Back in 2003, Kenneth Remsen, a school principal in Vermont, wrote a cautionary tale called No Cow Left Behind and in response to the 2002 No Child Left Behind unfunded legislation imposed during the GWBush years. The basic premise behind the somber yet hilarious analogy, and in which dairy farms were compared to public schools, was that if you drank milk or lived near a farm you would be knowledgeable enough to know what’s best for cows and milk production.
Here’s a snipet, yet I’d highly recommend reading it in its entirety:
“Now I’m sure farms have a mix of cows in the barn, but it is important to remember that every cow can meet the standard. There should be no exceptions and no excuses. I don’t want to hear about the cows that just came to the barn from the farm down the road that didn’t provide the proper nutrition or a proper living environment. All cows need to meet the standard.
Another key factor will be the placement of a highly qualified farmer in each barn. I know many have been farming for many years, but it will be necessary for all farmers to become certified. This will mean some more paperwork and testing of their knowledge of cows but in the end this will lead to the benefit of all.”
NCLB was GWB’s attempt at privatizing public education by allowing big money corporations to steal public funding — all tied into the theory that increased testing and evaluation would improve achievement because it was the teachers who were to blame for the failure of our society to erase poverty and inequality. Like the No Cow Left Behind story implies, those outside of the walls of public schools seem to think they know what’s best for those running the show on the inside. The Badass Teacher Association (BATS) says it like this:
In a private business only the owner or the board of directors reaps the benefits. But our government is not supposed to be set up that way. It’s not supposed to benefit merely all the president’s men. It’s supposed to benefit all of us – the citizens, the taxpayers, the voters. This is exactly the model that has been used against our public schools. We have shifted our concern away from students and parents to investors and corporations. For almost two decades, our education policies have increasingly been to reduce local control– especially at schools serving the poor and minorities. We have removed the duly-elected school boards and replaced them with appointed boards of directors. We have removed or diminished democratic rule and replaced it with an autocracy.
Trump has said his wall could cost up to $12 billion, but some experts have estimated up to 25$ billion. Republicans intend to seek funding through appropriations, but strict spending caps will require offsetting cuts to other programs. The National Education Association, and from data compiled from the U.S. Department of Education Budget Service and the Congressional Budget Office, believes the possible cuts to public education could impact programs such as these:
HEAD START (HSA)
Studies have found that the Head Start program allowed children from ‘high risk households’ to be more prepared for kindergarten.
Head Start helps kids to acquire insurance, receive immunizations, and receive continuous medical and dental care.
Health benefits associated with Head Start have caused mortality rates to decrease in students aged five to nine.
If an older sibling participates in the Head Startprogram, there is a positive spillover to younger siblings, particularly regarding criminal behavior.
SPECIAL EDUCATION GRANTS TO STATES (IDEA Part B-611)
Under the original legislation for special education, Congress determined that the federal government would pay up to 40 percent of this "excess" cost, which is referred to as full funding. The federal share of the excess costs of special education services in 2016 was 16 percent, or well below the 40 percent federal commitment.
Funds under this program are combined with state and local funds. Permitted expenditures include the salaries of special education teachers and costs associated with related services personnel, such as speech therapists and psychologists.
States may use funds reserved for other state-level activities for a variety of specified activities, including: support and direct services; technical assistance and personnel preparation; positive behavioral interventions and supports; improving the use of technology in the classroom.
CAREER AND TECHNICAL TRAINING EDUCATION STATE GRANTS (CTEA Title I)
Career and technical programs frequently offer both academic and career-oriented courses, and many provide students with the opportunity to gain work experience through internships, job shadowing, on-the-job training, and industry-certification opportunities.
Career and technical programs—depending on their size, configuration, location, and mission—provide a wide range of learning experiences spanning many different career tracks, fields, and industries, from skilled trades such as automotive technology, construction, plumbing, or electrical contracting to fields as diverse as agriculture, architecture, culinary arts, fashion design, filmmaking, forestry, engineering, healthcare, personal training, robotics, or veterinary medicine.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION STATE GRANTS (ESEA Title III)
Funding for ESEA specifically targets Limited English Proficient (LEP) children and immigrant youth. LEP students must attain English proficiency and meet the same academic standards as their English-speaking peers in all content areas. There are also regulations regarding parent communication, informing families and communities of LEP and immigrant children about their ESL programming and how they can assist in their child’s progress.