'No Child' act called bait and switch {Kerry Calls For 'Trust Fund'... Can You Say 'Lock-Box?]

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., left, greets Aubrey Tyler and her father, Rich Tyler, Thursday during a "house party" at his new apartment he's renting in Manchester. FULL STORY (AP) Five Democratic Presidential candidates voted for the No Child Left Behind Act as members of Congress. Now they complain they were victims of a legislative bait and switch, tricked into supporting a sweeping reform bill they say is underfunded by the Bush administration.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean urges governors to reject all money the federal government sends under the law or risk being trapped into meeting standards the government doesn’t pay for. His stance against the bill, both as governor and as a Presidential candidate, won him the endorsement last month of New Hampshire’s largest teachers union.

Sens. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., crafted the bill, passed in late 2001. Since President Bush signed it into law nearly two years ago, Kennedy has led the chorus of complaints that the act was not funded properly. The law, in short, mandates that schools show an improvement in assessment test scores until all students show proficiency by 2013. It also boosts mandatory standards for teachers and aides, requiring extra certification and training in many cases. The five candidates who voted for No Child are Sen. John Edwards, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Joe Lieberman, Rep. Dick Gephardt and Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Now they argue that more money — up to $13 billion — is needed to properly fund the act.

Dean has called the No Child law a “draconian,” unfunded mandate and said, “This President has made education worse in this country with his mindless piece of legislation, not better.” Dean has also said the law amounts to a federal takeover of local school policy. Terry Shumaker, executive director of NEA-NH, the union representing more than 15,000 teachers statewide, said of Dean: “Not only did he not vote for it, he opposed it at the outset while he was governor of Vermont. There were numerous factors that led our board to give the nod to Governor Dean, but I’d say that first among those factors was his vocal opposition at the time and now to No Child Left Behind.” Dean initially rejected funds attached to the law in his last year as governor, but Vermont accepted the money after he left office. Last month, Dean urged other governors to follow his example, saying they would then avoid having to comply with every facet of the act.

Other candidates say that’s a bad idea. Some point out that in his time as governor, Dean proposed more standardized testing as a measure of local accountability. “Yes, the bill is underfunded. But to reject those funds puts an added burden on local taxpayers and leads to higher property taxes,” said Gephardt’s spokesman, Kathy Roeder. “The answer is to get more funding from the federal government.” Lieberman, who crafted a bill of his own with many of the No Child components in it, said he thinks the thrust of No Child is good. “The solution is not to tear down the high standards we set . . . but to live up to our responsibilities and give local educators the support they need to turn around underperforming schools,” he said.

Those who support the concept of the law call for extra money. Kerry said he would increase funding to $35 billion from the $23.8 billion the Bush administration has set and would recast the law so that scores on multiple-choice tests would no longer be the sole indicator of student progress. In announcing his plans for No Child reform, Kerry said he would “end George Bush’s bait and switch. George Bush promised to give our schools the help they need, but he broke that promise.” Kerry wants to establish an education trust fund that would be used to cover the costs of any federal education programs and to boost special education funding to meet the full commitment Congress made 25 years ago and never met. His supporters in education circles, including the president of the Manchester NEA chapter, Ellen Healy, and Manchester’s mayor, former West High Principal Bob Baines, say the NEA board does not speak for them.

Edwards echoes other Bush critics, saying the act, along with special education, needs to be properly funded. He said his plan would focus on “truly failing schools” and would make the No Child law achieve its original intent: to improve schools that need help. “No Child Left Behind is a good bargain, and we should keep it,” he said. Under Bush, he said, the law is “unfair, unwise and unacceptable.”

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, another Democratic Presidential candidate, said funding is the main problem, but he also expresses doubts about the law. “It focuses too much on narrow tests and punishments and too little on ensuring that every child can learn and succeed,” he said.

No Child Left Behind requires annual tests for elementary and middle school students. Schools that don’t make adequate progress toward having all students perform at grade level must allow parents to move their children to other public schools within the school district. It also sets new teaching credential rules. By 2013, all students need to achieve a proficient level in core subjects. Schools that don’t meet their targets can eventually face a takeover or a state-imposed operations plan. Republican backers defend the law, saying it prompted the largest increase in federal education funding in decades and finally brought consequences to bear on schools that were mediocre or worse while taking federal aid without any improvements for students.

State education officials say there is no way to determine whether the state collected surplus aid without feedback from all school districts or an expensive data collection system that could analyze money spent under 24 separate state line item allocations.

If the Democrats start making legitimate criticisms of stupid laws the Republicans have passed, they may reduce Bush's winning margin.

This is why elections are often closer than expected. Everybody has weaknesses.

Kinda of tought to make it an issue, if the bill was crafted and supported by Democrats. The Drug Bill is a better target, because many elderly opposes it. One reason is that many of them are under company insurance plans that they still pay for even after they retired. A federal persciption drug program will allow these companies to drop all their retirees from their insurance program and dump them on the federal government. Wait till these retirees lose their drug plans (which is more generous then the fed version) and be told that they can get coverage under the new fed program. They will go ballistic.

Dem candidates running on the platform "we wuz brainwashed" on Iraq, now on No Child Left Behind Bill. I believe the last candidate to run on "I was brainwashed" was George Romney, and the minute the words were out of his mouth, his campaign tanked. But then he was a Republican, and their constituencies are perhaps less invincibly ignorant than those of the other party.

"Wait till these retirees lose their drug plans (which is more generous then the fed version) and be told that they can get coverage under the new fed program. They will go ballistic."

But they won't "go ballastic" until 2006, as the bill does not take effect until then...

6 posted on 01/02/2004 12:19:46 PM PST by okie01 (www.ArmorforCongress.com...because Congress isn't for the morally halt and the mentally lame.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.