The Obama administration’s new waiver plan (officially here, and covered extensively here, here, and here– and elsewhere, I’m sure) doesn’t officially repeal the No Child Left Behind Act, but it is tantamount to making large-scale amendments to it. Which it does unilaterally, without even a thumbs-up from Congress.
Though the specific conditions that the White House and Secretary Duncan are attaching to statewide “flexibility waivers” are consistent with the administration’s long-standing “blueprint” for reauthorizing NCLB, and also happen to be conditions that I think generally have merit, they amount to changing the law, not just waiving it. This raises constitutional as well as statutory issues — though the administration’s response, not surprisingly or implausibly, is that “if a do-nothing Congress won’t act to solve problems, we’ll solve them ourselves as best we can.”
Yet the changes themselves — at least their timing and high-profile release — are motivated at least as much by election-year political considerations as by policy. This is not the first example, and surely won’t be the last, of appealing to key constituencies by undoing, suspending, or waiving government practices that they find onerous and unpleasant. Consider the non-deportation of illegal alienswho haven’t committed crimes. Hispanic (and other immigrant) voters will surely applaud this move and likely thank the administration in November 2012.
Today’s announcements mean that teachers and parents (and school-board members and administrators) will also breathe a sigh of relief at the suggestion that the president and his education secretary are taking the heavy hand of unrealistic achievement targets, embarrassing school labels, and unwanted accountability burdens off their frail shoulders.
And they’ll be partly right, for the promised waivers, once issued, really do ease the most painful parts of NCLB — provisions that analysts and critics have pointed to for a very long time as needing revision.
But they’ll be only partly right. For the administration is also imposing its own preconditions on states for waiver eligibility. Three in particular, all of which are wrenching and controversial in their own right, and at least one of which could result in an election-year firestorm:
● Teachers and principals will be concerned about the obligation of states to develop evaluation systems for them that incorporate measures of student progress.
● A variety of groups will be upset over the plan to impose “rigorous interventions to turn schools around” only on a small number of really low-performing schools and let merely-mediocre schools escape the turnaround lash.
● The greatest potential for political controversy, however, is the requirement that states seeking waivers “have already adopted college- and career-ready standards” in math and English language arts, which is preceded (in the White House document) by reference to the Common Core State Standards Initiative. This will surely be viewed by Common Core skeptics as entangling Title I with that heretofore state-driven initiative and creating new federal incentives for states to embrace its “national” standards. I happen to think the Common Core standards are generally worth embracing, but I also understand that much of what’s good about them is their separateness from Uncle Sam. That distance is now disappearing.
One who might notice is the governor of Texas, who detests everything about the Common Core and has kept his state out of it — and who just happens to be Barack Obama’s likeliest opponent in the 2012 election.
— Chester E. Finn Jr. is the president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
I'm not a legal expert so I don't know if the President can grant waivers. However, even if legal, what is the point of a law if the President can grant waivers as he sees fit?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUm. I must be having a senior moment here. Can somebody remind me where in the Constitution of the United States of America the federal government is given the authority over education? Thanks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI live in a district in a western burb of Chicago that has 2 high schools (East and West). Neither has ever reported numbers higher than 16% of students achieving "proficiency". That means less than 16% reach 70% in the 4 main areas of testing. Imagine if we defined "proficiency" more accurately!!
Here's the kicker, the East school has been in NCLB "improvement" status every year since it was eligible. This means that their students have "school choice". What's their only choice? Well, it's to go to West instead....which is just as bad. West isn't in improvement status because, as I've researched, they don't accept Title I funds, so are not mandated to abide by NCLB. That’s right, Title I decisions are not done by district, but by school. When I tried to find out how much Title I funding the schools had before/after NCLB, I received no response. You can go choose a school outside the district but only if all district schools are in improvement status and that’s only possible if they are all on-board with NCLB mandates.
Our oldest are twins and are now freshman at a private high school. Since moving isn't an option for us, I'm suddenly saddled with 20K/year in tuition. Call us crazy, but we didn't have the heart to send them to a school where the rape/homicide/pregnancy rates exceed the graduation rate.
I'm truly entertained by the teaching professions' nearly unanimous hatred of NCLB because it uses testing as a measure of success. If testing is out as a measurement tool, what other tool is there?
