The New York Times editorial page, pulling from a story by one of its own reporters, takes on NCLB's free tutoring provision, but swings and misses. It rightly expresses concern that only 12 percent of the eligible students nationwide are receiving tutoring services. But it excuses the primary culprits: most of the big urban districts. Pittsburgh, for example had 3,000 eligible students last year and the funds to serve 2,000-but only served 100. On the other hand, Baltimore embraced tutoring and provided it to 4,000 students-about 80 percent of what the district could afford with the federal dollars allotted. This contrast-certain urban districts meeting their responsibilities while others shirk them-is the real story. Where's the outrage that some districts are doing all they can to keep parents in the dark about the free tutoring, since they retain the money if kids don't sign up? Can you imagine the Times' reaction if districts were keeping the free lunch program a secret from poor families?
"Tutoring Gap," New York Times, February 16, 2006
"Tutor Program Offered by Law is Going Unused," by Susan Saulny, New York Times, February 12, 2006