Is the ESEA's ultimate goal to undermine public schools?

Skeptics believe that the real purpose of the ESEA can be found in the legislation's sanctions against schools. These include:

• Making schools pay for "supplemental services" provided by faith-based or religious organizations.
• Closing public schools and reopening them as charter schools.
• Turning schools over to private companies.
• Turning schools over to the state.
• Replacing all staff "relevant to failure."

The conservative bent of the ESEA has many convinced that the ultimate goal of the ESEA is to undermine public education. Although the "V" word is not specifically mentioned, all of these sanctions will ultimately make it easier for vouchers to take hold - meaning that public money would be used for children to attend private school. It also paves the way for privatization, where private, for-profit companies run schools like businesses.

"Vouchers were kept out of the legislation, but this clearly provides a backdoor entrance for vouchers," says Martha Wallace, a member of the NEA Board of Directors who serves on the CTA ESEA Workgroup. "When you have schools paying for 'supplemental services' with faith-based organizations, of course it's a step closer to vouchers. It's frightening."

According to some of the scenarios looked at by the California Department of Education, 100 percent of schools could fall into the "school improvement" category within a few years under ESEA and be subject to sanctions. That would lead Americans to believe the system isn't working, says Joe Nunez, a member of the state Board of Education and a CTA regional manager. "It's the whole issue of perception being reality."

Especially ominous are recent reports that some conservative legislators are pushing to "revisit" the ESEA and add vouchers to the legislation, now that Republicans have control over both houses of Congress. Heritage Foundation education analyst Krista Kafer has said that if congressional hearings find that the majority of so-called "failing schools" don't provide students the option to attend better schools, a "correction" should be made that enables private schools to step in.

The large-scale privatization of public schools is also a goal of ESEA, maintain skeptics. Teachers in private schools often work longer hours for less pay, are not unionized and have few due process rights.

"Paranoia? I don't think so," says Gerald W. Bracey, an independent education researcher and writer in Virginia. "Consider that the Bush administration is deregulating every pollution industry in sight. Why would an administration with such a policy perspective turn around and impose many new, straitjacket requirements on schools - requirements that would bankrupt any business?"

Bracey contends that the ESEA is a trap - the "grand scheme" of school privatizers - and is simply setting up public schools for failure - "for the final knockdown."

"When the pre-ordained high failure rate occurs, privatization will be touted as the only possible cure," he says. He predicts that Chris Whittle and Edison Schools will be waiting in the wings.

As for the "highly qualified teacher" requirements, says Bracey, "Everyone in the country knows there is a shortage of teachers with such qualifications. And since everyone knows that the shortage is getting worse, especially in the needy cities, we can only assume that the framers of the legislation knew in advance that states could not meet the requirements. They just didn't care."

Ironically, the ESEA and its call for massive change arrive at a time when progress is being reported in California. According to a report by the state Department of Education, test scores for California's minority students have improved relative to the rest of the nation. The report analyzed trends in the SAT-9 scores and found African American, Latino, American Indian and Pacific Islander second-graders made the greatest gains in scoring above the 50th percentile. In the past five years, the number of minority students in California scoring above the 50th percentile increased 21 to 25 percent in math and 16 to 19 percent in reading.

"The worst thing about ESEA is that our entire educational system could be labeled a failure when it's not, just to provide fuel for the voucher folks," says CTA Board member Bob Nichols, a member of the state Legislature's ESEA Liaison Team. "The ESEA seems to be designed to ensure that we don't succeed. And we are succeeding; it's evident in the rising API scores and by what every teacher sees in the classroom when children are learning."

He adds, "So many important things are going on in education - such as problem solving and critical thinking skills - but they will never be captured on the API, the AYP or any single form of standardized testing. That's one of the saddest things of all."

When for-profit companies take over public schools, the results are no better than those of public schools. "Edison Schools Inc. wanted to be the Starbucks or McDonald's of education," noted the San Francisco Chronicle in a July 9, 2002, article. "Edison hoped to revolutionize education with low overhead, high revenue and a model product it could duplicate all over the country. Today, the company has high overhead, low revenue and a product that - not unlike a quarter pounder - is savored by some and reviled by others. Around the nation, amid high turnover among teachers and test scores that show Edison faring poorly compared with similar schools, districts in Michigan and Connecticut are severing ties to Edison. Schools in Dallas, Atlanta and Boston are reconsidering their contracts this year."

There are eight Edison schools in California.

An NEA study concluded that Edison students - enrolled in 150 Edison schools in 22 states - do not perform as well as the company claims in its annual reports and that the company overstated the progress of its schools in every case. The company's stock value has plummeted, which may have a strong impact on the quality of services Edison can provide.

Notes Fortune magazine, "Edison has been in business for seven years now and the verdict is clear: It doesn't work.... The company continues to bleed, prompting some analysts to predict that if things don't pick up dramatically next year, Edison won't be around much longer - at least in its present form."

The ESEA intent to increase the number of charter schools (public schools that are exempt from the state's Education Code) also has plenty of people worried, especially in light of new research about their method of operation and effectiveness. Researchers at the Brookings Institution recently concluded that students in charter schools score significantly below other public school students in basic reading and math, and may be anywhere from a half year to a full year behind students in traditional public schools. The study found that 59 percent of students at traditional public schools scored better than charter school students during the 1999-2000 school year.

Some charter schools in California have been found violating the law by teaching religion, charging tuition, having no professional teachers onsite and enrolling students outside their boundaries. A recent state audit report blasted the oversight of charter schools, charging that they squander taxpayer money, avoid testing students and hire unqualified teachers. As a result, Gov. Gray Davis signed legislation last September that requires stricter oversight and accountability for charter schools.

"If we open the door to vouchers and dismantle public education as we know it, the people who are going to lose out are the poor," says CTA Board member Lynette Henley, also a member of the state's Liaison Team. "Vouchers will take the best and the brightest students away from public schools, because private schools can pick and choose. Vouchers will take funding away from schools that are already underfunded. It worries me very much to think that we could be heading in that direction."