Congress Gets Busy with NCLB

On Tuesday, the Senate and House committees overseeing education held a joing hearing on the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act, aka Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Here is a link to the Committee's announcement, which also includes links to the testimony offered by the witnesses and a link to the webcast of the hearing.

On the first reading through the testimony, there is nothing particularly shocking about the political spin. I have not had an opportunity to listen to the entire webcast.

What is interesting is the macro politics of the reauthorization. On the surface, both Sen. Kennedy and Rep. Miller can't easily back away from NCLB because they were sponsors of the law when it was first enacted. But at the same time, they are likely more than a little concerned about being tied to President Bush's premier domestic policy win of his first term. That leaves the two liberal lawmakers in a jam as they look to make their mark on the bill in a way unavailable to them in 2001.

As the Washington Post is reporting, many in the President's own party are now opposing many of the provisions of NCLB, reflecting in part a desire to distance themselves from the President politically and a disdain for a Washington centered education bureaucracy. A new bill being put forward by Rep. Peter Hoekstra is seen as an alternative, although it is unlikely to get a hearing or a vote in the House. Hoekstra's bill would essentially gut the main carrot/stick structure of NCLB, allowing the states two methods of opting out of the NCLB regime and still receive federal funds. The states could opt to exempt all education programs, save special ed, from NCLB testing and reporting mandates, making the law nothing more than a "pretty please, states, do this" kind of law with no consequences.

Already, a healthy debate is springing up about the efficacy of a 100% proficiency rate, but other issues that may be in the offering would be expanded choice options, grants and other financial incentives for teacher pay, and some changes to the accountability structure now in the law. The teachers' unions are in full court press mode on the matter as are many other interest groups.

To be blunt, I am not sure whether I like the idea behind Hoekstra's offering. I know that federal funding accounts for about 10 percent or less of education funding. But the testing regime, while it may seem a little over bearing, does ensure that students are taught basic skills. Admittedly, perhaps too much emphasis is put on reading and math skills, but we have to start somewhere. But gutting the bill puts the onus back on teh states, which have not proven particularly adept at anything with NCLB, save for gaming the system. Do we really expect change at the state and local level? No enough time has passed to decalcify the education leviathon and gutting too soon will no serve anyone, least of all the students in most need of help.