New Hampshire has begun the hard work of responding to the sweeping federal educational law known as No Child Left Behind. President George W. Bush recently judged the bi-partisan measure “the most meaningful educational reform probably ever.” Proponents of the bill, including lead sponsor NH Senator Judd Gregg, have mounted an all out push to make good on the President’s words. At the same time, skepticism from politicians on both sides of the aisle has brought an element of political risk to the goal of making our schools better. In our first report in a four-part series, NHPR’s Josh Rogers looks at the politics of No Child Left Behind.
In his speech marking No child left behind’s 1st anniversary, President Bush called the enactment of the 1200 page law “a legislative victory on behalf of the children of America.” The man who campaigned on a promise to be “the education president” then exhorted state officials and policy-makers to roll up their sleeves.
Now we’ve got to get to work. Now we’ve got to do the job that’s expected. We can say that the work of reform is well begun. And that’s a true statement. The work will be complete, however, when every school in America is a place of high expectation and high achievement. That is our national goal.
Bush hopes to reach that goal by giving local schools more money and more control over how they spend those federal dollars. But also, no child left behind says that starting in 2005-2006 states must test students in grades 3 through 8. The test results will then be compared against standards set by individual states. Schools that don’t meet those state goals must change. At first, the consequences are modest. But if after five years, the school still falls short, the consequences can range from firing teachers and administrators to re-opening as a charter school. According to No Child’s left behind lead republican author…..US Senator Judd Gregg, such features are focused on achieving one aim.
Empowering parents…giving parents more flexibility for their children. Giving local school districts more flexibility for how they use federal dollars. Saying to local school districts: “Here, this is a cafeteria line….You can go down this cafeteria line and you can pick off what you want to educate the child, but we are going to expect the child has learned. We are going to expect that child is competitive….. child is up to speed with his peers. Not as we at the federal government define it but as you at the local government define it.
Gregg posits NCLB as a set of federal requirements that actually enhance local control. Bush administration officials have traveled here to make the same point, but some Republican leaders remain unconvinced. State Rep. Neal Kurk of Weare has attended several statehouse meetings on the implications of the law. Kurk, who is chairman of the house finance committee, believes the measure poses some fundamental problems.
This represents a very significant expansion of the federal role and it’s something that I’m not sure this I like. Ultimately, although I’m sure this is not their intent, the federal government is going to be telling state’s telling school districts telling our towns our school boards how to run their schools.
There are Republican lawmakers who support the law, but its possible effect on local education raises concerns among politicians who range from rock-ribbed republicans to the members of the liberal left….Some house conservatives have even considered introducing a measure that would challenge NCLB’s constitutionality……As for Governor Craig Benson……he’s expressed general support for the initiative. But his administration deferred comment on any policy details until Benson hires an education advisor……As republicans wrestle with the issue some prominent democrats seem content for the time being to remain interested bystanders. House Democratic leader Peter Burling.
Listening to republicans deal with George w. bush’s presentation of what he’s going to do with an underperforming district no child left behind compared with those incredibly inappropriate comments about jackbooted thugs that came out last year when the governor came out with an accountability bill, I’m just puzzled how they are going to reconcile this. And for a while I’m just going to watch and see if they can reconcile it...
No child left behind raises another politically charged question -- will it prove a massive unfunded mandate. US Senator Judd Gregg has insisted from the start that the states will not be shortchanged…..But plenty of school administrators and state lawmakers are leery. House finance committee chairman Neal Kurk reminds that Congress doesn’t always live up to its word. He points to the federal government’s failure to keep its 1975 promise to fund a portion of state special education costs.
We know the federal government promised to pay 40 percent of that cost and is now paying probably 18 percent of the costs. For good and sufficient reasons that raises concerns about whether or not the federal government will follow through with its promises for this new program when it hasn’t kept its promises with respect to its present program.
To raise the possibility that No Child left behind might end up further straining a state budget that faces a looming deficit is a potent issue. One that Democrats might try to exploit. At least one Presidential hopeful -- former Vermont governor Howard Dean -- is already testing out this argument. Last week in Concord, Dean assailed all who supported the No child left behind for saddling NH taxpayers with a burden Dean pegged at 109 million dollars.
The worst thing they did was pass an unfunded mandate that’s going to affect the property taxes of every single person democrat and republican in this state. And I can’t wait for those four guys from congress to get up here and explain why they wanted to raise your property taxes after they supported a tax cut for the wealthiest people in America.
Clearly, No child left behind’s ultimate effect won’t be known for years……The law may or may not improve schools as its Democratic and Republican sponsors hope. But at the ground level, NCLB’s future…..and its political fallout……may end up having less to do with a national education agenda, than it will with a far more prosaic – and intensely local -- concern, the property tax.
