentire district must be abolished orreconstituted. The new plan may include(a) replacement of all district staff

responsible for inadequate AYP or (b) anew governance structure replacing thesuperintendent and school board.

Academic award and distinguishedschools. States are required to fund an"Academic Award" program for schoolsthat meet or exceed AYP for two consec-utive years. "Distinguished Schools" arein the top statewide tier of AYP for twoconse.';utive years. Five percent of fundsmay be awarded to distinguished staff inthese schools. At least 75 percent of the

and managing these for their benefit (forexample, providing loans for operation).

Charter schools survive by the level ofdemand for them and the satisfaction oftheir customers. They are market-driven.They are also free of making AYP andother NCLB requirements if (a) the statechartering laws and agencies providewaivers or (b) the secretary of educationunilaterally makes exemptions.

Private schools. Private schools maybe secular or religious, and operate as

W ithin this policy-formation matrix,advocates can manipuiate

pubiic discontent with values thatpublic schools have forwarded.

awarded funds must go to schools withthe lowest socio economic status.

Schools of Choice

Although many districts offer magnetschools and other choices, the law pro-motes certain schools that bypass over-sight by elected school boards and therequirements of NCLB. These includethe following kinds of schools:

Public charter schools. These schoolsare open to all; they are tuition-free, sec-ular, and authorized by independentchartering agencies established by statelaw. Charter schools typically have free-dom to bypass teachers, unions in mat-ters of seniority, salary, and benefits.They are eligible for a per-pupil tax sub-sidy, but they do not have assured fundsfor the construction and maintenance ofbuildings or a reliable source of fundsfor instructional materials, salaries, andso on.

Under Title V, NCLB pays for the costof charter school construction or leasingalong with salaries, materials, and otherexpenses for up to three years. Additionalfunds are earmarked to market the con-cept of charter schools and to establishbank-like entities, exclusively devoted tosecuring investments for charter schools

non-profit or for-profit entities. AllNCLB funds allocated to "neutral, sec-ular and non-ideological" programs inpublic schools must also be offered toprivate schools. The formula for distri-bution is based on private school stu-dents who are eligible for the sameNCLB programs in public schools.Federal funds may not be used for reli-gious instruction, but the definition ofwhen a program does, or does not,support religious instruction is notclear (Zirkel 2001).

For-profit ventures. Since 1990,members of the Association of Educa-tion Practitioners and Providers(AEPP), an "education industry tradeassociation," have actively pursued fed-eral funds (Chapman 2001). With thepassage of NCLB, they have moredirect access to these sources of fund-ing. AEPP includes corporations offer-ing franchise-like schools and tutoringservices along with educational man-agement organizations (EMOs), mar-keters of online distance education,financial companies (for example,Merrill Lynch), and more traditionalsuppliers of tests, school supplies, andso forth.^ AEPP also includes individu-als and think tanks active in promoting


vouchers and tax-credits and privatizingall public schools.

Faith-based Initiatives

In keeping with President Bush'sagenda of channeling funds to faith-based organizations, some NCLB pro-grams invite their participation and offerpreferential treatment for "novice"applicants (see sidebar below, "USDEPrograms Open to Faith-based Organi-zations"). Of these programs (funded at$2.7 billion with $190.5 million in dis-cretionary grants in 2003), only onecalls for scientifically based "best prac-tices." It is not widely known that faith-based service providers are free to by-pass laws bearing on non-discriminationin employment and services. Althoughfunds may not be used for religiousinstruction, educational services may beoffered in religious facilities.

On a related matter, NCLB requireseach state to certify that no school policy"prevents, or otherwise denies participa-tion in constitutionally allowed prayer inelementary and secondary publicschools" and prayer-related complaintsmust be reported to federal officials(Title IX). Because the matter of schoolprayer is not fully resolved and is actual-ly adjudicated in federal courts, not bythe USDE, legal experts anticipate courtcases over this aspect of NCLB (Walsh2003).

In the view of some critics, thesefaith-based initiatives (including thosein other federal agencies amounting toabout $65 billion in 2002) blur the linebetween church and state while reward-ing the political support that PresidentBush has garnered from religious con-servatives. That impression is amplifiedby a pattern of appointing a number offormer operatives in Pat Robertson'sChristian Coalition to oversee federalfaith-based initiatives as well as amarked absence of forthrightness indocumenting which faith-based groupsare receiving funds (Moyers 2003a,2003b).

AYP and the Status of Schools

Scores on statewide tests determinewhether a public school achieves AYPor not. AYP functions as a pass-fail

measure for the whole school. Tests areusually administered in late March orearly April. If all goes as planned, theoutcome is known before classes aredismissed in late May or early June. Inmany schools, test preparation occursthroughout March. In effect, aboutseven months of a school year are avail-able for teaching prior to test prepara-tion and administration.

In addition to the inevitability of testsfor AYP, every school has a particularhistory of prior performance on AYP.This history determines the conditionsunder which instruction occurs in anygiven year, and end-of-year success (orfailure) determines the status of theschool as it enters the following year. Inany given year until 2014, a school maybe one of the ten conditions presented infigure 2.

Even if schools escape being closed,many will be placed in a syndrome ofwhat one might call "alarm-whew-

hope" as they anticipate their reports onAYP and take action on the outcome.Others will be trying to re-invent them-selves. Few schools will be untouched.

Feasibility Issues

How feasible is the target of ensuringthat 95 percent to 100 percent of stu-dents will score at the level of "profi-cient or above" by the year 2014? Nofirm answer can be given. Paradoxically,"proficient" is not explicitly defined inNCLB. States are permitted to have dif-ferent standards, tests, and cut-off scoresto determine AYP.

Even so, scores on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress(NAEP) are the de facto standard forproficiency. Thus, if any state is tempt-ed to lower its standards and cut-offscores, it is likely to receive "correctiveguidance" from USDE, with help fromStandard & Poor's database. In addi-tion, there are think tanks devoted to

(The first four conditions are informal labels; they suggest the psychological effects onstaff of mandated "adequate yearly progress" [AYP]. Later, the abbreviations INI andUCA refer to "in need of improvement" and "under corrective action" and are officialdesignations of schools in NCLB.)

1. "OK": The school has met or exceeded AYP for at least two consecutive years fromthe first administration of tests and has continued to make AYP.

2. "Alarm": The school has a prior record of satisfactory AYP but fails in the currentyear. It is on alert status during the forthcoming year.

3. "Whew": The school has succeeded in making AYP after the alarm of failing in theprior year.

4. "Hope": The school has made AYP for two consecutive years after failing in one ormore prior nonconsecutive years.

