The Washington Post has an article this morning entitled "Dozens in GOP Turn Against Bush's Prized 'No Child' Act". Not only have they turned against it, but they are going to introduce legislation today that would allow states to opt out of NCLB almost completely while still getting federal funding for their schools.
Among the co-sponsors of the legislation are House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a key supporter of the measure in 2001, and John Cornyn (R-Tex.), Bush's most reliable defender in the Senate. Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), the House GOP's chief deputy whip and a supporter in 2001, has also signed on.
If Blunt and Cantor are co-sponsors of this, I expect many more republicans will fall in line.
This type of legislation is what happens when republicans finally start listening to their constituents:
Burson Snyder, a spokesman for Blunt, said that after several meetings with school administrators and teachers in southwest Missouri, the House Republican leader turned against the measure he helped pass. Blunt was convinced that the burdens and red tape of the No Child Left Behind Act are unacceptably onerous, Snyder said.
Many teachers have been saying this even before NCLB passed. I have not met one teacher, republican or democrat, who thinks NCLB has been a good thing for their school.
So, what do the democrats have to say about all this?
... key Democrats, including Rep. George Miller (Calif.) and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.), the chairmen of the House and Senate committees responsible for drafting an updated No Child Left Behind Act, are strong supporters [of renewing NCLB], although they want large increases in funding and more emphasis on teacher training and development.
Yes, teacher training and funding have been problems with NCLB, but throwing money and teachers who know better how to teach to the tests is not going to solve the underlying problems caused and/or exacerbated by NCLB.
Once-innovative public schools have increasingly become captive to federal testing mandates, jettisoning education programs not covered by those tests, siphoning funds from programs for the talented and gifted, and discouraging creativity, critics say.
Those are the problems that we need solutions to. Those are the problems that effect our children the most, that parents, teachers, and children alike care most about.
So how would this new bill work?
Under Hoekstra's bill, any state could essentially opt out of No Child Left Behind after one of two actions. A state could hold a referendum, or two of three elected entities -- the governor, the legislature and the state's highest elected education official -- could decide that the state would no longer abide by the strict rules on testing and the curriculum.
The Senate bill is slightly less permissive, but it would allow a state to negotiate a "charter" with the federal government to get away from the law's mandates.
What does the White House have to say about all this?
Republican lawmakers involved in crafting the new legislation say Education Secretary Margaret Spellings and other administration officials have moved in recent days to tamp down dissent within the GOP. Since January, Spellings has met or spoken with about 40 Republican lawmakers on the issue, said Katherine McLane, the Education Department's press secretary.
"We've made a lot of progress in the past five years in serving the children who have traditionally been underserved in our education system," McLane said. "Now is not the time to roll back the clock on those children."
I was underserved in the education system before NCLB. I have 2 learning disabilities and ADHD, but standardized tests play to all of my strengths. Since my test scores were always so high (usually 98th percentile) I was labeled as gifted and lazy (since my classroom performance was so terrible). I shudder to imagine what things are like for kids like me under NCLB. If these people think that children are being better served under NCLB, then they know nothing about child development and the way children learn.
So, now we come to the question of the diary. Here we have a situation where the republicans are seemingly the ones doing the good thing, while the democrats are being weak and simply reauthorizing the old bill, against the wishes of almost the entire education community. Where's the catch? I have gotten very cynical over these past 6 years. I don't quite trust this, but I don't really see a catch. Am I missing something here, or am I actually going to be on the republicans' side on this one?