Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (R) was challenged on multiple pieces of his record at last night’s CNN Republican presidential debate in Arizona, but his answer to why he voted for No Child Left Behind, the comprehensive education reform bill signed by President George W. Bush, drew the most criticism. “I have to admit, I voted for that, it was against the principles I believed in, but you know, when you’re part of the team, sometimes you take one for the team, for the leader, and I made a mistake,” Santorum said.

On the campaign trail today, Romney immediately seized on Santorum’s “take one for the team” apology:

ROMNEY: He talked of this of being ‘taking for one the team.’ I wonder which team he was taking it for. My team is the American people, not the insiders in Washington, and I’ll fight for the people of America, not special interests. … He talked about voting for No Child Left Behind, even though that was against his principles.

While slamming Santorum as a “Washington insider,” Romney conveniently neglected to mention his own support for the law, which he highlighted as an example of where he disagrees with many conservatives in a 2008 interview on Fox’s Hannity & Colmes:

ROMNEY: I’d say that not all conserves line up with me on a few of the positions I have. For instance, I support having a Department of Education. I support No Child Left Behind. I think it’s improving our schools. I agree that we need to give more flexibility to states in applying it, but I support it.

Watch it:

As opposed to other issues, Romney’s position on education has remained fairly consistent. He’s been a vocal proponent of school testing while on the campaign trail and passed up an opportunity to criticize Santorum last night, saying Bush “was right to fight” against teachers unions to pass No Child Left Behind, even if some changes now need to be made to it.

But with conservatives criticizing Santorum’s answer today, Romney has apparently decided to pile on, ignoring that he’s criticizing Santorum’s support for a law he also supports.

Our guest blogger is Jeremy Ayers, Senior Education Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Last week, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee passed a bill to revise No Child Left Behind. We have commented on the pros and cons of this bill elsewhere. But Republicans signaled during the debate that they intend to weaken provisions in the bill as it moves to the floor, including the accountability, teacher, school improvement, and funding proposals in the bill. All of this, they claim, will be done in the name of reducing the federal role in education.

There’s nothing wrong with right-sizing the role of government, but one of the values of federal education policy is ensuring disadvantaged students get an excellent education and their fair share of resources. That is something Republicans continually tried to diminish during the HELP committee debate, sometimes successfully. Let’s take a look at what they accomplished and what lies ahead.

Amendment: Gut accountability for making student progress.
Result: Withdrawn due to lack of votes.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) proposed an amendment that would prevent federal law from asking states to improve student achievement. That’s odd, since improvement seems a legitimate thing to expect in exchange for federal funding, and the primary goal of education is to improve student learning. He promised to bring this amendment up again.

Amendment: Repeal teacher requirements.
Result: Withdrawn due to lack of votes.

Alexander also proposed an amendment that would no longer require teachers to have any qualifications. The current definition of a “highly qualified teacher” is not perfect, but to allow anyone to work in the classroom seems irresponsible. And it runs contrary to evidence (and common sense) that knowing the subject you teach makes a difference in how your students learn. Alexander promised to bring this amendment up again as well.

Read more

Our guest blogger is Jeremy Ayers, Senior Education Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Today, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee began debate on a bill to revise No Child Left Behind, a revision that was originally due to be completed in 2007. But Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) shut down the committee by invoking a rarely enforced rule that limits committee meetings to two hours when the Senate is in session. That’s an interesting move given that he said at the hearing he wants to change or even throw out NCLB, the very thing the committee was attempting to do.

So what led Paul to prevent the Senate from revising the very law he says he wants to revise? In his remarks he complained that he did not have time to read the bill and that the committee had held no hearings since he was elected (comments at 59:12):

We are given an 868 page piece of legislation on Monday and expected to digest it. Look at the amendments here. I’ve probably got 1,000 pages of amendments, not to mention mine. I may have another 1,000 pages of amendments.

But Paul filed 74 amendments to revise the bill being considered. Apparently, he had enough time to read the bill to think up, draft, and submit 74 changes. Plus, the original version of the bill was actually released to the public over a week ago, on October 11. Of course, private versions were circulated weeks before that among senators, staff, and some members of the public.

But that’s probably not what really motivated Paul. After the committee hearing ended, he went to the Senate floor to continue his protest. There he revealed why he’s actually obstructing the process for changing No Child Left Behind:

There’s no provision in the Constitution for the federal government to be involved [in education] period. This was part of the Republican platform from nearly 30 years, that we didn’t believe in federal control, we wanted to leave local control.

Watch it:

It’s understandable to hold philosophical principles about the role of the federal government. But if you object to federal involvement in education, perhaps being on the Senate education committee is not the best assignment. And it seems odd to shut down the entire process that is trying to fix and improve a bill you claim to want to fix. But perhaps nothing will be satisfactory to the far right until federal education programs are gutted entirely. In the short-term at least, Republican leaders will have to decide whether to spend their energy on appeasing the Tea Party right or improving schools for America’s students.

Our guest blogger is Jeremy Ayers, senior education policy analyst at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Today Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) unveiled his long overdue plan, reportedly negotiated with Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), to revise the No Child Left Behind Act. In comments to press, Harkin explained, “we are moving into a partnership role with the states.” This bill is strong, he contends, because it “focuses on teaching and learning, not testing and sanctioning.”

The draft released today does take some important steps forward in making the law better, similar to proposals the Center for American Progress outlined earlier this year. But it takes one big step backward in terms of accountability, something Harkin seemed to acknowledge. The plan is certainly better than highly partisan, unworkable Republican proposals in the Senate and House, but it needs some significant improvements before it becomes law.

The Senate plan does a couple of things that parents and the public should welcome:

– Building the Talent: The Senate plan would ensure that teachers and principals get better feedback on how well they help students learn, and then make sure that information is used to improve their skills. Measures would be put in place to make sure every student gets an effective teacher, especially those least likely to have them — low-income students and students of color.

– Maximizing the Money: Many people think schools with poor students get more resources than other schools. But they often get less, which is partly due to a loophole in federal education law that papers over inequity. The Senate plan would close the loophole and require school districts to ensure that poorer schools get extra resources.

– Fixing the Problems: The Senate plan would focus on turning around struggling schools. It would provide resources for increasing student learning time and for addressing the non-academic needs of low-income students, such as medical or health services. The Senate plan would target specific interventions to the bottom 5 percent of low-performing schools, and it would require locally-devised efforts in another 5 percent of schools with large gaps between high- and low-achieving student groups.

However, the bill misses the mark by a wide margin in terms of accountability. The bill would not require states to set measurable, quantifiable goals for making progress with students. It would instead merely ask them to make “continuous improvement.” And there appear to be no consequences if states fail to hit even that broad target. That takes away all positive pressure to ensure states and districts effectively educate students, particularly low-income, minority, and disabled students.

To be sure, Congress cannot make schools better simply by telling them to get better. But absent goals and positive pressure to improve, some states will set the bar low, just as they did in the 1990s when federal law similarly asked for “continuous improvement.” Then, one state claimed making progress meant “not sliding backward,” while another said it would aim to decrease the number of students who scored at the bottom of the scale. That sounds more like a race-to-not-be-at-the-bottom than a race to the top.

Accountability isn’t the answer to all education problems. But neither is flexibility. Both work in tandem, and Congress should find a better, smarter balance between the two as it moves forward in the reauthorization process.

Last night’s Republican debate in Florida was filled with candidates’ tirades about the federal government’s role in education. No Child Left Behind, the sweeping and unpopular education law signed by President George W. Bush, was singled out for criticism, with Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) saying they’d do away with it altogether.

Many Republicans want to either scrap the law or substantially change it, including House Education Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MI), who calls NCLB “too large of an intrusion of the federal government.”

Yet after bashing No Child Left Behind — while doing nothing to fix it themselves — the GOP has turned right around and criticized the administration for moving ahead with reforms to scale it back. The Hill reports that Republicans are “ready to pounce” on Obama for issuing waivers to the states that will free them from many of NCLB’s requirements:

President Obama will announce major changes to No Child Left Behind Friday, which is already drawing criticism from Republicans who feel the administration is exercising too much power in the country’s education system.

In a ceremony at the White House, Secretary Arne Duncan and Obama will urge states to apply for waivers on the provision of NCLB that requires school proficiency by 2014, but there’s a catch. The administration is requiring that states adopt education policy changes the administration deems necessary.[...]

But Republicans on Capitol Hill don’t want the administration imposing more regulations on states and schools.

House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R-Minn.) called the waiver requirements a “political move” by the administration.

But Obama’s move is understood nationwide as a move towards ending the most-hated parts of NCLB. “This is the beginning of the end of the No Child era,” said Jack Jennings, president of the Center on Education Policy, a nonpartisan research group.

Republicans determination to criticize Obama when he’s doing something they’ve long called for illustrates that they will find a way to attack the president no matter what he does. Regulations on states and schools were already imposed by Bush — Obama is trying to roll them back while keeping education standards high.

The waivers are necessary because NCLB required annual yearly progress tests show student proficiency or schools would face significant penalties. Forty-five states are expected to apply for the waivers, which allow states to continue receiving federal education funds.

Our guest blogger is Jeremy Ayers, senior education policy analyst at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Today President Obama announced that the Department of Education will relieve states from some problematic requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or ESEA. States can apply to waive certain parts of the law that are impractical or ineffective — such as ensuring all students are proficient in math and reading by 2014 — only if they submit a rigorous and comprehensive plan of reforms. Such a move could provide much needed flexibility while maintaining positive pressure on states to improve their education systems.

Ranking member on the House Workforce and Education Committee Rep. George Miller (D-CA) has said he supports the plan:

“A full, comprehensive reauthorization is everybody’s first choice and something I hope to continue working toward,” Miller said. “But in the absence of action by Republicans in Congress, President Obama is outlining a path to success for our country and our economy with these waivers.”

The current version of ESEA, known as No Child Left Behind, has glaring problems that need immediate fixing. The law identifies schools as “in need of improvement” whether they missed achievement targets by a little or a lot. The law prescribes interventions for those schools, but they are not working as well as they could. Congress needs to reauthorize ESEA to solve such problems permanently. But lawmakers have not been able to come to agreement, and the law has been operating on auto-pilot since 2007 when it was scheduled to be revised.

By creating a process that allows states to apply for waivers, the federal government is helping schools states, districts, and schools. The waiver process is an opportunity to relieve states of unnecessary barriers to achieving the basic goals of ESEA — improving academic results for all students. This move to offer waivers could provide much needed flexibility in the interim while Congress musters up the will to reauthorize the law, and is a step in the right direction.

During last night’s GOP presidential primary debate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry was asked to differentiate himself from the last American president who hailed from the Lone Star State: George W. Bush. Perry responded by saying that his “vocal” opposition to Bush’s No Child Left Behind law is one of the things that sets them apart:

What we have in — in — in difference is probably as much as in style as in substance on various issues. For instance, you know, I was very vocal in my disagreement with him on Medicaid Part D that the federal government should be involved in that very expensive program.

And I was also vocal against No Child Left Behind. It gets back to the federal government has no business telling the states how to educate our children.

Watch it:

Perry may think now that the federal government “has no business” in education, but in 2002, he was very happy to do business with the U.S. Department of Education, applauding No Child Left Behind and bragging about the funds Texas would receive under the law:

“Texas was a model for President Bush’s No Child Left Behind legislation, and we continue to lead the nation in innovative solutions to improve our schools,” Perry said. “The U.S. Department of Education’s stamp of approval means we can move forward with our plan to improve early childhood education, dropout prevention, teaching excellence, science education and our schools’ use of technology.” [...]

On Jan. 8, Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act, which authorizes federal education appropriations and increases the emphasis on accountability. Texas is set to receive $2.3 billion for K-12 education under the act, an increase of $397 million over the state’s current appropriation.

In 2005, when it looked like funding for No Child Left Behind was going to be cut in the Senate, Perry dispatched a lobbying team to preserve the money. $14.5 million of that money “was directed to Texas for ‘innovation programs.’”

Since then, Perry has tried to reinvent his education positions, saying that NCLB was “a monstrous intrusion into our affairs.” He has also advanced the theory that federal education funding as a whole is unconstitutional. But that didn’t stop him from praising and accepting NCLB money, or from accepting aid from the other education programs that the federal government has made available.

Our guest blogger is Jeremy Ayers, Senior Education Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)

Yesterday a group of four Republican Senators, led by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), introduced a package of bills to reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act, a law that certainly needs revising. But the Republican rewrite would take away the requirement of states and districts to act to improve struggling schools. And partisan bills like these only make it harder to revise the law in a bipartisan way, something Alexander said he was committed to doing earlier this year.

The Republican bills would, together, do four things: fund the expansion of successful charter schools, consolidate various programs into state block grants, create a differential pay program for teachers, and scale back the accountability of states and school districts. A more detailed overview can be found here. But a few obvious problems stand out.

First, turning federal programs into block grants may seem attractive to those on the far right who think anything that Washington had its hand in is tainted. But it’s poor stewardship of taxpayer money to have zero accountability for how federal money is spent and to have no focus on disadvantaged students, the main federal role in education.

Secondly, if Republicans think that performance-based pay programs (and block grants) alone will improve the teacher workforce, they’re naïve. It takes far more than that, like better training, support in the classroom, and policies that focus on teachers’ effectiveness with students.

Thirdly, accountability is a good thing; it holds states’ and districts’ feet to the fire for improving student progress. The Republican package would only focus on the lowest-performing 5 percent of schools in each state. It would let states and districts do whatever they want — including nothing or very little — for the remaining 95 percent. That is simply insufficient in today’s economy when American students compete with highly-educated students from around the globe in an increasingly competitive job market.

Following the debt limit crisis, the public has witnessed a demoralizing breakdown in bipartisan governing. It is unfortunate that these bills only add fuel to the fire. Rather than reaching an honest hand across the aisle, these Senators put up a partisan roadblock to progress.

No wonder Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has said he’ll soon offer states relief from the broken current law in exchange for engaging in real reforms to improve our nation’s schools. That kind of action offers real hope to struggling schools and students that the federal government is working to make their lives better. Republicans need to stop playing politics with America’s children and get back to the negotiating table.

Our guest blogger is Theodora Chang, an education policy analyst at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Today, White House officials announced that the administration will provide waivers to states to encourage continued education reform and ease the burden of the most outdated provisions of the existing education law (No Child Left Behind). While states will have to wait another month to learn the specifics of the administration’s proposal, President Obama’s willingness to push education reform past congressional gridlock is necessary.

Early signs of hope for reauthorizing NCLB are long gone, leaving a largely broken piece of legislation. In spite of the growing need to fix the law, which the president and administration officials have recognized for months, Congress has been slow to move on the issue. After the recent debt ceiling debacle, Democrats in Congress now agree that there is little chance for a bi-partisan reauthorization, and they are backing the administration’s move toward waivers. However, Rep. John Kline (R-MN), Chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, continues to argue that Congress is not the problem:

“I remain concerned that temporary measures instituted by the department, such as conditional waivers, could undermine the committee’s efforts to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,” Kline said in a statement.

While the law illuminated serious achievement gaps by requiring better data collection and reporting, it also created sanctions for districts and states that fail to meet their targets. Under NCLB, states set their own achievement targets and academic standards, and they are expected to get nearly all students proficient in reading and math by 2014. One significant issue is that the law fails to adequately recognize states and districts making remarkable strides in student growth and sometimes even encourages states to adopt lower standards.

Regardless of the exact waiver process, it will be critical for the Department of Education to preserve an emphasis on accountability and disaggregated student data. It will also be crucial for reform efforts to continue focusing on teacher effectiveness and school improvement. The goal of these waivers should be to provide concrete but temporary solutions while reformers continue to push for more permanent fixes through reauthorization.

Republican lethargy on education has left it up to the White House to take action. With the clock ticking toward the first day of school, the Obama administration has wisely concluded that further progress will require solutions from a branch of government that is capable of acting – and it’s clearly not going to be Congress anytime soon.