|
Hello,
NET Members!
Welcome to the December NETwork.
This month a word about the balance of power between the Federal
government and the states in establishing education law.
Debates that surfaced in 1979 when President Jimmy Carter created the
Department of Education re-emerged with the passage of NCLB. Some
perceive it as a step toward a national curriculum and hence a
usurping of state's rights. The Constitutional arguments of both
sides often center on four passages:
1. The Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution,
of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people."
2. The Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
3. The meaning of the word "promote" as used in the
Preamble's phrase "promote the General Welfare," compared
to—
4. The meaning of the word "provide" as used in Article 1,
Section 8, in the phrase "provide for the common defense and
general welfare of the United States." The debate, not surprisingly, remains unresolved.
The
Congress has grid-locked on NCLB's reauthorization and we are not
likely to see it back
on the table until sometime in 2009. At that point we will have a new president
and a somewhat different Congress.*
In any case, after Congress resumes the debate, it is likely to continue for
months. That means another school year or longer in which children,
due to standardized test mania, will learn
far less than they should—for
seven straight years and counting. On the other hand, we activists are
handed a year and a half during which we can continue
influencing
legislators to produce a better bill.
The past year shows some clear if
incomplete signs of progress. In terms of academic areas, heavy
lobbying by physical education and arts advocates continues to
convert legislators.
In terms of policy,
advocates for special education and English language learners have
been impressively effective.
Furthermore, a number of legislators have come to realize that
standardized tests are overemphasized and that "one size fits
all" testing is inappropriate. These changes suggest that
continued energetic activism will yield more successes.
Some educators argue that the states should
have greater power over such weighty matters (cf. Philip Kovacs in
the November 6 issue of Educator Roundtable or Peter
Hlebowitsh in the November 21 issue of Education Week).
Yet if we set aside irreconcilable Constitutional arguments for the
moment and instead examine the history of
Federal civil rights legislation (and nearly all disputes over NCLB
are rooted in civil rights), we find that our Federal laws glow more brightly than those of many states,
beginning with the towering achievement of democracy itself. To cite
only a few other examples, the
Executive Branch abolished slavery, the Judicial Branch outlawed
school segregation, and the Legislative Branch established women's voting
rights as well as two profoundly consequential pieces of civil rights
legislation in the 1960s. One shudders to think of
what would have happened (or failed to happen) if any one of those
monumental issues had been left to the states.
If we leave student assessment up to the states, several will fail
the challenge, resulting in millions of children losing their civil
right to an education. A new Federal
law,
created by legislators made aware by advocacy groups and individuals
of the
discrimination embedded in the current law, would be a major step
toward forging a nation more free and more just. Our national
history and the past year's witnessing of the power of the People to
impact legislators compel one to question the arguments of those who suggest that
Federal legislation is wrong for public education. Let's grab each
other's hands, make a net, and catch the children left behind.
Warm
regards,
Dennis
* As I write this, Democratic
candidates are leading in five of the seven closest Senate races and
are neck-and-neck in a sixth. A Senate Democratic majority of 60 after the
November election is possible. In terms of the presidential race, John Edwards has told the NET
that he feels NCLB should be "thrown out." (So far his
language has been more guarded in public forums.)
We have not yet heard directly from other candidates.
|