5. "INI-one": The school is "in need of improvement," year one, because it failed tomake AYP for two consecutive years. Although it has developed a two-year improvementplan, it must make AYP in the forthcoming year or face corrective action.

6. "INI-two": The school is "in need of improvement," year two. Because it made AYPin the prior year, it continues its plan for improvement and must make AYP in this sec-ond year. If not, it faces corrective action.

7. "UCA-one": The school is "under corrective action," year one, because it failed tomake AYP under INI-one or INI-two. It is reconfigured under a new plan. If it fails tomake AYP during year one of the new plan, it will be closed.

8. "UCA-two": The school enters its second year of corrective action, because it hasmade AYP in the prior year. If it fails to make AYP during this year, it will be closed.

9. "UCA-three": The school enters its third year of corrective action because it has madeAYP in the two prior years. If it fails to make AYP this year, it will be closed.

10. "Closed": The school has failed to make AYP for two consecutive years after ex-hausting its options for reform.

FIGURE 2. Ten possible conditions of a school, in a given year underNCLB.


ranking states by the rigor of their stan-dards, tests, and so forth. On the horizonare further comparisons with interna-tional norms on tests in reading, mathe-matics, and science such as the Programfor International Student Assessmentsponsored by the Organisation for Eco-nomic Co-operation and Development(2002).'' Bad publicity is one price forhedging.

But how fair is the race? Clearly,states vary in the funds they can tap forK-12 education. NCLB funds areimportant, but they represent about 7percent to 12 percent of state budgetsfor K-12 education (Richard and Hoff2003). States differ in their demograph-ics, with great variability in districtwealth and proportions of students whoqualify for free lunches, are learningEnglish, and so forth. In effect, every-one enters the race at different startingpoints. Some schools, districts, andstates therefore have to demonstrate arate of annual improvement far greaterthan others.

Robert Linn, while president of theAmerican Educational Research Asso-ciation, concluded that the NCLB targetfor 2014 is unreasonable (2003). Forexample, if NAEP cut-off scores for"proficient or above" are used as thegold standard for improvement, no statecan meet the target of 95 percent to 100percent in all three core subjects by2014. Even if the standard were lowereda notch, to "basic or above," one out ofthree states could not meet the federaltarget. Linn estimates that half of allpublic schools will be subject to AYPsanctions even if they make dramaticimprovements.

Other issues are worth noting. First,in mandating plans for "scientific"remediation of learning problems,NCLB assumes that a school's popula-tion is relatively static: This year'sfourth graders will be enough like lastyear's fourth graders to proceed with anintervention, even if many of those stu-dents are now in the fifth grade or havetransferred to a different or higher per-forming school. Second, because stu-dents may transfer, better schoolsreceive weak students, and this maylower the chances that better schools

can make AYP. Meanwhile, the worstschools, having lost their weakest stu-dents, may increase their chances ofmaking AYR Some students alsoreceive tutoring. Even if all thesechanges are relatively small, they arelikely to prevent teachers from makingthe well-targeted "scientifically based"interventions envisioned by the law.There are many other feasibility issues.Many are still unresolved, and some areunlikely to have any credible resolution,even with sophisticated number crunch-ing. As these issues receive more atten-tion in the research community (as wellas in schools, statehouses, and themedia), the blame game for achieve-ment gaps is likely to escalate (Gardner2003, Hess 2003).

Tests as Instruments of Reform

To date, relatively little attention hasbeen given to the consequences ofNCLB, perhaps because the full impacthas yet to be felt. As I write this in thefall of 2004, USDE is still issuing regu-latory guidelines, and my local schoolboard is uncertain about key NCLBrequirements.

In the meantime, problems withhigh-stakes tests are either makingnews or are hidden under the rug. In thelatter category are fundamental prob-lems in the assumptions behind NCLB.For example, no scientific evidencesupports the idea that best or usefulpractices can be determined from a sin-gle test score or an item on a test.Among other critics, Popham (2003)notes that statewide tests often provideonly a single summary score or sub-scores tied to multiple standards. Only afew items indicate achievement for anysingle standard. Moreover, some stan-dards may not be represented on tests orwith the intended proportional empha-sis. The standards themselves are oftenvague, with multiple descriptors ofknowledge and skills that defy the inge-nuity of test makers (Chapman 1998,1999). Few tests eliminate all items thatdepend on knowledge acquired byvirtue of socioeconomic or inheritedadvantage (Burton 2001). Moststatewide tests, by reason of cost,amount to no more than "fill-in-the-

bubble for the best answer" exercises,offering limited or no guidance forteaching (Pedulla 2003). There are alsoless obvious psychological effects fromtesting. The Stanford achievement test(SAT-9) from Harcourt EducationalMeasurement, taken by 15 million stu-dents every year, tells teachers what todo if students vomit on their tests(Abrams and Madaus 2003). In Texas, aprincipal posts in the hallway a chartshowing the percentage of students ineach teacher's class who pass the statetest. The superintendent rafionalizesthis practice as a case of "leadershipand having the courage to put a focus onteacher effectiveness" (Galley 2003).

Not under the rug, and making plentyof news, are fiawed statewide assess-ments. These have large-scale effects,and these effects are magnified by thefact that three test-design companiesdominate the market. An error on aCTB/McGraw Hill test in New YorkCity unnecessarily sent thousands ofstudents to summer school. Minnesota'stest for high school graduation, scoredby NCS Pearson Measurement Service,had an incorrect sheet for answers,resulting in eight thousand studentsbeing told they could not graduate(Ohanian 2003).

Finally, there are ethical issues in pay-for-performance schemes. For students,awards are being offered just for takingtests. Why? A school can fail to makeAYP if more than 5 percent of studentsare absent on test days. Some Californiateachers refused to accept bonuses tiedto test scores, while others did not qual-ify for bonuses because parents heldtheir children out of state exams, follow-ing the lead of a school board member(Cook 2001).

Political Spin

The force of NCLB is far from theimagery of the temporary "little redschoolhouse" facades that have beenadded to several entrances at the Depart-ment of Education in Washington, DC.The publicity system of this logo-likeimage was matched by the 2003 addi-tion of eight communications staff to theten already in place in the Department.The eight additional staff, all political


appointees, function as spin doctors incharge of finding negative press reportsabout NCLB and offering "positivereports" with "accurate information"targeted for politicians, policymakers,and members of teachers' unions. Coin-cidentally, these new hires for publicity,at a cost of $500,000, began their workduring an interval when (a) pollsrevealed that 67 percent of Americanswould have preferred smaller tax cuts inorder to increase federal aid to schools

own standards for the use of scientifical-ly based research to formulate policy"(2002, 13). For example, only one of theforty-four sources cited in the secre-tary's report had been peer-reviewed atthe time of his recommendation, andonly one was published after the secre-tary's stance was made public. Further,the secretary's interpretation of the datamisrepresented the findings in the onepeer-reviewed study. The remainingforty-three citations in the secretary's

There is no indisputable evidencethat free-market education will

reduce casts, increase achievement,and after real chaice ta parents.

and (b) President Bush had requested$1.6 billion less for Title I than Con-gress ultimately provided (Robelen2003).

