When Mendacity Fails

Sometime in 2001 a New Jersey school teacher wrote the letter republished below. He tells me that he received no answer. I suspect -- and my NJ friend can confirm this if he wishes -- that the reason the dark future he predicted for the public school system has not come to pass as a result of "No Child Left Behind," is because the program has been essentially disregarded by local and state school boards.

The letter is a bit long but I'm going to print it all. It's seldom that we outsiders get to hear something genuine from a person who knows what he's talking about.

The Letter

Dear Governor McGreevey,

I am writing to you regarding the ESEA or “No Child Left Behind Act” of 2001. My hope is that this letter, rather than reviewing technical aspects and problems with this legislation, will convey to you the personal sense of frustration and dismay that I and an overwhelming majority of my colleagues are feeling. Through this bill the credentials and professional character of veteran and rookie teachers in the public school systems of America are being called into question. Through this bill the public’s faith in the public education system in America and its faith in the teachers who have dedicated their lives to serving the children in this system will be shaken to the breaking point. Although, I have heard that the ESEA was enacted to ensure that “no child is left behind” in the academic arena, from what I’ve seen all it will accomplish is the discreditation and eventual dismantling of America’s public system of education. It is certain that there are problems within the system, just as there are problems in the very fabric of American culture, but the root of these problems is not the system itself; the root of these problems stems from the society that this system serves. The ESEA in its current form will do nothing to alleviate the problems that American public schools are facing; it will only cause unnecessary confusion and government-manufactured dissatisfaction, leading to an even weaker system of public education.

It was towards the end of last school year when we started hearing rumblings about a set of new criteria aimed at identifying “highly qualified teachers.” Inquiries into what this criterion would be and what the new standards meant for teachers and their students were met with vague and confusing answers. It seemed at that time that no one really knew what was going to happen. The school year ended with many teachers feeling uneasy about their careers and their futures in education. Upon our return in September answers were forthcoming; we were given forms and paper work to fill out. The New Jersey House Rules require a teacher to accumulate 10 points in order to be “highly qualified” under this new standard. Despite the fact that the law says we have until 2006 to become “highly qualified,” we’ve been given until November [2001] to gather any information that will validate the claim that we are qualified to do the jobs that we went to school for; the jobs that universities, colleges, and testing agencies have said we are qualified to perform, the vocations that our employers have observed us in and seen fit year after year to deem us highly qualified. If we can not validate our “qualification” by November letters will be sent to our students and their parents informing them that we are “not highly qualified” in our field. Beyond the obvious professional embarrassment that these letters will produce, students will be allowed to transfer out of classes or leave schools in search of a “highly qualified teacher.”

On the surface it would seem that every teacher should be able to prove his or her qualifications without much effort. The problem in many cases, however, is in the way we were trained and certified for our positions. An example of what I am referring to is the teacher who received a K to Eight certification and is teaching English at a middle school. That teacher may have been very successful over the course of his tenure as a middle school teacher, but because he did not specialize in the content area he is currently teaching he may not be deemed “highly qualified.” Another example is the Special Education teacher who in New Jersey was certified as a Teacher of the Handicapped, K to 12. This teacher may have successfully taught every basic subject that is offered over a period of several years. However, if she is currently teaching Science she may lack the course work in that content area to prove that she is “highly qualified” to teach Science. The new guidelines severely limit a school’s ability to place the teacher in the area where he or she is most needed regardless of the fact that the teacher is quite capable and proficient in the subject at the level he or she is needed. The bottom line is that as we trained to become teachers we did what we were told to do. We took the courses we were told to take, we earned the GPA we were required to earn, we participated in the field work we needed to participate in, we took the tests we were asked to take, and we obtained the certifications we were required to obtain; in short we played by the rules established by the governing bodies overseeing public education in our states, but suddenly the rules have changed.

It is a given that teachers need to be highly qualified and proficient in the areas that they teach; and it is a given that education is one of the most important jobs undertaken in our society. It is not a given, however, that these new mandates will improve the level of public education in our country. Improving public education goes beyond the task of requiring teachers to fill out paper work or complete courses. Improving public education requires the hard work of establishing programs that are viable and vital to preparing our students to become productive citizens. Improving public education requires the hard work of raising money and finding funding sources to implement programs that will give our students hope. Improving public education requires that we come to grips with the reality that different students have different strengths and weaknesses, that we need to enhance and celebrate more than one set of skills. Most importantly, improving public education requires the fortitude to return authority to schools so that they can maintain order, deal with students who pose a consistent discipline problem, and ensure that all of our schools are safe for both adults and the children.

As loyal citizens, my colleagues and I acknowledge the right of the legislative branch of the United States Government to pass and enact laws. We will comply with this law and continue to work to provide our students with the highest quality education possible. But the fundamental unfairness of the law leaves a sour taste in the mouth. According to the law we have until 2006 to become “highly qualified,” but that same law is requiring that we identify those of us who don’t meet the new standard as “not highly qualified” in November of this year. Imagine the level of confusion that will be generated when a student’s parent gets a letter stating that his or her teacher is “not highly qualified.” According to the law, students may transfer out of schools that do not meet the new standard. According to the law these students can transfer to private institutions, but [Note this well] the law does not require these institutions or their teachers to prove their qualifications the way that a public educator is being asked to prove his or her qualifications. Please understand that I honor the hard work and dedication of my fellow teachers in private institutions, but the assumption that all private institutions are better than all public schools is presumptuous and not grounded in the reality of the different rules each of us are operating under. These rules, by the way, were not created by “the powerful teacher’s unions,” but by lawmakers and administrative law judges.

Furthermore, these rules do not provide a level playing field when comparing public to private schools. How many public schools have an admissions test? How many public schools can dismiss a student for not reaching an academic standard, or for not adhering to a disciplinary code? The answer, of course is none. Yet, some in our government seek to dismantle our public schools and enact voucher systems through the back door created by the ESEA. Sadly, the back door voucher system will become a revolving door for students who do not meet the standard set by the private institutions; because unless the private institutions change their standard, as we have been required to do, they will not be able to accommodate our most challenged and most challenging students.

Governor McGreevey, it is my understanding that the Departments of Education in individual states can stay the publication of “highly qualified” letters until 2006. In light of all of these revelations my request is that you move to ensure that if this law is to be enacted in its present form that it be enacted as fairly as possible. I ask that you move to see that any institution receiving public money be required to prove that they employ “highly qualified” teachers in the same way that public schools are required to do so. I urge you to direct the New Jersey Department of Education to stay publication of letters identifying teachers as “not highly qualified” from going to our students and their families until 2006, which is the length of time we have been given to become “highly qualified.” Failure to stay these letters will result in the useless expenditure of thousands of dollars in correspondence costs, and untold confusion among students and parents. Implementation of this law in its present form will do nothing to improve the quality of public education in our state. My fear is that if something is not done to assure my request 2006 may be too late for public education in the United States of America.

Sincerely,

A Teacher of the Handicapped