On NCLB

At the education town hall discussion had this past Sunday, a number of participants had questions about No Child Left Behind. Carole L., Andy N., and Mary R. asked various versions of the following question.

No Child Left Behind is a federal law that mandates a strict regime of “high-stakes” tests on a narrow spectrum of subjects; schools are declared to be meeting “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP) if their students meet certain benchmarks on these exams, and there are major consequences for schools that repeatedly fail to meet AYP. What impact does this have on our schools and what can we do about it?

Unfortunately, this legislation hasn’t been particularly effective. It has amounted to a series of unfunded mandates wherein the federal government imposes accountability measures that are tied to high-stakes tests, but doesn’t pay the costs of implementing these rigid programs. The nature of the exams results in a narrowing of our curriculum, since material that isn’t tested is less likely to be taught. (In Illinois, which for instance already lagged behind most states in access to arts education in public schools, this is very troubling.)

So, to recapitulate, the legislation offers no financial help, imposes “accountability” measures that have no connection to the community or the school in question (so much for local control!), and provides disincentives from offering enrichment programs. It needs to be repealed (or, at the very least, substantially overhauled).

Unfortunately, as long as No Child Left Behind is the law of the land, state can only ignore it by incurring tremendous financial penalties. However, the state government must compensate by increasing incentives for our school districts to offer enrichment and critical thinking courses (including arts, civics, and higher level sciences). Moreover, I look forward to working with our federal legislators to ensure that the U.S. government passes a more satisfactory piece of education legislation as soon as possible.

On transit in the long term

An anonymous questioner asks the following.

What is the long-term policy to keep the transit system afloat? Is there a way to build a transit system similar to Europe, where it will help the environment and reduce single-occupant car trips?

As for keeping the current system afloat, the recently-passed House Bill 656 creates a revenue stream that will adequately cover operating expenses for some time. This, however, does not provide for “capital” investments in infrastructure, including new trains and buses, improvements in the tracks, new train lines, and maintenance of existing structures. It appears likely that a major capital bill will be on the table in the 2008 legislative session; I believe this is necessary, and I urge legislators to make sure that we get a capital bill which directs needed investment toward mass transit.

Unfortunately, no capital bill we pass in the coming year will address the second question. The Chicago region is laid out in a manner somewhere between the style of European (and East coast U.S.) cities on the one hand, and West coast U.S. cities on the other. That is, our region is more diffusely spread out than, say, New York or London, and this makes the establishment of a transit system that rivals those two cities’ in comprehensiveness quite challenging. In order to achieve this goal, we need to be vigilant in encouraging transit-based development, and we need to begin laying the groundwork for a much more ambitious rail system.

Unfortunately, our legislators, who are so often focused on yesterday and today rather than tomorrow, next year, and 25 years from now, have been unreliable on this issue. This lack of long-term vision among our leaders has everything to do with my desire to run for office. I would hope to bring a progressive problem-solving perspective to Springfield so that we can tackle these issues and plan for a better future.

On property tax assessments

Jonathan L. wants to know if it would

help to improve funding inequities if property tax assessments and appeals in Cook County were done in a way similar to all of Illinois’s other counties where “Fair Market Value” in assessments really is that and appeals are heard by impartial judges rather than political hacks who favor contributors and cronies.

Yes.

On education funding

Colin B. read my education issue statement and

wondered how local school districts are going to pay for the programs public schools are asked to offer with property taxes going down. How will it work?

Basically, the problem is that the state government isn’t fulfilling its responsibility to fund education. (That responsibility, by the way, is not only an ethical and public service duty but also a Constitutional one!) This kicks way too much of the education funding burden to local communities, which is why our property taxes are so high in much of the state. It’s also why our schools are so inequitably funded. The solution, then is for the state to pick up its fair share of the tab, which will make it possible to both fund programs and decrease local property taxes.

This particular failure of our state’s government has everything to do with why I’m running: I want to fix our education system and I see that Springfield is a major culprit. But it’s also a good illustration of the broader, cultural malady we need to deal with. When faced with problems in the education system, the state government is happy to generate mandates and assign high-stakes tests, but they’re an awful lot slower to actually pony up the resources needed to solve those problems. Too much talk, and not enough action, which is exactly what’s wrong with our system.

On the smoking ban

Josh K. asks how I feel about individual rights, including

most recently the public structure smoking ban? Is it not the right of the business owner to establish whether or not their customers are allowed to smoke?

Well, I do feel strongly about individual rights, and I think that we don’t always spend enough energy protecting them. But in this case, I feel strongly that the benefit of this ban is greater than the cost. The benefits include increased public health, its ensuing financial advantages, and workplace safety.

I’d also like to make clear that whatever you might think about such a smoking ban, it’s surely within government’s rights to establish such a ban. Tobacco is a controlled substance, and it’s very clearly the responsibility of federal, state and local government to set out the precise guidelines that make up that control. In other words, whether or not you think such a ban is wise (and I do), I hope you’ll agree that it’s Constitutional.