Education act solves the wrong problems

Frontiersman editorial board

The Trapper Creek community has been asked by the Mat-Su Borough School District to come up with ideas about how to keep their school open next year when budget constraints and the high cost of running that school will again collide. Parents and community members there have stepped up to the plate before -- to keep music programs running and provide other services the district couldn't afford -- and they may find a way to do so again.

Unfortunately, the district's budget may not be the only obstacle to the school's continued existence. President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" Act of 2001 may cause frustration and insurmountable obstacles for Trapper Creek Elementary and other schools in small communities. Under the act, teachers must be rigorously tested, and must meet other qualification standards in order to be listed as "Highly Qualified" by NCLB standards. The testing and qualifications are required for each subject an instructor teaches. In a small school where teachers are required to teach multiple subjects, it may be nearly impossible to meet those requirements -- especially given the salaries in primary education.

If a teacher does not meet the "Highly Qualified" standard, the school must inform parents. Parents then may use a government voucher to move their children to a school where the teachers do meet government standards.

While it is critical to have qualified teachers in classrooms, and while all schools should meet some minimum teaching standard, is it possible to judge teachers solely on subjective terms? Is it possible for a teacher to possess all the tangible qualifications to satisfy the government but still lack the skills to make good use of those qualifications? Is it also possible that a teacher who lacks some of the required qualifications still possesses the communication and teaching skills to impart information to students? We think so.

Rather than offer parents subsidies to move students to other schools, why not invest in the schools that need help? Why not help those teachers reach the "Highly Qualified" target? Rather than run the risk of overcrowding schools that are succeeding, why not improve education in all schools? If we can invest billions to combat AIDS in other countries and to combat terrorism in still others, why can't we invest in the overall quality of our own education system? The best kind of affirmative action is the kind that provides every student with the primary education to compete for quality secondary education opportunities. Let's put our dollars in front of the problem instead of behind it.