I was thinking about setting this organization up again, for those still interested. But first, I'm curious of what political affiliation the majority of deprogramUSA's members are. Please comment on what your political affiliation is.

List if you are:

1) Democrat
2) Republican
3) Liberitarian
4) Green Party
5) Nonpartisan/Independent
6) Other (please list)

________________________________________ ___________________________

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; reauthorization of a number of federal programs striving to improve the performance of American schools. Accountability of schools, teachers, etc. is increased, standards are raised, flexibility given to parents when choosing schools. More focus on reading. Reauthorized ESEA. Passed by the House of Representatives on December 13, 2001 by a vote of 381-41. It passed in the Senate by a vote of 87-10 on December 18, 2001. In 2004, the U.S. Department of Education entered into a contract with Ketchum Inc. to promote the law. A $240,000 subcontract was provided to the Graham Williams Group which included political commentator Armstrong Williams promoting the act via his television show and additionally television and radio advertisements. USA Today reported that his contract included the stipulation that he "regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts." Rep. Miller, a member of the House Education Committee, called the contract "a very questionable use of taxpayers' money" that is "probably illegal" Armstrong said that he "wanted to do it because it's something I believe in", but later said "my judgment was not the best. I wouldn't do it again, and I learned from it." The same public relations firm that arranged Williams' contract also produced a video promoting the No Child Left Behind Act designed to come across as a news story. The advertisements were pulled after a similar ad for the new Medicare law was challenged by the GAO for being 'covert propaganda' which is against federal law. The firm also provided the Department of Education with monthly rankings of reporters based on how they cover the law.

Schools have to make adequate yearly progress (AYP), as determined by the state, by raising the achievement levels of subgroups of students such as African Americans, Latinos, low-income students, and special education students to a state-determined level of proficiency. All students must be proficient by the 2013-2014 school year. An escalating set of assistance is provided to students who are in schools that repeatedly do not improve.

Schools receiving Title I funds that do not meet AYP requirements for two consecutive years will be identified "in need of improvement" and required to offer parents the option of sending their children to another public school within the district. the school is also required to develop or revise an existing school improvement plan which must be approved by the district. If the school does not meet targets the next year, supplemental educational services such as tutoring and after school programs must also be offered in addition to the option to transfer. If the school continues in "in need of improvement" status the following year it will be required to take corrective action such as removing relevant staff, implementing new curriculum, decreasing management authority, appointing outside experts to advise the school, extending the length of the school day or year or restructuring the school's internal organization. Only schools receiving Title I funds are subject to these sanctions.

In order to better inform parents, states are required to issue detailed report cards on the status of schools and districts. Under the law, parents must also be informed when their child is being taught by a teacher who does not meet "highly qualified" status. Schools are also required to include and involve parents in the school improvement planning process.

Pro's:
1. attention on the academic achievement of traditionally under-served groups of children: low-income students, students with disabilities, and minorities
2. early literacy through the Early Reading First initiative.
3. Schools are required to improve their performance under NCLB by implementing "scientifically based research" practices in the classroom, parent involvement programs, and professional development activities.
4. student's progress in reading and math must be measured annually in grades 3 through 8 and at least once during high school via standardized tests.
5. Schools must also inform parents when their child is being taught by a teacher or para-professional who does not meet "highly qualified" requirements.
6. school must offer eligible children the chance to transfer to higher-performing local schools, receive free tutoring, or attend after-school programs.
7. Increases flexibility to state and local agencies in the use of federal education money.
8. Provides more resources to schools. Federal funding for education has increased 59.8% from 2000 to 2003.

Con's:
1. Requires public secondary schools to provide military recruiters the same access to facilities as a school provides to higher education institution recruiters. Schools are also required to provide contact information for every student to the military if requested but students or parents can opt out of having their information shared.
2. Organizations such as ACORN have criticized the unwillingness of the federal government to fully fund the act. While promoted by President Bush and applauded by both parties, neither the Senate nor the White House have requested funding up to the authorized levels for several programs such as Title I. Republicans in Congress have viewed these authorized levels as spending caps, not spending promises and have pointed out that President Clinton never requested the full amount of funding authorized under the previous ESEA law.
3. Indicators of school performance are not accurate or viable.
4. schools, districts, and states are punished if they fail to make adequate progress according to the goals they themselves establish, the incentives are to set expectations lower rather than higher [10]and to increase segregation by class and race and push low-performing students out of school altogether [11]. The schools, districts, and states are also potentially set to game the system by manipulating which students are included or excluded from test-taking (to enhance apparent school performance) and by creative reclassification of drop-outs (to reduce unfavorable statistics)
5. States and school districts should be granted greater freedom to target assistance to schools with the most extensive academic difficulties.
6. After-school programs are neglected.
7. NCLB is designed to set the stage for the eventual privatization of the U.S. public school system: reports about struggling schools sour public opinion and may cause more and more voters to question the viability of public education.
8. federalizing education and setting a precedent for further erosion of state and local control.
9. NCLB is a covert flushing mechanism developed by Rod Paige to eliminate the Department of Education by requiring unreachable high standards to fail a disproportionate amount of schools and reduce the amount of federal funding handed out so that eventually the individual states would pay entirely for their school system and defederalize all education.
10) Students with learning disabilities do not receive extra help when taking the standardized tests, and can jeopardize the assigned rating the entire school is given.
11) NCLB focuses on basic educational classes and removes funding from music programs, art programs, etc. This results in schools being forced to remove elective and after school programs.
12) NCLB places a focus on the standardized testing mandatory for each student, therefore forcing the educators to focus on points covered in testing rather than what they think is important for children to learn.
13) "NCLB will cost school districts $1.491 billion annually representing an 11 percent increase over current total operating budgets. It was further determined that 97 percent of the costs associated with NCLB are unfunded with additional federal funding covering only $44 million of the nearly $1.5 billion in costs."

[link]

The law's mandated student testing and teacher training have come with little funding, forcing many low-income schools to choose between investing in core academic offerings or paying for the new requirements, said Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano.

On February 23, 2004, at a White House meeting with the nation's governors, Paige criticized the National Education Association (NEA) for obstructing "No Child Left Behind's historic education reforms," calling the NEA a "terrorist organization." He later said it "was an inappropriate choice of words" and apologized later the same day, but maintained that the NEA uses "obstructionist scare tactics" in opposing the law. The union called for his resignation.
[link]

Increasingly, schools and states are looking for ways to tell the feds to take their unfunded mandates and stick them up their appropriations committees. A few schools and school districts in Vermont and Connecticut have already told the federal government to keep its money, they're not going to comply with NCLB. Some schools in Virginia are debating doing the same.

But these are schools in relatively prosperous spots. Under Title 1 of The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, most federal education aid is directed to schools in poor areas. These are precisely the schools that cannot say "No thanks" to any federal aid; and they are the schools that will have the hardest time complying with NCLB. That's why the impoverished city of Reading, Pennsylvania, which is already on the NCLB probation list, is suing to protect itself from the clutches of that law.

And some Republican state legislators in Utah, where Republicans reign, are pushing legislation that would have the state opt out of NCLB and pass up all federal education bucks.
[link]