Required reading for ESEA reauthorization
With the House Education and the Workforce Committee marking up two bills to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (a.k.a. No Child Left Behind) this morning (you can stream the markup live on the committee website), take a moment to look back at Mike Petrilli's January analysis of where Congress disagrees and what a compromise could look like:
Democrats across and beyond the nation’s capital—in the Administration, on Capitol Hill, in advocacy groups, and in think tanks—are up in arms about the ESEA reauthorization proposals released by House GOP leaders on Friday. Or at least they are pretending to be. While they contained a few surprises, the House bills were pretty much as one would expect: significantly to the right of both the Senate Harkin-Enzi bill and the package put forward by Republican Senator Lamar Alexander and his colleagues. In the parlance that we’ve been using at Fordham for three years now, the House GOP embodies the views of the Local Controllers, Senator Alexander embraced Reform Realism, and Harkin-Enzi represents a mishmash of ideas from the Army of the Potomac and the System Defenders.
But while there are significant differences among the players, a clear path toward a workable, maybe even bipartisan, package is still visible. In short: all roads lead to Lamar. Not only does the Alexander package represent smart policy, it also serves as a sort of mid-point between the Senate bill that passed out of committee and the House GOP bill that is likely to do the same.
Read the whole article to see the five big issues that remain. As Mike notes, "with a little presidential leadership and goodwill from both parties, a deal could be hammered out quickly."
blog comments powered by Disqus