President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which increases federal influence over local schools, is beginning to look like another slush fund for well-connected industries to tap into rich veins of taxpayer dollars.
As with most federal programs of its kind, federal education money often goes not where it is most effective, but where the most effective lobbyists are.
In this case, the software industry, already benefiting from the mandates and federal grants in NCLB, has a bill in both chambers of Congress that would earmark for “technology” federal education grants that previously had been unrestricted grants to local school districts. This pipeline of federal cash could be an urgent matter for the software industry, as more educators are becoming disenchanted with the promise of educational software.
In August, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., together with Sens. Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Patty Murray, D-Wash., introduced the Achievement Through Technology and Innovation Act, or ATTAIN for short. The bill’s various provisions all aim to direct federal funding to local schools under NCLB. A House version of ATTAIN was introduced in May.
One significant aspect of NCLB for struggling schools has been $100,000 federal grants that they could more or less spend as they please. Many schools spent the money on computers or software licenses, but many others invested in a couple more teachers. ATTAIN would remove some of that leeway and require schools to spend certain portions of their federal money on computers, software and training teachers to use the technology.
This bill, likely to be considered this fall as part of the debate over renewing NCLB, comes amid growing doubts about the efficacy of educational software. The U.S. Department of Education conducted a study under NCLB on the effectiveness of a few leading educational software programs.
In all four areas studied — first-grade reading, fourth-grade reading, sixth-grade math and algebra — the study found that the software “did not affect test scores by amounts that were statistically different from zero.” That’s a fancy way of saying these programs didn’t do a darned thing, as far as we can tell.
Kirk Johnson of the Heritage Foundation found similar results in a 2000 study, concluding: “Students with at least weekly computer instruction by well-prepared teachers do not perform any better on the National Assessment of Educational Progress reading test than do students who have less or no computer instruction.”
Two studies do not a consensus make, and the bill cites studies that suggest the opposite. But with these doubts about software in education, why would Congress want to take away decision-making from local schools and force them all to invest more in computers and software?
As with earmarks, when a bill in Congress directs money to specific programs or areas, it’s fair to assume that a driving force behind the legislation is somebody who stands to get rich from it. In this case, the prime suspect would be the companies that makethe software or offer the training services that schools will now be pushed into purchasing with federal money.
Sure enough, the Software & Information Industry Association is taking partial credit for the ATTAIN bill’s introduction in both chambers, saying the bill was “based upon input from education stakeholders,” including SIIA. When a bill is “based on input from” certain groups, it could mean the groups were consulted, but it often means the groups wrote the bill.
SIIA’s members include Kaplan K12 Learning Services, Blackboard Inc., Pearson Digital Learning, Curriculum Advantage and PLATO Learning Inc. — companies that do their business primarily with school districts.
In 2004, for example, The Baltimore Sun reported that the struggling Graham Elementary School in Talladega, Ala., elected to use a $100,000 federal grant to buy Sony PlayStations and educational PlayStation video games made by PLATO’s sister company, Lightspan.
But rather than rely on local schools’ continued faith in educational software, SIIA is lobbying Congress to pressure these schools toward its members’ products. SIIA’s lobbying team in Washington is a strong one.
According to 2006 federal lobbying filings, SIIA’s lobbyists on education were General Counsel Mark Bohannon, a former Clinton administration Commerce Department official and high-level strategist at the Democratic National Committee; and Mark Schneiderman, who is tied in at the state level, having served as legislative associate for the Council of Chief State School Officers.
ATTAIN’s advocates say technology in the classroom is key to America’s future competitiveness. It certainly will brighten the prospects of America’s software makers.
Examiner Columnist Timothy P. Carney is senior reporter for the Evans-Novak Political Report.