Since passage of NCLB, conservativethink tanks have flooded the media witharticles extolling the virtues of the law.For example, Frederick M. Hess, a resi-dent scholar at the American EnterpriseInstitute, argues for "coercive account-ability," with an analogy to the turn-around of the automotive industry in the1970s, as if producing "high perform-ing" automobiles is no different frommanufacturing high performing stu-dents and schools. Hess's "The Case forBeing Mean" appeared in EducationalLeadership (2003).

Many reports and commentaries illus-trate how the USDE fails to follow itsown criteria for policy and practice inrelation to scientifically based research.Of these, one will suffice. It centers on areport to Congress from the secretary ofeducation advocating entry into teach-ing that is based only on test scores in anacademic field (USDE 2003b). In offer-ing a detailed analysis of that report,Darling-Hammond and Youngs con-cluded that "the Secretary's report failedto meet the Department of Education's

report were position papers issued bytwo conservative think tanks. Darling-Hammond and Youngs support theircriticism with a review of studies thatunequivocally support the importance ofboth pedagogical knowledge and con-tent knowledge and the efficacy of par-ticular forms of teacher preparation.

There is nothing new in USDE's bla-tant use of data for a predeterminedagenda. What is new is the positioningof scientifically based knowledge as theonly warrant for policy and practice andthe political posturing that surroundsthat claim. There can be little doubt thatNCLB is the result of political doctrine,with an agenda shaped in large measureby conservative think tanks, corporateleaders, and non-profits set up to repre-sent their interests in education.^ Manyhave been active in shaping legislationand in organizing media campaigns thatportray all schools as failing (Berlinerand Biddle 1995, Bracey 1997).

Within this policy-formation matrix,advocates can manipulate considerablepublic discontent with particular subsetsof values that public schools have for-warded. Complaints surface in controver-sies encompassing almost every subject,including the arts, as well as standards for

conduct by teachers, students, andadministrators (People for the AmericanWay 1996). Nevertheless, at the sametime, polls show that support for publicschools remains strong and that mostparents are not, in fact, dissatisfied withthe schools their children attend (Roseand Gallup 2001, 2002). Even so, manycitizens do endorse improvements inteacher quality, achievement tests andother themes in NCLB (Rose and Gallup2003).

The Larger Agenda

Less obvious to many citizens andeducators is the place of NCLB in for-warding a broader agenda of disman-tling public education as a major civicinstitution. NCLB is part of a longstand-ing critique of so-called government-runschools. The movement owes much tothe economic theory of democracy, firstarticulated in the early 1960s by Nobeleconomist Milton Friedman (1962).Elsewhere I have summarized keypoints in this theory (Chapman 2001),but a few points are worth reemphasiz-ing here.

The Economic Theory of Democracy

In a nutshell, theorists like Friedmanequate political democracy with the free-dom of citizens to seek profits and thefreedom of customers to choose amonggoods and services that satisfy theirneeds or wants. In this economic matrix,government is seen as a monopoly thatrestricts competition, prevents innova-tion, limits the production of wealth, andrestricts freedom of choice. Furthermore,it is argued, under free-market condi-tions, private enterprise can offer betterpublic services at lower costs.

Free-market thinking is not unique toeducation or to the United States. It isthe accepted doctrine of governments inmany developed nations and promotedby various international organizations.It can be seen in efforts to deregulatepublic utilities (communications, ener-gy, water, and so forth) and privatizemany social services, extending even asfar as for-profit prisons (Boyles 1998,Kohn 2004). In extending this conceptto education, Friedman and Friedman(1980) proposed a system of socializing

10 Arts Education Policy Review

the costs of schooling while privatizingthe profits and increasing consumerchoice. In this approach, public educa-tion is construed as a "government-runmonopoly" serving the interests ofteachers' unions, politicians who wanttheir votes, and all other educationbureaucrats whose jobs depend on amonopolistic system.

These self-interested activities, Fried-man contends, combined with laws forcompulsory education and taxation forschools, limit parental choice in educat-ing their children. They also representan undemocratic intrusion of govern-ment into matters of culture throughstate-approved standards and curricula,often at odds with the views of parents.Public schools also require parents whowant private schools to pay twice, oncefor "other people's children" and againfor their own. In free-market schooling,by contrast, customers have freedom ofchoice among educational services. Bydefinition, the best education satisfiesparental wishes for their children.

In addition to these economicassumptions, moral values enter into theargument. For example, when parentspay the full cost of education, there isusually greater oversight of the valuethat they receive. Some parents mayneed to rearrange their priorities inorder to pay for education. This encour-ages responsible parenting, fiscal self-discipline, and increases the likelihoodthat children will be diligent learners.For example, Myron Lieberman, whoadvocates total replacement of publicschools with profit-centered schools,believes that "Private schools of thefuture may foster some of the moral val-ues associated with a religious point ofview. This would seem especially likelyif government schools are replaced byschools for profit" (Lieberman 1994,xix, emphasis added).

Free-market thinking has earned polit-ical support from unlikely allies. Forexample, market-driven schools are oftenfavored by fiscal conservatives whobelieve public schools are too expensiveand mismanaged (Walsh 2001). Others,who align themselves with liberal values,believe that schools are democratic insti-tutions only in theory, too much alike.

and too dominated by corporate thinking(Eisner 2003). Still others, who identifythemselves as cultural or religious con-servatives, are disenchanted with particu-lar values forwarded in schools (Peoplefor the American Way 1996). For verydifferent reasons, these views converge inconsiderable support for customer choiceand market-based schooling. The conse-quences can be seen in bipartisan supportfor NCLB, as well as court cases testingwhen taxes for public schools may bedirected to private schools.

Contradictions in the Free-MarketModel of Education

Rhetoric about free-market educationis noteworthy for some contradictions.Among many, I will here note only afew. First by its own logic, free-marketeducation is a myth if compulsory edu-cation laws guarantee a flow of cus-tomers and subsidies are provided toany of the parties. Proponents of free-market education actually want compul-sory attendance laws and school taxes tocontinue, the latter to flow to the privatesector.

Second, the free-market modelassumes that schools serve no publicinterest beyond that represented in thechoices of parents for their own chil-dren. Adults who are not parents ofschool-age children are presumed to beindifferent to education and thusdeprived of voice in how others investtheir taxes for schooling.

