Important Current Information

HR-1 NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
is not good for parents or children. To begin with, the Constitution
gives the Federal government NO authority over education.

              As the House of Representatives continues its
              deliberations of President Bush's education
              proposal this week, at least one activist group
              decries the measure as the continuation of a
              controversial Clinton-era maneuver to federalize
              public-school curriculum.

              House Resolution 1, titled the "No Child Left
              Behind Act," is a mammoth 987-page bill
              re-authorizing the Elementary and Secondary
              Education Act. Originally passed by the Johnson
              administration in 1965, the ESEA was last
              re-authorized in 1994 -- the last year Democrats
              controlled both houses of Congress and the year
              both Goals 2000 and the School To Work program
              were enacted.

              "This bill cements federal control of education
              with the same structure that was present in 1994,
              and that requires states to comply with the Goals
              2000 and School To Work mandates," said Karen
              R. Effrem, M.D., a volunteer with the Maple River
              Education Coalition in Minnesota. Commonly
              referred to as MrEdCo, the group is a
              political-action committee that advocates
              academic excellence as well as local and parent
              control of schools.

              Effrem notes that the bill eliminates overt
              references to Goals 2000 and School To Work
              (STW), but that the practical result is the same.
              H.R. 1 continues the practice of forcing schools to
              comply with federal standards in order to receive
              funding -- a practice that has produced
              "standardized students" of the "lowest common
              denominator," states a MrEdCo newsletter.

              Both Goals 2000 and School To Work promote
              "outcome-based education," as opposed to
              academic achievement. The programs were
              intended to promote job skills and allow students
              to receive credit for on-the-job training rather than
              academic performance. Proponents say the
              programs create a better workforce, but critics
              believe outcome-based education has "dumbed
              down" the next generation.

              "It results in minimum competencies,
              outcome-based education that is vocationally
              based and politically correct. It’s a huge threat to
              academic liberal-arts education that has made our
              country and our economy the freest and the
              wealthiest in the world's history," Effrem
              remarked. "The problem is that the outcomes are
              relative and subjective and non-academic. The
              outcomes are also based on job skills and
              attitudes," she continued, adding that "it's not
              measuring academics anymore."

              A pediatrician who has spent the last five years at
              home raising her three children -- the youngest of
              which was born in March -- Effrem fears
              outcome-based education limits the students'
              prospects since the job training they receive is for
              entry-level positions and does not provide a broad
              academic foundation.

              "It is mandatory vocational training for everyone,
              not just people who want to do it. So the whole
              option of choice and the child's desires and the
              family's desires are taken away. The kids are
              getting trapped into jobs from government with
              advice from big business and not the small
              businesses that are the creative entrepreneurial
              engine that has made America what it is. It's
              based on the failed economies of Germany, Japan
              and the old Soviet Union. It's not like we really
              want to emulate their economies," she said.

              Nevertheless, Republicans tout the bill as great
              progress in education. They point to the measure's
              "escape route" for children in failing public
              schools and its prohibition of federally sponsored
              national testing as well as any mandatory
              national teacher test or certification.
              Homeschoolers praise the bill for its exemption of
              home-schooling families and private schools from
              all federal education programs. And all such
              schools not using federal funds are exempted
              from federal testing requirements.

              Additionally, the bill consolidates or eliminates
              34 programs, and reduces the overall number of
              ESEA programs by one-third (to 44). H.R. 1 also
              repeals 18 unfunded ESEA programs, Title XI of
              ESEA (Coordinated Services) and Goals 2000,
              according to the House Committee on Education
              and the Workforce Chairman John Boehner,
              R-Ohio.

              But Republicans aren't the only ones supporting
              the bill. Passed by a 41-7 vote in committee, the
              bill enjoys tremendous bipartisan support.
              Interestingly, 6 of the 7 "no" votes were from
              Republicans, some of whom have submitted
              amendments that "only make the bill tolerable,
              but none removes the federal mandates under
              which we suffer," write MrEdCo.

              Two weeks ago, Bush commended the Education
              and the Workforce Committee for its action on the
              bill: "This legislation includes monumental
              reforms that promote real accountability, annual
              testing and funding flexibility," the president
              said. "Parents need to know if their children are
              making progress, and this legislation meets that
              priority."