2008 Woodie Awards
Effective funding management key for NCLB policy
Kellyn Moran
Issue date: 9/7/07 Section: OpEd Page
While presidential candidates raise money and give stump speeches to strategize for the 2008 election, Capitol Hill is still in need of leadership on a few big issues. Among legislation to be debated this fall is the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, which is up for reauthorization. George Miller, (D-CA), chair of the House Education and Labor Committee, drafted and distributed his version of the adapted legislation and said the committee will likely hear discussion on it soon. According to his House Web site, though, Senate is waiting to see the reaction to House legislation before tackling the issue.
The apprehension of Congress to generate a final product is due to the great amount of public attention focused on education. NCLB-arguably the most substantial federal education policy as it affects all students-was an experiment of federal authority on an issue that was usually delegated to the states. The face of education policy has developed drastically in recent history, with a trend of a shift in power from state to federal government and maintenance of state-funded education programs supplemented by federal funding.
The shift began in the mid-20th century, with President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty. During this era, Title I programs were created to serve the most economically disadvantaged youth. The federal government expanded its power over education policy under President Clinton in the 1990s, and moreso under NCLB.
Yet, while NCLB legislation passed with an 87-10 vote in Senate and 381-41 vote in the House in 2001, bipartisan support for the bill has shifted to bipartisan disdain. Now, the problem lies in how to effectively rewrite the act as it comes up for reauthorization, and neither party seems willing to make sweeping changes to the legislation for fear of committing political suicide a year before a significant presidential election.
Of the more than 70 bills introduced in the House and Senate, the same issues reoccur: making adjustments to assessments for students with disabilities, adapting curricula and tests for English as Second Language students, and creating incentives for members of the military and university students to become educators. Despite the similarities, party, state, and district differences on the issue of education leads to a lack of collaboration among members and a slow-moving pace for change.
The apprehension of Congress to generate a final product is due to the great amount of public attention focused on education. NCLB-arguably the most substantial federal education policy as it affects all students-was an experiment of federal authority on an issue that was usually delegated to the states. The face of education policy has developed drastically in recent history, with a trend of a shift in power from state to federal government and maintenance of state-funded education programs supplemented by federal funding.
The shift began in the mid-20th century, with President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty. During this era, Title I programs were created to serve the most economically disadvantaged youth. The federal government expanded its power over education policy under President Clinton in the 1990s, and moreso under NCLB.
Yet, while NCLB legislation passed with an 87-10 vote in Senate and 381-41 vote in the House in 2001, bipartisan support for the bill has shifted to bipartisan disdain. Now, the problem lies in how to effectively rewrite the act as it comes up for reauthorization, and neither party seems willing to make sweeping changes to the legislation for fear of committing political suicide a year before a significant presidential election.
Of the more than 70 bills introduced in the House and Senate, the same issues reoccur: making adjustments to assessments for students with disabilities, adapting curricula and tests for English as Second Language students, and creating incentives for members of the military and university students to become educators. Despite the similarities, party, state, and district differences on the issue of education leads to a lack of collaboration among members and a slow-moving pace for change.
Be the first to comment on this story