EdAction
Maple River Education Coalition PAC
105 Peavey Rd, St 116
Chaska, MN
55318
952-361-4931
http://www.EdAction.org
E-mail
December 24, 2001
by Michael J. Chapman
Maple River Education Coalition, Board of Directors
For some time now, The Maple River Education Coalition has been warning citizens that "No Child Left Behind" (President Bush's reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) would force the Goals 2000 / School-to-Work system on every school in the nation. With few exceptions, "conservative" legislators across the country refused to believe us, citing such things as "sunset dates," and "repeal language."
We tried to explain that "repeal" simply means the scaffolding can come down but the building would remain standing. In other words, Goals 2000 and School-to-Work has served its purpose; all that remains is to add an enforcement mechanism to hold states accountable to sustain what is already built!
Well, you no longer have to take our word for it. The Kennedy/Miller wing of Bush's education tent is publicly singing the same song - too giddy to wait until after the signing ceremony.
On Saturday, December 22nd, the LA Times reported the admission in an article entitled, appropriately, "Enforcement Key in Overhauling Nation's Schools." Representative George Miller, one of the key Democratic members of the committee that drafted the final bill, said it all: "You need to be a tough cop on the beat to enforce what Congress says it wants states to do." In the "past," said Miller, the federal government has "caved in like a cheap suit." No longer!
According to the LA Times article, U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige said "he would insist that states comply with the nearly 1,200-page bill's expectations, even if it means withholding aid from states that do not [comply.]" I find it interesting that "enforcement" seems to be the only subject the pundits speak of when referring to the "new" education plan, "No Child Left Behind."
Where exactly does the federal government want to take all these children? Simply put: they are to be held accountable to Goals 2000 and STW! That goal has not changed with this new administration. Eugene Hickok Jr., the Undersecretary of Education, explains simply: "It falls to us now.... Our goal is to create a change in the culture of education which will now emphasize performance and results rather than just inputs."
The vocabulary of the new education and workforce system must always be carefully tracked. Keep your handy glossary close. In the above statement three common terms of the new education system are used, and we provide their translations below.
"Performance" is the buzzword for job-skills training of the 1994 School- to-Work bill.
"Results-oriented" education is the term given Outcome-based Education (OBE) within the 1994 Goals 2000 legislation. OBE is the attitudes, the values, the belief system wrapped up into a federal education curriculum.
"Inputs" refer to old-fashioned teachers teaching academic, knowledge- based curriculum - now admittedly a thing of the past.
The LA Times article states, "Similar sentiments were expressed in 1994, the last time the federal government enacted education reform. Under that law, states were supposed to develop ambitious expectations for students and put in place tests to measure whether all students were meeting them."
What "education reform" was enacted in 1994? None other than Goals 2000 and School-to-Work. In other words, No Child Left Behind contains "similar sentiments" and "ambitious expectations" as those expressed in the federal 1994 Goals 2000 and STW federal Acts!
Secretary Paige laments, "So far, only 16 states have met all of that bill's requirements, even though the deadlines have long since passed."
"So far" sounds like the secretary knows that all states must eventually comply. And to what will they comply? They will comply with the requirements set by laws whose deadlines have already passed! Since "No Child Left Behind" hasn't been signed yet, he must be referring to Goals 2000, STW and the 1994 reauthorization, HR6. HR6 put the first Goals 2000 / STW enforcement mechanism in place, threatening the withdrawal of all Title I money to schools and states that did not comply.
So, why are Miller, Kennedy, and Paige so confident this time? The LA Times article continues: "But no state has been penalized for failing to satisfy the earlier law's requirements..." No Child Left Behind changes all that.
One big difference is the federal Workforce Investment Act (WIA), passed in 1998. The WIA requires a "unified plan" in every state that consolidates all federal education and workforce programs and funding into an aligned funding stream. Unlike in 1994, the WIA "unified plan" threatens all federal education and workforce money if the state is non-compliant.
Ultimately poor children, the blind, disabled - all at-risk children - have fewer choices. They will be held hostage to the "federal cops on the beat enforcing what Congress says it wants states to do," as Representative George Miller stated in the LA Times! Politicians will have a tougher time saying "no" if it means cutting programs for the poor.
According to the Times article, Lindsey Kozberg, a spokeswoman for the US Department of Education, explained that "the new law gives the administration less leeway in how to enforce the bill." "Less leeway" does not mean less power. It means the administration can no longer grant waivers. The carrot of "voluntary" grant money (Goals 2000 and STW) is now simply a stick. It's all very clear: All or Nothing! "My way; or the highway!"
Bottom Line: "No Child Left Behind" means just that! All must comply! The new deadline for implementing the School-to-Work system and the Goals 2000 curriculum on every child in America is 2005. Call it: "Goals 2005 - and this time we mean it!"
We at Maple River Education Coalition have been accused by some Republicans of being on the wrong side of this issue because our liberal Senators Wellstone and Dayton voted against Bush's bill. In fact eight of ten of the Minnesota delegation (including Republicans) voted against this bill and one abstained. Regardless of their motives, the fact is, a vote against HR1 was a right vote. Our critics ought be more concerned about President Bush catering to the Miller/Kennedy team.
As the Miller/Kennedy/Bush cops begin to tighten the noose in flagrant violation of the 10th amendment to the United States Constitution, I hope states will wake up and just say "NO" to the federal government's extortion. Refuse the money and hold a bake sale instead. Teach students to read and write and do arithmetic. Test them for academic knowledge rather than assessing their demonstrated value based on federally mandated attitudes and behaviors. Give teachers back their freedom to teach! Let locally elected representatives (not appointed local workforce boards) be in charge of local schools once again. Then "we the people" can hold government accountable for failures - the way it was meant to be! Then, and only then, will education begin to improve.