[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 19]
[House]
[Page 26677]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1600
                          NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I have stood on this floor 
several times now speaking about the negative impact that NCLB, No 
Child Left Behind, has had on our children's education and, 
consequently, on our children's future as well.
  Tonight I will speak continuously about that as well and the problems 
until NCLB are fixed. I will continue to speak out against NCLB until 
parents and educators are empowered to make the changes that will 
ensure an environment in which schools can teach and children can 
learn.
  More and more information is coming to light attracting more and more 
supporters to the belief that not only should No Child Left Behind not 
be reauthorized at this time, but, actually, it should be completely 
scrapped.
  Yesterday, in the New York Times, Diane Ravitch, a professor of 
education at NYU and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. 
Department of Education, wrote, and I quote, ``the No Child Left Behind 
Act of 2002 is fundamentally flawed,'' and that it should be 
``overhauled, not just tweaked.''
  She continued, ``The latest national tests, released last week, show 
that academic gains since 2003 have been modest, less even than those 
posted in the years before the law was put in place. In eighth-grade 
reading, there have been no gains at all since 1998. The main goal of 
the law--that all children in the United States will be proficient in 
reading and mathematics by 2014--is simply unattainable. The primary 
strategy--to test all children in those subjects in grades three 
through eight every year--has unleashed an unhealthy obsession with 
standardized testing that has reduced the time available for teaching 
other important subjects. Furthermore, the law completely fractures the 
traditional limits on federal interference in the operation of local 
schools.''
  Let me repeat that last point, because I believe that it is a missing 
piece of the jigsaw puzzle. NCLB ``completely fractures the traditional 
limits on Federal interference in the operation of local schools.''
  Many times I have referenced the work of Neil McCluskey of Cato 
Institute, a scholar who shares my concerns about educational policy. 
He did a study in 2007 entitled, ``End It, Don't Mend It,'' and he 
concluded that ``NCLB has been ineffective in achieving its intended 
goals, has had negative, unintended consequences, is incompatible with 
policies that do work, is at the mercy of a political process that can 
only worsen its prospects, and is based on the premises that are 
fundamentally flawed.''
  Using several shocking statistics, McCluskey points out how States 
are lowering, not raising, their educational standards. They are 
creating a race to the bottom to ensure that their schools will not be 
denied Federal funding.
  Let me give you just a couple. In 2003, the State of Texas decreased 
the number of questions on their test in order for it to be approved, 
from 24 to 20. In Michigan, when 1,500 schools were placed on the NCLB 
need improvement list, the State lowered the percentage of students 
required to pass the test in English from 75 down to 42 percent.
  The State of Ohio backloaded its adequate yearly progress goals, 
aiming to increase proficiency by a mere 3 percent, 3.3 percent for the 
first 6 years, but then said they're going to do a 40 percent increase 
in the last 6 years. They did this of course in hopes of meeting NCLB's 
unrealistic goal of having 100 percent proficiency in math and reading 
in all schools. And there are other studies as well with similar 
conclusions.
  In 2005 the Fordham Foundation compared the State proficiency scores 
to NAEP scores, with striking results. The NAEP tests have generally 
been maintained at standards over the year, and so it's a good 
barometer.
  In the Fordham study, of the 20 States that have reported gains on 
their tests in 8th grade reading proficiency, mark this, only three 
showed any progress at even the basic level for NAEP. That means 20 
States are saying that since No Child Left Behind things are going 
better. But if you compare it to NAEP, really not. Only three.
  Furthermore, in a new study released today by the foundation, 
researchers note that in at least two grades, twice as many States in 
the U.S. have seen their tests become easier, not harder, since NCLB 
was put into effect. And that's my point here. All the studies are 
showing that since NCLB went on the books, States are racing to the 
bottom when it comes to trying to establish their tests, the exact 
opposite of what this administration tried to do.
  I think all of us should be startled, at the very least, by this. 
Appropriately, we should be outraged. You know, if Washington is 
forcing our schools to basically lower their standards, putting our 
children's education at risk, we must act now in this House to reverse 
the trend. And with NCLB reauthorization coming up now, now's the time 
to do it.
  To that end I've submitted a bill, the LEARN Act, Local Education 
Authority Returns Now. It's H.R. 3177. And what it will do is very 
simply, it would allow States to opt out of the Federal NCLB system 
completely, and, at the same time, allow the States to retain their 
funding.
  I think, to me, it's very obvious that States have grown tired of 
Washington dangling money over their heads and holding them 
accountable. And I thank the Speaker for allowing us to address the 
issue of the reform that is needed in the area of NCLB and talking 
about the LEARN Act.

                          ____________________