Two of the Legislature's top Democrats are launching a new effort to get New Hampshire to withdraw from the national No Child Left Behind program.
They say Washington is making demands that it doesn't pay for. They complain about losing local control.
But this year New Hampshire is not alone.
New Hampshire Public Radio's political correspondent, John Milne, reports:
The timing over this No Child Left Behind debate is inescapably political.
Some academics suggest it will be a significant issue in this fall’s election.
But that debate begins sooner in New Hampshire.
Towns throughout the state are debating school budgets now and for the next few weeks.
And Democrats are telling voters to blame President Bush and the Republicans if No Child regulations demand more school spending and higher taxes.
Senate Democratic Leader Lou D’Allesandro of Manchester connects the political and fiscal dots:
(nochild1)
It’s time to revisit this issue. We need to tell Washington that our property taxpayers are not going to pay the bills. The bill without money is not acceptable. Show me the money!
School administrators say tests mandated by the law are far more costly than the funds Washington provides. That’s 66 million dollars for all schools in the state.
Steve Spratt is on the Mascenic Regional school board in New Ipswich. He complains that the federal money comes with too many restrictions:
(nochild 2)
NCLB is punitive. It’s all stick. There are very few carrots in the bill. If you don’t make the grade, you’re forced to lower the standards. There are 40 measurements in the bill, and if you miss any one of them, you’re classified as need improving.
The New Hampshire House passed a bill last year to refuse No Child money. The state Senate tabled the bill. There’s been no action this year.
Mike Sentance is the regional representative of the U-S Department of Education. He says the No Child program is fully funded. It would have no effect on local spending, and therefore no increase in property taxes.
(nochild4)
In fact, I would be arguing that you’re getting more bang for your buck out of your property tax. I mean, if you know that now the people have the appropriate level of qualifications to be in the classroom, your school should be more effective. I mean, one of the things that always confuses me about the conversation in New Hampshire is why people defend having thoroughly unqualified people in classrooms as being a good investment of local tax dollars.
Sentance blames politics for why 14 states other than New Hampshire are protesting the No Child law.
In Utah, for example, the Republican-led House voted 64 to 8 to scrap the No Child mandates. Utah’s Senate hasn’t acted.
In Virginia, the House of Delegates passed a resolution criticizing the law. Patricia Wright is superintendent for instruction of the Virginia Board of Education:
(nochild5)
There are some technicalities in the No Child Left Behind law that would be counterproductive to our own reform. And it expressed some concern with the federal intrusion into state’s rights.
So far no state has rejected the program.
One reason is that a state that rejects the federal law would also have to turn down millions of dollars in federal aid.
From a political perspective, the debate reverses traditional partisan positions in the state.
The Democrats say No Child Left Behind will increase taxes and destroy local control.
The Republicans say the federal program calls for improvements in reading, math and science that all parents would want.
But the “little democracies” of New Hampshire towns are famous for their independence. Their votes may offer a nonpartisan analysis of No Child Left Behind.
For N-H-P-R News, this is John Milne
