Demonstrating more of the usual ineffectiveness, leaning towards incompetence, the Federal Government’s Early Reading First program (part of the once heralded, now often criticized NCLB act) has been researched, yielding mixed results. I am sure that there are several government programs and White House-generated ideas that would be thrilled to learn they obtained mixed results, but as it is, these findings emphasize the "pay first, see if it works later" approach that has crippled the US economy and has resulted in obscene national debt.
Specifically, the study found that children aged 3-5 who were a part of the Early Reading First program made gains in print and letter knowledge, but made no gains in phonological awareness or oral language. This doesn’t sound bad, until you realized that Early Reading First, as a component of NCLB, has received millions of dollars of funding over the past five years before anyone concluded that it was only marginally effective. Compare this with what special education has to deal with- it is part of federal law that we have to provide research-based instruction. That’s research first, then widespread application of sound educational practices. NCLB incorporates widespread application of practices, with concurrent research on the same practices. IOKIYTF (It’s okay if you’re the feds).
School districts and other groups that run preschool programs can receive the grants. The government has made five rounds of grants so far. The awards have ranged from $750,000 to $4.5 million per site for a three-year period.
That’s a lot of money...per site that may or may not be public education...for a three year period. Five rounds of grants in five years, which means the recipients of the 2007 grants will keep getting money until 2010, even though this research indicated only partial gains.
This is far from the only example of the concept of "pay first, see if it works later". There are more examples within NCLB, and several more in other federal law and practices.
Supplemental Education Services
Another component of NCLB is the funding of Supplemental Education Services (SES) (after school tutoring) for schools that fail to meet benchmarks. Again, SES is funded based on the assumption that it will improve education test scores. That’s not exactly true. Inconvenient facts like this make it hard for educators to complain about being inadequately funded, because opponents of increased educational funding can point to this as proof that increasing funding is just throwing money at the problem and doesn’t actually fix anything. In this case, they might be right. Throwing money at interventions before determining their efficacy doesn’t necessarily fix anything. For example...
The Surge
One of the most widely criticized fantastical notions ever conceived by the friends of BushCo is The Surge. Billions of dollars are being funneled into Iraq, not to mention the hundreds of extra lives lost, in a plan that...might work. Every few months a Bush sympathist comes out with another "we’re winning the war" proclamation, another "last throes," another "few more months" of occupation war. Now the magical month seems to be September, which, if my math is correct, marks about 28 months of last throes. And yet, this surge will work, because the military geniuses who (deliberately) mishandled pre-war intelligence, who mismanaged the occupation, now aluvasudden know what they’re doing. At this rate, we’ll need a genie, not a genius, to get us out.
Tax cuts
One of Bush’s very first critical blunders, his massive tax cuts that were going to stimulate the economy by giving corporations so much extra money that they had no choice but to divvy it out to their employees. Riiight. Anyone who knows what the word bonddad means knows what I’m talking about. Since those tax cuts, corporations have had record profits, while the wages of blue- and white-collar workers have remained largely stagnant. Yes, there is adequate employment, but a lot of people who had their high-end jobs axed to make sure CEO’s still made their billions find themselves on the bottom of the ladder again in new jobs, often in new fields. Again, the tax cuts were funded based on what we were told they were going to do, not based on any empirical support that suggest major corporate tax breaks help stimulate the economy.
The point to all these examples is the same: rather than making decisions based on research that is already out there, GWB and his Texas buddies are making decisions based on what the little voices in their heads tell them. There is an abundance of educational research out there, but that wasn’t good enough for Rod Paige and Mrs. Spellings. Mr. Paige’s plan helps private enterprises (as many SES and Pre-K programs are private), the tax cuts help the corporate donors, the surge helps private military contractors and big oil companies (I guess...otherwise I’m not sure who comes out on top in that brilliant idea), and to make it look like they have the best interest of the general public in mind, they include research to be conducted while these projects are already being funded. It would make a lot more sense to either fund pilot projects or use the existing wealth of information to make educational decisions.
But this is the GOP we’re talking about. Their goal is to make money, not sense.