Third, the model treats democraticgovernance as no different from a mar-ket, where people vote with their pocket-books and the deepest pockets get themost perks. Not only is the role ofmoney in political life aggrandized, butit is also conflated with freedom anddemocracy. Moreover, free markets havenothing necessarily to do with an ethicof caring or with a just, equitable, andcivil society (Anderson 1993).

Fourth, the model assumes that, forevery parent and child, the market willprovide an affordable and desirablechoice and that parents will make fullyinformed and rational choices about edu-cation. The irony is that not even leadingeconomists believe that rational choiceoperates in the market (McCloskey

1990). In fact, when schools advertise forcustomers, funds are being diverted fromthe education of students.

Fifth, the model does not allow forthe possibility that an excellent educa-tion may be one that allows students totranscend the horizons of parents. Inthis respect, the free market tends toensure that differences in social andeconomic class are retained, along withdeeply entrenched values in society,even if they are unjust.

Sixth, the most commonly citedprecedent for choice is the GI Bill, ini-tially designed for veterans of WorldWar II who sought vocational trainingor a college education. This paradigm ismisapplied to public education, whereattendance is compulsory, where stu-dents are not yet of age and not usuallyscreened for admission, and where fail-ing students do not go away unless anduntil they are of dropout age. Further,the GI Bill was well funded. States haveestimated that NCLB mandates areunderfunded by about $65 billion andthat tests alone will cost from $1.9 to$5.3 billion annually, depending ontheir complexity (Harvey 2003).

Finally, a free market follows thelogic of a zero-sum game. There arewinners and losers along the way—from schools to teachers, to parents, tostudents. Contrary to the views of legis-lators who shaped NCLB, there is noindisputable evidence that free-marketeducation will reduce costs, increaseachievement, and offer real choice toparents, especially for those with chil-dren "at risk" (House 1998, Kohn2004). Specifically, there is no com-pelling evidence that charter schools aremore effective than traditional publicschools in raising the test scores of "at-risk" students (Viadero 2004).

Prospects for Arts Education underNCLB

The arts were initially included inNCLB. In 2003, earmarked funds werecut on the grounds that the Bush Admin-istration has a "policy of terminatingsmall categorical programs with limitedimpact in order to fund higher priorities"(USDE 2003a). Funds were limited to$30 million and focused on programs

Vol. 106, No. 2, November/December 2004 11

that "integrate the arts into the curricu-lum" (one of several acknowledgmentsthat the arts are not really part of the reg-ular or core curriculum). The law alsoauthorized arts education activities inresearch; model school-based arts educa-tion programs; development of statewidetests; in-service programs; and unspeci-fied collaborations among federal agen-cies, arts and arts education associations.

However, from the outset, a "SpecialRule" signaled that funding for theseactivities was not ensured. Unless thesecretary of education had more than $ 15million available for arts education in agiven year, all of the available moneyshould flow to the "performing arts pro-grams" offered through the KennedyCenter for the Performing Arts in Wash-ington, DC, with particular emphasis onthe Very Special Arts program for stu-dents who have disabilities (Title V).

Grants for arts education have beenmade for professional development, thedevelopment of "model" arts in educa-tion programs, and for their dissemina-tion, as well as for afterschool programsintended to reduce dropouts andimprove academic achievement. Forexisting arts magnet schools, the clearpriorities are for improvements in read-ing, mathematics, and science (Title V).Similarly, support for advanced place-ment courses must focus on "the coreacademic subjects of English, mathe-matics, and science" (Title I).

Agile grant seekers in the arts havereceived about $46 million for profes-sional development and "model" pro-grams since 2001. Of the 45 model pro-gram/dissemination grants between2001 and 2004 (about $35 million), 64percent have artist-in-schools or artistresidency components, while 46 percentwere awarded to arts agencies. Many ofthe latter grants (along with those toeducational agencies) were indistin-guishable from grants under the Arts inEducation program of the NationalEndowment for the Arts (NEA). In fact,during 2004, some model programsreceived grants from USDE and NEA,with substantial NCLB funds allocatedto external evaluations of the success ofartists as "teaching artists," "art coach-es," and "artist-educators" or in roles

such as curriculum developers andteacher trainers. In some multiyear pro-grams, dissemination efforts areplanned on the assumption that evalua-tions will be positive and merit the elab-orate publicity and replication plans intheir proposals.^

Arts education grants from NCLBmay strengthen some programs, butweighed against other considerations, theprospects for arts education in manyother schools are far from bright. As thetimeline for NCLB illustrates, the pres-sure to score high on tests is very high. InNorth Carolina, 80 percent of elementaryteachers report they spend six to sevenweeks preparing for end-of-year tests(Abrams and Madaus 2003). Statewidetests may preempt another full weekbecause the time may be distributed overseveral days. Some tests take seventeenhours to complete (Meek 2003).

The proliferation of mandated tests inthe next decade will likely mean thattime for instruction in many subjectssuch as the arts is reduced. In elemen-tary schools, test-prep and test takingmay well exceed the twenty-six hourstypically devoted to visual arts instruc-tion in a year (NCES 2002). Althoughsome statewide arts assessments areunder development, the scores do notcount as a measure of AYR Further, Iknow of no state that guarantees suffi-cient continuity in arts instruction towarrant arts tests as measures of in-school learning (Arts Education Part-nership 2003, Hatfield and Reeno 2002).

Arts programs are especially vulnera-ble to cuts in the many states already infinancial trouble and in public schoolswhere 35 percent or more of students are"at risk" for academic failure. In suchcontexts, it seems likely that several pat-terns of practice will emerge. The firstmay involve pressure for greater integra-tion of the arts into the so-called regularcurriculum. If this direction is to haveintegrity for learning in the arts, however,collaborative planning time is required.That condition is extremely rare, espe-cially in elementary schools, and it isunlikely to improve as schools acceleratetest prep activities (NCES 2002, Meek2003).

The "art as recess" and "art as enrich-

ment" syndromes are likely to increase.In my home city, classroom teachers arerequired to plan their calendars so thateveryone knows exactly when to teachwhich parts of the curriculum and pre-cisely when to assess progress. Studentswho master the material on time earn"enrichment" classes, while the othersengage in remedial work (Harden2003). In this case, art functions as abribe or reward. It is perceived as ahands-on, minds-off activity to beearned.

A third prospect is that art programswill be extracurricular or cut altogether(NAEA 2003a). In early 2004, a Coun-cil on Basic Education survey indicatedthat 25 percent of principals had cutarts education and 33 percent anticipat-ed future reductions. In schools withhigh-minority populations, 36 percentreported decreases and 42 percentanticipated them in the near future.Only 10 percent reported increases oranticipated these. In states with high-stakes tests before NCLB, 43 percent ofteachers reported that they had"decreased a great deal" the time spentteaching fine arts, with the greatestimpact in elementary schools and thenmiddle schools (Redulla 2003).

Arts education is likely to survive inthis academic regime, but it is vulnera-ble to cuts in the high-stakes climate of"test-'em-'til-they-drop" and the questfor standardized teaching methods. Thatdoes not include the unrelenting rhetoricof proponents of NCLB who argue "thecase for being mean" in exercising edu-cational leadership (Hess 2003, Robeln2004). Nothing in NCLB supportsteaching or teacher preparation fromcritically informed and artful perspec-tives. Traditions of teaching and learn-ing in the visual arts are, in the main,contrary to the prevailing ethos ofnational policy at many levels (Chap-man 2002, Eisner 2003, Greene 1988,Tillim 1999). Under NCLB, the studentswho are most likely to have sustainedand coherent instruction are also likelyto be advantaged in many ways. In themain, these are already the students whobenefit from arts education in schools(Burton 2001).

The NCLB Act also has implications


for teacher education, research, and lead-ership in arts education. For example, Ithink it fair to say that most teacher edu-cation programs and professional associ-ations of arts educators have been builtaround the assumption that publicschools will be an enduring fixture in oursociety. NCLB actively promotes aweakening of this system and with rippleeffects into higher education. UnderNCLB, undergraduate teacher prepara-tion can be bypassed. Underemployedartists with a college degree in an artform can be recruited as teachers with nopedagogical training beyond that provid-ed by districts or by arts agencies alreadyengaged in training "teaching artists." Asa path for professional development andincubator for research, graduate educa-tion is less likely to thrive. Under ESRA,moreover, qualitative research is deval-ued and largely disqualified from federalsupport. Charter colleges of education areemerging, and some EMOs offer theirown proprietary scripts for teaching, freeof any pretense that teaching requiresindependent judgment (Wisniewski1997). In all of this, the capacity for lead-ership from thoughtful and conscientiouseducators in the arts is diminished.

Concluding Observations

At this juncture, I hope most for amajor backlash against NCLB, andthere are signs that this may somedayhappen. In early 2004, twenty-onestates were considering legislation torefuse all NCLB funds or funds for par-ticular programs (Manzo 2004b). Somestate officials are concerned about the"lost curriculum" of studies in the arts,humanities, and foreign languages(NAEA 2003b). The Council on BasicEducation has expressed concernsabout the "atrophied curriculum"(2004). A recent survey indicates that82 percent of parents of public schoolstudents and 80 percent of the generalpublic are concerned that an intensefocus on tests in English and math "willmean less emphasis on art, music, his-tory and other subjects" (Rose andGallup 2003, 46).

In July 2004, the secretary of educa-tion, cognizant of these trends, issued a"key policy letter" on arts education to

superintendents stating that "it is bothdisturbing and just plain wrong" forpeople to infer that "arts education pro-grams are endangered because of NoChild Left Behind." The letter cites theintrinsic value of the arts and gives sev-eral examples of funded programs.Equal space is devoted to asserting the"value-added benefits of the arts" basedon "research evidence" presented inCritical Links: Learning in the Arts andStudent Academic and Social Develop-ment (Arts Education Partnership,2002). Although it is politically usefulto recycle the findings in Critical Links,the studies in this document do not, infact, meet NCLB's criteria for researchevidence (Title I, Gee 2003).

In the decade ahead, the nation's pub-lic schools will be transformed, butwhether the effects are positive remainsto be seen. NCLB does capitalize on acertain amount of disenchantment withpublic schools, but it is also designed totip the balance point of public opiniontoward a free-market system (FordhamFoundation 2000).

It is no small irony that, with all of itsemphasis on policy and practiceinformed by scientific evidence, there isno persuasive evidence that the aims ofNCLB are feasible. In this respect,NCLB is the most extensive and expen-sive reform in United States history, yetit is proceeding in the absence of rigor-ous scientific evidence in support of itsprovisions (Amrein and Berliner 2003,Darling-Hammond and Youngs 2002,Lauder and Hughes 1999).

In my judgment, NCLB embodies aphilosophy of education that equates edu-cation with training. The law envisionsschools as factories for leaming, with nochild left behind on the assembly line.The rhetorical thrust of NCLB is that of astem parent who mandates compliancewith a regimen of rigorous academicstudy, without any room for questioningthat agenda. NCLB also capitalizes onseveral decades of unrelenting criticismof public schools, including crisisrhetoric unsupported by facts anddesigned to suppress attention to condi-tions beyond the world of schools thataffect leaming in schools (Berliner andBiddle 1995, Ohanian 2003).

The broad stroke of politicalrhetoric about "failing" Americanschools is misleading. What cannot bedenied is the systematic relationshipbetween student performance and indi-cators of social class advantage such asparental education and wealth. Thishard fact applies to NAEP scores in thearts, but even more to sustained accessto curriculum-based arts education inschools (NCES 2002). Although somepeople might support de-schooling artseducation altogether, I am not amongthem. Public schools are the one insti-tution most clearly positioned to offerall students instruction, irrespective ofdifferences in social class and precon-ceptions about their talents, interests,or their aspirations for a career in art.

NCLB is unlikely to be put aside in thenext decade. In the 2004 presidentialcampaign (whose outcome is unknownas I write this), neither political party hasoffered many suggestions for changingthe law except tinkering with the funding.This indicator of political support for thelaw does not mean that changes areimpossible, but it does indicate the needfor far greater anticipatory policy wis-dom and action from within our field,especially in preparation for major elec-tion cycles—local, state, and national.

I end by urging others who are com-mitted to public schools to closely mon-itor, report on, and resist policies andpractices that have the effect of demean-ing the arts and studies of them. In myjudgment, that is precisely what NCLBauthorizes and promotes, as if that posi-tion were enlightened policy. It is not,but silence from within the professionbecomes an unspoken assent to it.

If one agrees that NCLB is unworthyas a federal model for excellence ineducation, there are several steps totake in seeking changes in the law,including writing to your representa-tives in Congress and state legislaturesand identifying problems in the law,suggesting changes, and enlisting oth-ers in that effort, especially parents.One can also engage the media in acommunity with reporting on the realimpact of the law, well beyond the typ-ical fare of league tables namingschools that pass or fail AYP.