I've got a simple idea for reform. First, testing will be the measurement tool. Sorry teachers, it's the only thing that makes sense. Second, when a school reaches the "choice" point, the student's family can choose ANY school, including private schools. The state would pay the tuition directly. I can't imagine a quicker way to force true improvement in public schools. This would eliminate the impossible influx of students at adjacent public schools (like happens today).
On a side note, my 2 kids' tuition is 20K but Illinois funds 2 high school students in my area at roughly 30K, so my idea would save taxpayers' money. We also have a son with special needs so I’m well-versed in that area too. That is just 14% of total education spending so the savings I describe are real…..and would come out of the pockets of overpaid union teachers and administrators.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf the GOP were truly interested, they would defend Congress's EXCLUSIVE power to pass regulations.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCouple of things here:
1. The feds have NO business in education - it's a disaster - truly an equivalent of their "war on drugs"
2. This president has gotten very good a usurping powers and being anti-American - we've gone to equality under the law to the the law only applying to one's political enemies with waivers for anyone else (health care and now this). How can it be that this bum has even read the Constitution, let alone "lectured" on it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is a reason "this bum", an Associate Law Professor of Constitutional Law, doesn't understand the Constitution. He was never really a professor. No lectures, no students, no tests can be found. It was a "gimme" job that was a payoff to bulk up his salary.
It has been very common to give these positions to politicians or their spouses as a pay-off. Most recent examples of "payola jobs", Michelle at the hospital and Hillary (although Hillary must have done some work, she obviously kept the files for them!). It is also how Hillary made all that money in cattle futures.
Reality, Obama was never a professor in anything but name, the name on the paycheck!
The biggest problem with this usurpation of power. It is setting precedent. Congress needs to grow some and do it in a hurry. They need to protect their authority or the Constitution will mean nothing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnionized government monopoly...three words that define thhe reason why American schools are so bad. Marx must be so proud.
Obama is all about smoke and mirrows because he would never support any change to the power of unions, government, or monopolies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would like to see the United States education system mimic Japan's. Why do we alway lower standards for Americans rather than raise standards and expectations for every American? In a way Hillary Clinton was right when she said it takes a village to raise a child - it takes a village of hard working, self-supporting, producing, tax-paying, concerned citizens who accept only the best from everyone of us. I'm sure Hillary meant something a little different.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusein illinois our governor(Quinn) raised tax rates, then gave waivers to large cos. that threatened to move out of state!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe very concept of issuing waivers is anathema. Laws may not be passed that apply, or do not apply, to specific people. Congress cannot do it and for the executive to do it is doubly intolerable. The ancient Romans put up a bigger fight for their freedom while we, the self proclaimed epitome of liberty, watch new caesars and their senatorial cronies create a more profound tyranny than Octavian ever imagined. Executive legislation, whether by presidential order or through agency issued "regulation" must be abolished forever and totally.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf there is even one person, or constituency, that should be exempt from a law, then there should never be such a law in the first place. And any legislator, or president, who does not know that should be removed from office with all due alacrity. Period.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCongress may be do nothing, but the executive branch has not business changing laws passed by congress. We have a constitution with checks and balances.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe President leaves conservatives in a bad spot here. On one hand we recognize that he is doing what he doing for expedient political reasons and we feel like opposing him. On the other hand we know that the Congress was never given authority to take over the education systems of the states. A President who took his oath to uphold the Constitution seriously would certainly thwart the federal overreach in NCLB. But President Obama cannot claim 10th Amendment reasoning for his decision, that would undermine his agenda in every area. So he blames Congress for not fixing a bad law from the era of his predecessor, a law Republicans should have opposed in the first place.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe President leaves conservatives in a bad spot here. On one hand we recognize that he is doing what he doing for expedient political reasons and we feel like opposing him. On the other hand we know that the Congress was never given authority to take over the education systems of the states. A President who took his oath to uphold the Constitution seriously would certainly thwart the federal overreach in NCLB. But President Obama cannot claim 10th Amendment reasoning for his decision, that would undermine his agenda in every area. So he blames Congress for not fixing a bad law from the era of his predecessor, a law Republicans should have opposed in the first place.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse