Senator Ted Kennedy : Education Reform

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), brain child of President Johnson, was passed in 1965. ESEA was intended to mitigate disparities in access to quality academic services and learning outcomes endured by underprivileged and minority students by federally funding schools serving their communities. ESEA, later revised as No Child Left Behind, was to be one element in a larger reform agenda focused on urban redevelopment, vocational training and “EDUCATION AND HEALTH” (Thomas & Brady, 2005). In his 1965 State of the Union, Johnson proclaimed, “No longer will we tolerate widespread involuntary idleness, unnecessary human hardship and misery, the impoverishment of whole areas… ” Nevertheless, this intractable problem remains, as illustrated by recent National Assessment of Educational Progress findings:

In 1965, Lyndon B Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in an attempt to achieve more equity among minority groups within the education system. Along with the numerous attempts to close the achievement gap came America’s first federally funded state assessments, created with the intention of holding the nation’s schools accountable for providing a quality education for every student. This legislation was revisited in 2001 by the Bush administration with the No Child Left Behind Act, which saw the achievement gap that still existed among ethnic minority groups, but also recognised a prominent gap within poverty- stricken communities. With this came state tests that were more difficult and more frequent in an attempt to further

In 2004, coinciding with the conclusion of President George W. Bush’s first term in office, United States Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, released an essay depicting the successes of his administration. Paige’s department spearheaded the initiative sparked by the No Child Left Behind Act, a set of policies enacted to reform education and provide students with an improved degree of learning more suited to the evolving job market. Paige brings light to the findings of his administration, presenting what he considers to be evidence explicitly showing the successful nature of these programs. Through numerous faults with his argumentation and reasoning, however, Paige’s opinion on the outcome of said policies is highly debatable. To judge

During President Bush’s term, government became aware that American schooling needed major improvement. There was a need of a law which would improve the system while using scores to evaluate students as well as their teachers. "The fundamental principle of this bill is that every child can learn, we expect every child to learn, and you must show us whether or not every child is learning," (Secretary, 2002) President George W. Bush said on Jan. 8, 2002, signing ceremony of No Child Left Behind Act. However, this one size fits all approach revealed not be resourceful. "The goals of No Child Left Behind, the predecessor of this law, were the right ones: High standards. Accountability. Closing the achievement gap, but in practice, it often fell short. It didn 't always consider the specific needs of each community. It led to too much testing during classroom time. It often forced schools and school districts into

Bush’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) federal policy. Both Clinton and Bush administrations regulated freedom of choice within their educational policies. Clinton’s Goals 2000 increased standards for student scores within core subjects. Legislation targeting Title I, required States and school districts to “turn-around” low-performing schools, and in 1993, public charter schools increased to over 2, 000 (www.clinton5.nara.gov). Bush’s No Child Left Behind’s structure demanded high-stakes testing and created provision for privatization of public education, as well as “school choice .” No Child Left Behind not only increased the Clinton’s strong accountability disposition, but it also superimposed a new set of accountability rules that would adversely affect public schools (Porter, Linn, & Trimble, 2005). One significant requirement of NCLB is that each state must adopt challenging academic content standards and challenging student achievement standards. Additionally, states must establish Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goals for each year from 2002 to 2014—that would culminate in the 2014 goal that all American students would be at or above the proficient student academic achievement standard (P.L. 107–110, 2001). When local educational agencies (LEA) failed to meet their state’s AYP goals, in addition to other criteria, they [LEA] faced the inevitability of losing their accredited status and eventually face school

As part of the 2009 Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Obama Administration secured $4.35 billion to encourage state-led education reforms known as the Blueprint for Reform. The Blueprint for Reform was a proposal to change the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was first established in 1965 (Rochefort and Donnelly, 2011, p4). In 2002, President George W. Bush‘s made changes to the Act by introducing his education reform plan, No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Obama‘s Blueprint for Reform proposal involves changing NCLB as well as encourage the adoption of college and career-ready student education standards (Rochefort and Donnelly, 2011, p4). One of the educational programs of the Blueprint of Reform is the Race to the Top program.

An aspect of a cost-effective nation needs a strong fundamental for education. When the school children’s literacy rates and number of people attending college rise, the probability of a greater working class and nation’s prosperity is highly likely. As the prior governor of Florida, Jeb Bush did a great deal of things to improve their education, but it is exactly this fact that labels Jeb Bush as someone incapable of running the country efficiently. “It was one of the most successful education reform stories this nation has ever seen. Florida’s high school graduation rate rose by

On February 9, 2012, Minnesota Public Radio reporter Kimberly Hefling, with assistance from Ben Feller and Ken Miller of the Associated Press published an article entitled “Minnesota among 10 States to Get No Child Waiver”. This piece dealt with the fact that President Obama was using executive action to free ten states from the strict requirements of No Child Left Behind. Hefling and her associate report that the move is a subtle jab that Bush’s goal, while noble in its intent, was horrendous and poorly thought out in its execution. The governor of Minnesota, Democrat Mark Dayton, supported the president’s action along with Education Commissioner Brenda Cassellius – stating that the action would help the families of the state have better schools and more fair accountability. The article also details that a vast majority of the states have signed up for the waivers offered by Obama and his allies, a signal that the amount of pressure put on the states was too much for them to bear. The piece states, as usual, that Congress was locked in partisan bickering, which was a key factor in making Obama take the action that he did. The piece concludes with a few lines from the Republican opposition, which thought that the president was imposing his will on other people which, as we all know, the Republican Party would never do. Education is the foundation of our society and we should do everything within our power to nurture it and make sure that it is there to benefit all those who

Bush announced a new and improved education plan called America 2000. This was a “nine year crusade” to radically reform the nations schools. This time in was six education goals, no of which concerned race or money though. The additional funds were to be used to create “New American Schools” with some private financing as well to be included. In actuality, the idea was to take some preexisting schools and have it privately controlled. Some of these schools are in existence today and had no effect on public schools. That was the unofficial intention anyway. But, by the end of president Bushes term the goals were well

In 1992, education was another issue which Democrats and Republicans differed on. Bill Clinton called for “...an aggressive program of school reform” (“Second Presidential Debate, 1992”). The Republicans, on the other hand, called for a choice between public, private, and religious school to be given to parent. They would do this with the G.I. Bill for children, giving middle to low income households $1000 to choose the private, public, or religious school of their choice (“Second Presidential Debate, 1992”).

Educational needs change overtime to fit the ever evolving world and the knowledge required to successfully maneuver through it. Because of these inevitable changes, public school systems today are in need of educational reform. Evidence collected over the the topic of education reform has shown that overall the education system needs reform. However, there are two section in particular that studies have shown to be neglected in most school environments and that have beneficial repercussions for students learning abilities and the skills they learn for real life applications. These two areas of learning include arts programs and sexual education, although they are not the sole area in need of change the do offer valid reform.

On January 8, 2002, President George Bush signed into law The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which was a reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was designed to help disadvantaged students achieve success in school (Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, 2011) The components of The No Child Left Behind included annual testing, academic progress, report cards, teacher qualifications, and funding changes. These measures were “designed to drive broad gains in student achievement and to hold states and schools more accountable for student progress” (Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, 2011, para. 3). NCLB also promised to close the achievement gap and increase student learning (Hursh 2007).

The No Child Left Behind Act was an Act of Congress that supported standard based education reforms. It was created to place high standards by which quantifiable goals could be set, to monitor individual education outcomes. The act was proposed by then President George W. Bush and coauthored by Representative John Boehner. President Bush felt that our country had accepted a culture of truncated expectations in our education system. President Bush made a speech explaining his view on the No Child Left Behind Act and why he felt it was necessary, saying “We accepted the responsibility if the office to which I had been elected. It starts with this concept: Every child can learn” (Bush, 2009). However an individual felt about President

Just three days after taking office in January of 2001 as the forty third president of the United States, George W. Bush announced his plan of No Child Left Behind. Signed January 8, 2002, it was the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the central federal law in pre-collegiate education. (Rebora) No Child Left Behind cleared Congress in a landslide with overwhelming majorities. (Seligman) It was said to be the most ambitious school reform effort in at least a generation. (Symonds) No Child Left Behind, is a landmark in education reform, designed to improve student achievement and change the culture of America's

A Democrat from Massachusetts of Kennedy family fame, Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy spoke before the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies on September 27th, 2002. Just a year earlier on September 11th, 2001, terrorists attacked the American homeland, arousing politicians and the American public alike to eliminate the threat posed by terror. While Iraq had little to do with 9/11, President George W. Bush capitalized on the spirit of 9/11 and made it a personal mission to go after Saddam Hussein, the illiberal Iraqi dictator that Bush accused of harboring nuclear weapons. Kennedy’s speech in September of 2002 came right as Bush began looking to take preemptive action against Iraq. Kennedy thus used this opportunity to come out against the war Bush was looking to wage. Iraq had become the biggest talking point in American politics, and Kennedy, one of the most influential Democrats at the time, was one of the few members of Congress to take such a decisive stance. Despite representing the relative minority of those in