The house education committee yesterday heard testimony on bill to prohibit using state money to comply with the federal No Child Left Behind act. The measure drew support from state educators and from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
When President Bush signed the No child left behind act he called it American’s most significant education reform ever. At the time, the bill enjoyed strong bi-partisan support. Yesterday in at the statehouse, the bill also drew a strong bipartisan reaction. But that was to stand in opposition to any unfunded mandates the law might bring….
“The federal government develops legislation which they pass with great enthusiasm. They they lose interest we are might sick of their track record especially in respect to special education and Medicaid. “
That’s Rumney republican John Alger. He’s lead sponsor of a bill that would prohibit the state spending any of its own money on No Child left behind. And would allow local school districts to opt out of complying …. Speaking in support of Alger’s bill, House Democratic leader Peter Burling struck a note that would resonate with any taxpayers.
“I believe we owe it to our voters to stop forward progress on a program that may cost local property tax payers hundreds, thousands tens of thousands in additional property tax burden. “
Concerns that No Child left behind could prove an unfunded mandate are common…..And continue despite repeated assurances to the contrary from the Bush administration……and the bill’s lead republican author…..US Senator Judd Gregg…… But worries over NO child left behind aren’t just about money. Critics like Rochester / Somersworth School Superintendent Chuck Ott also believe the measure violates what is perhaps the most fundamental precept of state education policy.
“No child left behind represents and unprecedented erosion of state and local control of education decision-making. Please do no assume that this 1200 page law is a list of flexible suggestions.”
State officials nationwide are now grappling with how best to comply. Education commissioner Nick Donohue yesterday told lawmakers he is in full support of limiting state exposure to possible unfunded mandates. But Donohue also said he remains committed to trying to make the program work for New Hampshire.
“I continue to believe it’s possible no child left behind that it’s possible to build off the very narrowly defined approach to yearly assessment that it’s possibly to build of the fairly narrow requirements stated in NCLB about high quality educators. And that in general it’s essential to try and complement the federal act with state leadership. “
No one spoke in opposition to this bill. And no one is ever going to face political problems in NH by objecting to potential unfunded mandates…… Measure co-sponsor Neal Kurk described the bill as a “belt and suspenders” precaution against future financial problems.
“I don’t believe this act is going to have any impact what is happening in NH over the next couple of years. But over time school districts are going to have significantly increased expenses over No child left behind. It’s not at all clear the government is going to be compensating them adequately for those expenses.”
The actual cost of this law remains speculative. And that’s where the debate over money is likely to stay until the details of how the state will comply become clear. First the legislature has to pass an accountability bill. Then starting in May, the state and Washington will have to come to terms on the final regulation will be.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo