- Home
- Commentaries and Reports
- Schools Beware! Here Come the Feds Again
Schools Beware! Here Come the Feds Again
- By David W. Kirkpatrick Columnist EdNews.org
- Published 03/22/2007
- Commentaries and Reports
-
Rating:
David W. Kirkpatrick Columnist EdNews.org
View all articles by David W. Kirkpatrick Columnist EdNews.orgSchools Beware! Here Come the Feds Again
David W. Kirkpatrick
Columnist EdNews.org
Senior Education Fellow U.S. Freedom Foundation
This is an update of an Aril 24, 2003 commentary which looked at the federal enactment of the various versions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), beginning with the first one signed into law in 1965.
Although its current version, the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), was projected to have a 12-year sequence, the prediction here was that it wouldn't last that long. It won't. It is now before Congress for reauthorization. From the beginning, some opponents resisted carrying out its provisions. To the degree they succeeded, and the plan doesn't live up to its proclaimed promises, they can say "we told you so." This tactic has a long history among education reforms.
Looking ahead to the reauthorization, it may be useful to recall comments made when earlier versions became law.
On April 11, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson said of the original ESEA, "No law I have signed or will ever sign means more to the future of America."
On December 15, 1967 Rep. John McCormack said, "This conference report is of transcending importance not only to the America of today but for generations to come in the future." (Are there generations to come in the past?)
On April 7, 1970, Rep. Carl Perkins remarked, "this is one of the most important conference reports that has ever been brought before this chamber."
August 2, 1974 found President Gerald Ford saying "Today, and for generations to come, America will benefit from this law which expresses our national commitment to quality education for all children."
November 1, 1978, President Jimmy Carter claimed "we have together taken an historic step in the evolution of the Federal role in education."
April 19, 1988, Rep. Martin Frost concluded "the provisions of this conference agreement will, in the coming years, assist our schools in providing the best educational opportunities possible for our Nation's schoolchildren."
And, on July 27, 1994, it was Senator Ted Kennedy's turn: "It is not an overstatement to say this is the most important reauthorization in this legislation's history.
"
With the perspective of time there are those who might conclude that all of the quoted remarks were overstatements to say the least. It is reasonable to expect more superlatives this time too, few if any of which can be expected to stand the test of time.
More than forty years have passed since the creation of the original ESEA legislation. One might paraphrase a famous remark by Ronald Reagan in the 1980 presidential campaign and ask whether the nation's students are better off today than they were then.
Not only has dramatic progress not been made some think many of the problems in basic education are the result of actions by the federal government. That two things happen in sequence is not sufficient proof that the first caused the second but this is one instance where it is reasonable to suspect the possibility.
A major characteristic of elected officials is a tendency to overpromise and underdeliver. This can cause more cynicism toward government than allegations of dishonesty or other improprieties. It is a safe bet that whatever emerges from the latest consideration of the ESEA/NCLB it will be accompanied by similar euphoric praise from members of Congress and the President.
Whether or not the federal government is the cause of many of the difficulties of basic education over the past forty years, it is fair to say that it certainly has not been able to prevent or correct them, despite the expenditure of huge amounts of money and the establishment of more programs and regulations that anyone can count. One estimate is that the federal government alone contains more than 760 education programs within its departments and agencies.
One cause for possible concern today may be the realization that this latest package of reforms will be the results of one more agreement by major players in education and government. Referring to such unity several years ago, Irving Kristol stated as his first law of educational reform that "Any reform that is acceptable to the educational establishment, and that can gain a majority in a legislature, federal or state, is bound to be worse than nothing."
"The 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act was only a few dozen pages long. The NCLB is 1,100 pages." P. 12, Lawrence A. Uzzell, "No Bureaucrat Left Behind," Cato Policy Report, May/June 2005
Columnist EdNews.org
Senior Education Fellow U.S. Freedom Foundation
This is an update of an Aril 24, 2003 commentary which looked at the federal enactment of the various versions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), beginning with the first one signed into law in 1965.
Although its current version, the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), was projected to have a 12-year sequence, the prediction here was that it wouldn't last that long. It won't. It is now before Congress for reauthorization. From the beginning, some opponents resisted carrying out its provisions. To the degree they succeeded, and the plan doesn't live up to its proclaimed promises, they can say "we told you so." This tactic has a long history among education reforms.
Looking ahead to the reauthorization, it may be useful to recall comments made when earlier versions became law.
On April 11, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson said of the original ESEA, "No law I have signed or will ever sign means more to the future of America."
On December 15, 1967 Rep. John McCormack said, "This conference report is of transcending importance not only to the America of today but for generations to come in the future." (Are there generations to come in the past?)
On April 7, 1970, Rep. Carl Perkins remarked, "this is one of the most important conference reports that has ever been brought before this chamber."
August 2, 1974 found President Gerald Ford saying "Today, and for generations to come, America will benefit from this law which expresses our national commitment to quality education for all children."
November 1, 1978, President Jimmy Carter claimed "we have together taken an historic step in the evolution of the Federal role in education."
April 19, 1988, Rep. Martin Frost concluded "the provisions of this conference agreement will, in the coming years, assist our schools in providing the best educational opportunities possible for our Nation's schoolchildren."
And, on July 27, 1994, it was Senator Ted Kennedy's turn: "It is not an overstatement to say this is the most important reauthorization in this legislation's history.
With the perspective of time there are those who might conclude that all of the quoted remarks were overstatements to say the least. It is reasonable to expect more superlatives this time too, few if any of which can be expected to stand the test of time.
More than forty years have passed since the creation of the original ESEA legislation. One might paraphrase a famous remark by Ronald Reagan in the 1980 presidential campaign and ask whether the nation's students are better off today than they were then.
Not only has dramatic progress not been made some think many of the problems in basic education are the result of actions by the federal government. That two things happen in sequence is not sufficient proof that the first caused the second but this is one instance where it is reasonable to suspect the possibility.
A major characteristic of elected officials is a tendency to overpromise and underdeliver. This can cause more cynicism toward government than allegations of dishonesty or other improprieties. It is a safe bet that whatever emerges from the latest consideration of the ESEA/NCLB it will be accompanied by similar euphoric praise from members of Congress and the President.
Whether or not the federal government is the cause of many of the difficulties of basic education over the past forty years, it is fair to say that it certainly has not been able to prevent or correct them, despite the expenditure of huge amounts of money and the establishment of more programs and regulations that anyone can count. One estimate is that the federal government alone contains more than 760 education programs within its departments and agencies.
One cause for possible concern today may be the realization that this latest package of reforms will be the results of one more agreement by major players in education and government. Referring to such unity several years ago, Irving Kristol stated as his first law of educational reform that "Any reform that is acceptable to the educational establishment, and that can gain a majority in a legislature, federal or state, is bound to be worse than nothing."
"The 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act was only a few dozen pages long. The NCLB is 1,100 pages." P. 12, Lawrence A. Uzzell, "No Bureaucrat Left Behind," Cato Policy Report, May/June 2005
Published March 23, 2007
