Filed under: Bureaucracy, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Education, Freedom, Law, Politics, Progressivism | Tags: "Every Child Succeeds Act", President Barack Obama, Sec. of Education Arne Duncan
President Obama has no intention of spending his last months in office trying to persuade Congress to do what he wants. He sees no future in that, and he dislikes Republicans anyway. So it’s not exactly a surprise that he is once again trying to make law from the oval office instead of bothering with the customary route to getting his own way. I guess in law school nobody ever explained the three branches of government and the role assigned to each. Or maybe it’s just that progressives don’t have any respect for the Constitution and see no reason to pay it any mind.
President Obama has no inhibitions about rewriting laws he doesn’t like—even those he’s signed. Witness the Administration’s revision of the Every Student Succeeds Act to allow the feds to regulate state and local school spending.
The law—which passed Congress last year with large bipartisan majorities—devolved power to the states and rolled back some federal mandates. In doing so, Congress rebuffed the White House’s previous attempts to direct local education policy with No Child Left Behind waivers.
The law allowed school districts more discretion over Title I funds which are designed to help poor students. Federal policy dating back to the 1970s required that Title I funds were to supplement state and local spending, not substitute for them.
Schools complained that completing so much federal paperwork diverted resources from teaching, and anyone who just finished their income taxes might well be sympathetic. But Congress allowed school districts to develop their own methods to show their compliance. “The law also specifically prohibited the Secretary of Education from prescribing the “specific methodology a local educational agency uses to allocate State and local funds” or mandating “equalized spending per pupil for a State, local educational agency, or school.”
That’s the part of the law the administration does not like, and that they are attempting to rewrite.
The Education Department recently proposed assessing the local school district’s compliance with the law by whether a Title I school “receives at least as much in State and local funding as the average non-Title I school.” In other words, the Administration is trying to do exactly what the law prohibits it from doing.
Progressives want to force local school districts to equalize spending among all schools. Staff compensation represents more than 80% of school spending. Because of seniority rules in labor agreements and state laws, younger teachers with lower base salaries are apt to be employed at low-income schools.
Demanding equalized spending in Title I schools and non-Title I schools would force states to rewrite their educational funding statutes and districts to redo their labor agreements. Experienced teachers who earn much higher salaries might have to be forcibly transferred to low-income schools, or teachers at Title I schools might have to be paid more.”
The goal on the left — is to force school districts to employ more staff at low-income schools.” Unfortunately quantity of teachers is no more indicative of quality education than is years of tenure. Unions are not particularly interested in teacher excellence, nor quality of education, but only in collecting dues, and exercising political power. Educational excellence usually comes from the Principals, the individual teachers and the elected representatives of the local people — the local school board— not the federal government.
1 Comment so far
Leave a comment