One can also challenge the vision of"excellence" in the law. For example, Ithink the single most enduring andirrefutable hallmark of excellence is abalanced program of studies in the arts,sciences, and humanities. If the arts andhumanities become the "lost curriculum,"substantive achievement gaps will bewidened and inequities in opportunity tolearn will be exacerbated.

One can also try to get one's state tofollow the lead of several states thathave redefined "basic," "adequate," or"quality" education to include studies inthe arts, which can also leverage timeand funding for instruction (NAEA2004). At the local level, one can pressfor a mission statement in each schoolthat gives parity to studies in the arts,sciences, and humanities; in seekingparity for these three broad domains ofstudy, learning in reading, writing, andmathematics is not subverted. After all,reading, writing, and mathematics arethe true "tool subjects" for academic,book-based learning, and those skillsshould enhance learning in the arts, sci-ences, and humanities. One should rec-ognize that the arts have academic con-tent, but like the sciences andhumanities, the arts are not merely aca-

demic in their import. One should bewary of justifying engagement in the artsas little more than a compelling strategyfor improving test scores, reducingdropout rates, and the rest. Those claimsare equally common in seeking supportfor hands-on math and science, fieldtrips, competitive sports, and so forth.One should emphasize that publicschools are the only venue well posed toguarantee an opportunity for all stu-dents, in a systematic and sustained pro-gram of study, to acquire knowledge andappreciation in the arts. Insofar as publicschools undertake this mission, eachgeneration is better prepared to appreci-ate the arts and contribute to the processof sustaining them as a major domain ofhuman accomplishment.

As a practical matter, I also urgegreater use of language that emphasizesthe importance of studies in the arts andlearning in them. Portrayals of the artsonly as hands-on activities may reinforcestereotypes that the arts are mindless—afrill, bonus, or "enrichment." An easyfirst step is to ensure that exhibitions/per-formances of student art include a writtenor oral narrative about what students havelearned, preferably with contributionsfrom students, and observations by par-

ents and school officials. A second andmore difficult step is to contrive occa-sions for our colleagues in the arts andeducation to engage in sustained andintellectually informed conversationsabout arts education, in contrast to pub-licity-based advocacy.

Finally, in working on behalf of artseducation in schools, one should avoidself-inflicted wounds. Consider thecumulative import of cliches such as thefollowing:

• "Art speaks for itself."• "If you have to explain it, it isn't art."• "Art is a universal language everyone

can understand."• "You don't have to know anything

about art to know what you like."• "Anyone can create art and art can be

anything."• "Art is anything you can get away

with."• "Art is caught more than taught."• "Don't teach art, let art teach."

All of these sound-bites function asarguments against the efficacy of for-mal education in the arts; they get usnowhere. The arts deserve betterrhetoric in the arenas where educationalpolicies are made.

USDE Programs Open to Faith-based Organizations

Faith-based organizations are specifically recruited for seven NCLB programs. These are listed below with their fiscal year 2003 appro-priations.

Parental Information and Resource Centers Program. Centers help parents understand the state accountability system, supplementaryservices, and school choice options. Novice applicants may be awarded from ten to thirty points as an incentive to design programs ($20.5million in grants with awards ranging from $200,000 to $700,000 for fiscal year 2003).

Safe and Drug Free Schools—Mentoring Programs. Mentoring programs for at-risk children to improve their academic achievement andprevent students from dropping out ($17 million appropriated for fiscal year 2003).

Early Reading First. A discretionary grant program for the use of "scientific reading research-based instructional materials and literacyactivities" in preschool programs, especially for low-income families (over $73.7 million appropriated for fiscal year 2003). This is the onlyfaith-based program requiring scientific evidence.

Migrant Education-Even Start. A discretionary grant program designed to improve literacy and break a cycle of poverty among migrantfamilies through programs that integrate preschool, parenting education, adult literacy, and basic education ($8.7 million appropriated forfiscal year 2003).

Carol M. White Physical Education Program. A discretionary grant program under the Safe and Drug Free Schools program, providingequipment, support, and staff training to improve physical education in grades K-12 ($59.5 million appropriated for fiscal year 2003).

21st Century Community Learning Centers. A formula grant program to states. LEAs (local educational authorities) may apply if they"partner" with community organizations. Programs focus on academic enrichment, tutoring, drug and violence prevention, art, music, recre-ation, technology, character education, and family literacy ($991.7 million appropriated in fiscal year 2003).

Supplemental Educational Services. LEAs must use funds to provide out-of-school academic assistance and other interventions for stu-dents enrolled in Title I schools that are in their second year of school improvement, in corrective action, or in restructuring. Organizationsmust be approved by the state as "qualified." Lists of service providers must be broadly publicized so that parents have as many choices aspossible (about $1 billion appropriated in fiscal year 2003).

For more information, see http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/fbci/grants.html.


Notes

1. These four "principles" for NCLBreflect the inflow of briefing papers fromprominent think tanks into the policy for-mation process. Many of these papersanticipated a Republican victory after theClinton administration. An example is"Education 2001: Getting the Job Done, Amemorandum for the President-elect and107th Congress," offered by the FordhamFoundation. Four of the eight authors areformer USDE officials in Republicanadministrations: Chester E. Finn, Jr. (adepartment counselor), William J. Bennett(Secretary of Education), Diane Ravitch(Assistant Secretary for Research andImprovement), William D. Hansen (Assis-tant Secretary for Management and Bud-get). Six of the eight authors are affiliatedwith well-known conservative think tanks:the Hoover Institution, Empower America,Manhattan Institute, Brookings Institution,the Anne E. Casey Foundation, and theHeritage Foundation.

2. Tutoring and other supplementary ser-vices must be provided at district expenseif students are in schools "in need ofimprovement," or "under correctiveaction." Parents choose from a list of state-approved providers. Providers must offer afull academic year of service (thirty toforty hours) with content that is "secular,neutral, and non-ideological." At the sametime, faith-based organizations may applyfor state approval as service providers. For-profit rates for tutoring at school are about$35-$40 per hour per student, with onetutor for six students.

3. Among persons active in AEPP areJack Clegg, C!EO and chairman of NobelLearning Communities, Inc. (an educationalmanagement company); Michael Milken,chair of Knowledge Universe (an onlineeducation venture) and cofounder of theMilken Family Foundation; Billie Orr, for-mer associate superintendent of the ArizonaState Department of Education (the statewith the most charter schools); and JeanneAllen, president of the Center for Education-al Reform (a conservative think tank). Twoother former USDE officials are involved infor-profit ventures. Chester E. Finn, Jr., is apartner in Edison Schools. William R. Ben-nett has an online school at http://www.K12.com/. (See also note 1)

4. For more information on the Organisa-tion for Economic Co-operation and Devel-opment, see http://www.oecd.org/.

5. Among many conservative think tanksarticulating ideas reflected in NCLB are theMilton and Rosa Friedman Foundation.Milton Friedman, a Nobel Laureate in Eco-nomics, developed the concept of vouchers.Prominent spokespersons include LynnCheney (former chair of the NationalEndowment for the Humanities, wife of

Vice President Cheney), as well as WilliamBennett and Chester E. Finn, Jr. (see alsonotes 1 and 3). Among the influential cor-porate entities in shaping NCLB are theBusiness Roundtable, the National Allianceof Business, and the five major testing com-panies who will profit from the require-ments of NCLB, including McGraw-Hill(parent company of Standard & Poor's),Educational Testing Service (a nonprofitwith for-profit coventures), and tutoring/test-prep companies (for example. Sylvan,Kapian).

A sample of twenty-five politically influ-ential conservative think tanks and organi-zations can be found at the People for theAmerican Way (PFAW) Web site athttp://www.pfaw.org/ (a "liberal" organiza-tion). From my analysis of the PFAW list,only three of the conservative organizationspredate the 1970s. During the 1970s and1980s, fourteen came into existence, andsix more during the 1990s. Some character-istics of these organizations are brieflynoted here:

• Funds in excess of $100 million: Bradley,Focus on the Family, Heritage Foundation,American Enterprise Institute

• Large number of employees (more than 100. upto 1,300): Focus on the Family, AllianceDefense Fund, Heritage Foundation, Cato Insti-tute, Family Research Council

• Active in providing a flow-through of fundsfrom one conservative think tank to another:Scaife Foundation, Bradley Foundation, OlinFoundation, Coors/Castle Rock Foundation,Devos Foundation

• Relatively dependent on funds from conserva-tive foundations: American LegislativeExchange Council, National Center for PolicyAnalysis, Cato Institute, Institute for Justice,Mackinac Center for Public Policy

• Highly dependent on corporate support: CatoInstitute, American Enterprise Institute, Ameri-can Legislative Exchange Council, HeritageFoundation

• Major source of G. W. Bush's senior officials:American Enterprise Institute (over twelve),Cato Institute (six). Heritage Foundation (five).National Center for Policy Analysis (two)

• Politically savvy with close ties to conserva-tives in Congress: American ConservativeUnion, American Enterprise Institute, CatoInstitute, Club for Growth, Heritage Founda-tion, Institute for Justice, Fordham Foundation,Leadership Institute, Madison Project (targetedissue ads). National Center for Policy Analysis,State Policy Network (links forty think tanks inthirty-seven states)

• Active and media-savvy in criticizing publicschool curricula and American culture gonewrong (some with legal expertise): AllianceDefense Fund, American Center for Law andJustice, American Renewal (lobby arm of Fami-ly Research Council), Christian Coalition, EagleForum, Family Research Council, Focus on theFamily, Fordham Foundation, Free Congress

Research and Education Foundation, ManhattanInstitute, Traditional Values Coalition6. My analysis of these funding patterns

is based on abstracts of awards for Arts inEducation Model Development and Dissem-ination Grants (2002-04) posted athttp://www.ed.gov/, and Arts in Educationgrants (2004) at http://www.arts.endow,gov/. Under NCLB, grants to "model" artist-in-schools and artist-residence programsmust be systematically and professionallyevaluated for educational outcomes. Theseconditions have not been typical of NEAArts in Education grants.

References

Abrams, I. M., and G. F. Madaus. 2003. Thelessons of high stakes testing. EducationalLeadership 6\ (32): 31-35.

Amrein, A. L., and D. C. Berliner. 2003. Theeffects of high stakes testing on studentmotivation and learning. EducationalLeadership 60 (8): 32-38.

Anderson, E. 1993. Value in ethics andeconomics. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniv. Press.

Arts Education Partnership. 2002. Criticallinks: Learning in the arts and studentacademic and social development, ed. R.J. Deasy. Washington, DC: Arts EducationPartnership.

. 2003. State assessment measuresin the arts, 2002-2003. In State artseducation policy database. http://www.aep-arts.org/policysearch/searchengine/searchResults.cfm (accessed June 27,2003).

Berliner, D., and B. Biddle. 1995. Themanufactured crisis: Myths, frauds, andthe attack on America's public schools.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Boyles, D. 1998. American education andcorporations: The free market goes toschool. New York: Garland.

Bracey, G. W. 1997. Setting the recordstraight: Responses to misconceptionsabout public schools in the United States.Alexandria, VA: Association for Super-vision and Curriculum Development.

Burton, D. 2001. Quartile analysis of selectedvariables from the NAEP visual arts data.In Implications of the NAEP visual artsdata for policies concerning artisticdevelopment in America's schools andcommunities, CEDA 84.902B, ed. R. M.Diket, E R. Sabol, and D. Burton, 50-93.Hattiesburg, MS: William Carey College.

Chapman, L. H. 1998. Representing theworld of art: How standards mayinfluence types of lessons. Paperpresented at the National Art EducationConference, Chicago, IL.

. 1999. Some hidden meanings in allthose year 2000 standards. Paperpresented at the National Art EducationConference, New Orleans, LA.


. 2001. Reflections on the prospect offree-market art education. Paperpresented at the Emerging Visions Series,National Art Education Associationconference, Miami, FL.

. 2002. Should art be advocated asan academic subject? Paper presented atthe National Art Education Conferencefor the Content and Purposes Series,Miami, FL.

Christie, K. 2003. One goal, different AYRPhi Deita Kappan 84 (6): 422, 471.

Clark, M. D., and K. Gutierrez. 2004.School ratings: Click and compare.Cincinnati Enquirer, June 27.

Cook, G. 2001. Testing in the news. AmericanSchool Board Journal 118 (8): 9.

Council of Chief State School Officers.2002. Key state poiicies on PK-J2education: 2002. Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers.

Council on Basic Education. 2004.Academic atrophy: The condition of theliberal arts in America's public schools.http://www.c-b-e.org/ (accessed March17,2004).

Darling-Hammond, L., and P Youngs. 2002.Defining "highly qualified teachers":What does "scientifically-based research"actually tell us? Educational Researcher31 (9): 13-25.

Demming, W. E. 1982. Out of the crisis.Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, Center for AdvancedEngineering Study.

Education Commission of the States. 2004.Report to the nation, http://www.ecs.org/accessed July 26, 2004.

Eisner, E. W. 2003. Some questionableassumptions about our schools. Phi DeltaKappan (84) 9: 648-56.

Ewen, S. 1996. PRI: A social history of spin.New York: Basic Books.

Fordham Foundation. 2000. Education 2001:Getting the job done: A memorandum forthe President-elect and 107th Congress.http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/publication/pf_publication.cfm?icl=37(;accessed October 20, 2003).

Friedman, M. 1962. Capitalism and freedom.Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Friedman, M., and R. Friedman. 1980.Ereedom to choose. New York: HarcourtBrace Jovanovich.

Galley, M. 2003. Texas principal posts testscores of classes. Education Week,September 17, 3.

Gardner, W. 2003. A federal law's "punitiveessence." Education Week, July 9, 41.

Gee, C. B. 2003. Uncritical pronouncementsbuild critical links for federalbureaucracy. Arts Education PolicyReview 104(3): 17-19.

Greene, M. 1988. The dialectic of freedom.New York: Teachers College Press.

Harden, C. 2003. Education official to visitCollege Hill: District plans to show off

program. Cincinnati Post, September 20,llA.

Hardy, L. 2002. A new federal role.American School Board Journal 189 (9):20-27.

Harvey, J. 2003. The matrix reloaded.Educational Leadership 6\ (3): 18-21.

Hatfield, T. A., and L. N. Peeno. 2002.Status of the states arts educationpolicies. Reston, VA: National ArtEducation Association.

Hess, F. M. 2003. The case for being mean.Educational Leadership 61 (3): 22-26.

House, E. R. 1998. Schools for sale: Whyfree market policies won't improveAmerica's schools and what will. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Keillor, G. 1985. Lake Wobegon days. NewYork: Viking.

Kohn, A. 2004. Test today, privatizetomorrow: Using accountability to"reform" public schools to death. PhiDelta Kappan 85 (8): 569-77.

Lauder, H., and D. Hughes. 1999. Trading infutures: Why markets in education won'twork. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Lieberman, M. 1994. Introd. to Educationand the state: A study in politicaleconomy, 3rd ed., ed. E. G. West. 17-21.Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

Linn, R. L. 2003. Accountability: Responsib-ility and reasonable expectations. Educat-ional Researcher 32 (7): 3-13.

Manzo, K. K. 2004a. Reading programs bearsimilarities across states. Education Week,February 4, 1, 13.

. 2004b. Federal law is questioned bygovernors. Education Week, March 3, 1, 17.

McCloskey, D. W. 1990. If you're so smart:The narrative of economic experience.Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Meek, C. 2003. Classroom crisis: It's abouttime. Phi Delta Kappan 84 (8): 592-95.

Moyers, B. 2003a. Now. Televisionbroadcast. Washington, DC: PBS,September 26.

. 2003b. Now. Television broadcast.Washington, DC: PBS, October 17.

National Art Education Association(NAEA). 2003a. New York Times reportson arts education cutbacks in New YorkCity schools. NAEA News, October, 1.

. 2003b. NAEA advocacy update. Thelost curriculum and foreign language in astandards-based system. E-mail receivedOctober 19, 2003, from Tom Hatfield ofthe National Art Education Associationwith a link to http://www.nasbe.org/Research_Projects/Lost_Cun"iculum.html.

-. 2004. Virginia passes legislation

Ohanian, S. 2003. Capitalism, calculus, andconscience. Phi Delta Kappan 84 (10):736-47.

Olson, L., and D. Viadero. 2002. Lawmandates scientific base for research.Education Week, January 20, I, 14—15.

Pedulla, J. J. 2003. State mandated testing:What do teachers think? EducationalLeadership 61 (3): 42-46.

People for the American Way. 1996. Attackson freedom to learn. Washington, DC:People for the American Way.

Popham, W. J. 2003. The seductive allure ofdata. Educational Leadership 60 (5):48-51.

Porter, A. C. 2002. Measuring the content ofinstruction: Uses in research and practice.Educational Researcher 3\ (7): 3-14.

Richard, A., and D. J. Hoff. 2003. Schoolstrim fiscal fat and then some. EducationWeek, September 24, 1, 18.

Robelen, E. W. 2003. Education departmentinvests $500,000 in team to tout agenda.Education Week, May 28, 1, 21.

. 2004. Furor lingers over Paige'sunion remark. Education Week, March 3,18,22.

Rose, L. C , and A. M. Gallup. 2001. The33rd annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup pollof public attitudes toward public schools.Phi Delta Kappan 83 (1): 55-57.

. 2002. The 34th annual Phi DeltaKappa/Gallup poll of public attitudestoward public schools. Phi Delta Kappan84 (I): 43-46.

. 2003. The 35th annual Phi Delta

and funding for an art teacher in everyschool. NAEA News, August, 1.

National Center for Education Statistics(NCES). 2002. Arts education in publicelementary and secondary schools, 1999-2000 (NCES-131-2002). Washington,DC: Department of Education.

Kappa/Gallup poll of public attitudestoward public schools. Phi Delta Kappan85(0:41-56.

Rumberger, R. W., and R Gandara. 2003.2000-2001 annual report: LinguisticMinority Research Institute. Univ. ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara: Rumberger andGandara.

Shanklin, M. 2004. Three out of four Floridaschools do not meet federal standards.Orlando Sentinel, June 16, AI.

Tillim, S. 1999. The academy, postmodernismand the education of the artist. Art inAmerica 87 (4): 61-65.

U.S. Congress. House. 2001. Ao Child LeftBehind Act of 2001 (NCLB), 107thCong., 1st sess. HR 1, RL. 107-110.http://www.ed.gov/nclb (accessedDecember 20, 2002).

. 2002. Education Sciences ReformAct of 2002 (ESRA), 107th Cong., 2ndsess. HR 3801, R L. 107-279. http://www. ed. gov/legislation/EdSciencesRef/(accessed November 5, 2002).

U.S. Department of Education (USDE).2003a. Eiscal year 2004 education budgetsummary and background infor-mation,section III: Programs proposed forelimination. http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget04/summary/edlite-/section3.html (accessed July 26, 2003).


. 2003b. Meeting the highly qualified Walsh, M. 2001, Friedman disappointed that Zirkel, P, A, 2001, A digest of Supremeteachers challenge: The secretary's annual voucher plans aren't bolder. Education Court decisions affecting education. 4threport on teacher quality. Washington, Week, December 12, 106. ed. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta KappaDC: U,S, Department of Education, Office . 2003, States say they are following Education Foundation.of Postsecondary Education, Policy, prayer proviso. Education Week, June 4,Planning, and Innovation, 21,23,

Viadero, D. 2004, AFT charter school study Wisniewski, R, 1997, Charter colleges ofsparks heated national debate, Ei Mcaf/on education. Education Week, November \9, Laura H. Chapman is an independentWeek, September 1, 9, 30, 36, scholar in Cincinnati, Ohio,


no child left behind in art? - university of north...

Documents