DIYbanter - View Single Post

George Grapman

wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 04:38:04 GMT, George Grapman
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:58:41 -0700, George Grapman
wrote:

Free breakfast and lunch, Curriculums that are packed with politically
correct subjects instead of basic education, busing and generally
trying to make all schools everything for everybody. School boards
have no flexibility to tune a particular school to the needs of the
community it serves.
None of which are forced on states if they refuse federal funding.

That is just wrong. The state of Utah is currently in court over "no
child left behind" lets see how that goes.
They are suing over a provision that requires students under
performing schools to be bused to better schools.
The law allows a state to opt out if it refuses federal funding.

http://www.nhpr.org/node/5820

Two of the Legislature's top Democrats are launching a new effort to get
New Hampshire to withdraw from the national No Child Left Behind program.

They say Washington is making demands that it doesn't pay for. They
complain about losing local control.

But this year New Hampshire is not alone.

New Hampshire Public Radio's political correspondent, John Milne, reports:

Some academics suggest it will be a significant issue in this fall’s
election.

But that debate begins sooner in New Hampshire.

Towns throughout the state are debating school budgets now and for the
next few weeks.

And Democrats are telling voters to blame President Bush and the
Republicans if No Child regulations demand more school spending and
higher taxes.

Senate Democratic Leader Lou D’Allesandro of Manchester connects the
political and fiscal dots:
(nochild1)
It’s time to revisit this issue. We need to tell Washington that our
property taxpayers are not going to pay the bills. The bill without
money is not acceptable. Show me the money!

School administrators say tests mandated by the law are far more costly
than the funds Washington provides. That’s 66 million dollars for all
schools in the state.

Steve Spratt is on the Mascenic Regional school board in New Ipswich. He
complains that the federal money comes with too many restrictions:
(nochild 2)
NCLB is punitive. It’s all stick. There are very few carrots in the
bill. If you don’t make the grade, you’re forced to lower the standards.
There are 40 measurements in the bill, and if you miss any one of them,
you’re classified as need improving.

The New Hampshire House passed a bill last year to refuse No Child
money. The state Senate tabled the bill. There’s been no action this year.

Mike Sentance is the regional representative of the U-S Department of
Education. He says the No Child program is fully funded. It would have
no effect on local spending, and therefore no increase in property taxes.

(nochild4)
In fact, I would be arguing that you’re getting more bang for your buck
out of your property tax. I mean, if you know that now the people have
the appropriate level of qualifications to be in the classroom, your
school should be more effective. I mean, one of the things that always
confuses me about the conversation in New Hampshire is why people defend
having thoroughly unqualified people in classrooms as being a good
investment of local tax dollars.

Sentance blames politics for why 14 states other than New Hampshire are
protesting the No Child law.

In Utah, for example, the Republican-led House voted 64 to 8 to scrap
the No Child mandates. Utah’s Senate hasn’t acted.

In Virginia, the House of Delegates passed a resolution criticizing the
law. Patricia Wright is superintendent for instruction of the Virginia
Board of Education:

There are some technicalities in the No Child Left Behind law that would
be counterproductive to our own reform. And it expressed some concern
with the federal intrusion into state’s rights.

So far no state has rejected the program.

One reason is that a state that rejects the federal law would also have
to turn down millions of dollars in federal aid.
From a political perspective, the debate reverses traditional partisan
positions in the state.

The Democrats say No Child Left Behind will increase taxes and destroy
local control.

The Republicans say the federal program calls for improvements in
reading, math and science that all parents would want.

But the “little democracies” of New Hampshire towns are famous for their
independence. Their votes may offer a nonpartisan analysis of No Child
Left Behind

I suppose you are too young to remember Brown V BOE

Actually I remember it very well. Like the Voting Rights Act it
simply implemented the 14th Amendment.