Lost amid the fish hysterics

Posted at 4:46 PM on May 12, 2006 by Bob Collins (5 Comments)

...is the fact Minnesota is one of 9 states that could lose federal funding for education because it didn't make enough effort to comply with teacher standards.

According to an AP article, "The 4-year-old No Child Left Behind law says teachers must have a bachelor's degree, a state license and proven competency in every subject they teach by this year. The first federal order of its kind, it applies to teachers of math, history and many other core class."

Guess how many states have a qualified teacher in every core curriculum?

None.

The Education Department on Friday ordered every state to explain how it will have 100 percent of its core teachers qualified - belatedly - in the 2006-07 school year.

In the meantime, some states face the loss of federal aid because they didn't make enough effort to comply on time, officials said.

They are Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina and Washington, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.


"At some point there was, I suspect, a little bit of notion that 'This too shall pass,"' said Henry Johnson, the assistant secretary over elementary and secondary education. "Well, the day of reckoning is here, and it's not going to pass."


Department officials would not say how much aid could be withheld from states to force compliance. But Johnson said, "In some cases, we're talking about large amounts of money."


States often fell short because they did not report accurate or complete data about the quality of the teacher corps, said Rene Islas, who oversees the department's review.

The 4-year-old No Child Left Behind law says teachers must have a bachelor's degree, a state license and proven competency in every subject they teach by this year. The first federal order of its kind, it applies to teachers of math, history and any other core class.


In grading the states, the department found that 29 have made substantial progress. They must improve but do not face looming sanctions.

I'm guessing this is going to be a huge issue in the campaign since there are quite a few candidates who bristle under the notion of the "submit or die" nature of the law.

This'll be interesting. An actual, you know, issue.

Comments (5)

Hmm. I smell a bit of obfuscation in the air.

So Minnesota is in danger of losing funding, along with 9 other states for non-performance of the stipulations under which it recieves that funding.

But no state has complied.."in every core curriculum".

So Bob, what is the break down of non-compliance? How many core curriculums HAS Minnesota been certified in; how many core curriculims HAVE all of the other states failed to be certified in.

Why not just provide your source material like the rest of the blogosphere?

Posted by Swiftee | May 12, 2006 6:12 PM

So the much maligned southern states..even that ever available whipping boy Missippi, managed, against all odds to comply while we enlightened, superiorly educated notherners somehow missed the boat.

What should we make of this Bob?

Posted by Swiftee | May 12, 2006 10:58 PM

Depends on how you view the issue. It's either one of the quality of education as seen from the federal government's definition, or it's one about the intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states with regard to education, as seen by some local candidates. It also could play at the legislative level w.r.t. how much the state is willing to bend to grab the federal dollars.

Maybe how big it plays depends on how loudly the sabres rattle. Hard to believe at least one candidate calling for the abolition of the Department of Education won't give it play. Other candidates generally seem to agree on certain elements of NCLB. Then there's another candidate for statewide office who talks about voting against NCLB (which he did), but not about the time he voted for it (which he also did).

We'll see.

Posted by Bob Collins | May 13, 2006 9:21 AM

In my view NCLB is just another aggregious abuse of the necessary and proper clause. Strict constructionists. Ha!

On the other hand, are we going to refuse the money? Only people who wanted to eliminate public education could support such a position.

Posted by Justin | May 13, 2006 2:49 PM

I would say, Justin, that captures the debate perfectly. It's a tough scenario,which is why I think it could be a great debate.

Posted by Bob Collins | May 13, 2006 3:44 PM

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories