by Julie Quist

"I would have No Child Left Behind repealed."
Freshman Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who campaigned on eliminating it.

        Just weeks ago, the Chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, Congressman George Miller (D-CA), was said to be unveiling his proposal for re-authorizing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) by the end of July, but NCLB legislation hasn't been introduced in Congress in either the House or the Senate. After this week, Congress will be in recess until after Labor Day. NCLB expires September 30th.
        
        Why the foot-dragging on NCLB? Miller was a key architect of the 2001 NCLB Act, and, until recently, he opposed any significant changes in the law. This week, however, he told the National Press Club,  "I can tell you that there are no votes in the U.S. House of Representatives for continuing the No Child Left Behind Act without making serious changes to it."  His "goal" is to pass legislation in September.

        The changes he's floating, however, leave federal bureaucrats in control, actually adding more measures for schools to meet. He would, for example, expand federal oversight over how teacher evaluations. While teacher "performance pay" is worthy of debate, why would taxpayers trust Washington dictate a teacher salary system? And if teacher performance criteria are the same annual NCLB low-level tests that are now driving curriculum to the bottom, how would that raise the quality of teaching?
Miller would also include more criteria to judge schools as competent -- graduation rates, for example. In other words, under the Miller plan, a huge, new incentive would be created to graduate students in order to avoid school closures. That idea expands NCLB into high schools and undermines any remaining reliability of graduation standards, which are already painfully low.

        The MIller plan would also throw more money at the problem, though he wouldn't say how much. In response to a reporter's question, Miller also implied that English Language Learners might be assessed with tests in other languages.

        Other possible accountability criteria for schools that Miller mentioned were "portfolios." Portfolios are student essays, drawings and reports, a completely subjective measure of achievement.  Even Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, a strong supporter of NCLB, is appalled at that idea. "We're over-testing (students), so let's have more tests?" she commented to Debra Saunders in the San Francisco Chronicle.

         Rep. Tim Walz, D-MN is one Democrat freshman who wants to expand NCLB to include student "portfolios," according to a May 16, 2007 issue of EdWeek. Walz criticized NCLB while campaigning, says EdWeek, "as an unfunded federal mandate that forces schools to narrow their instruction so that students can pass standardized tests." But he and other freshman Democrats are "now seeking common ground with key Democratic architects of the NCLB law," namely Committee Chair George Miller.

        Walz' flip-flop has drawn fire from within his district where opposition to NCLB runs high. "In a day and time when politicians have such a poor reputation for saying one thing and doing another, it appears even my own Congressman has misled voters here," said Renee Doyle, President of EdWatch. "He's simply caved, and that's a serious matter in Minnesota."  Minnesota led the country in its opposition to NCLB in 2001, with only one of Minnesota's congressional delegation voting yes on authorization.

        Minnesota freshman Rep. Keith Ellison, D-MN also campaigned against NCLB, but he told EdWeek that while repeal was a possibility "if we mount a strong enough effort," it "probably is not" on the agenda. It doesn't sound like he'll be heading up a repeal effort.

         Cong. Carol Shea