WASHINGTON — The top two lawmakers on the Senate Education Committee said Friday they are putting off consideration of a new No Child Left Behind law until next year.
Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., have decided that there's not enough time this year to complete work on the legislation, which has not yet been formally introduced.
The five-year-old law, up for a scheduled rewrite, requires math and reading tests in grades three through eight, and once in high school. Schools that miss testing benchmarks face increasingly stiff sanctions. The law, originally passed in 2001, is among President Bush's top domestic policy priorities...
However, it may be even more difficult to pass a rewritten No Child bill next year because it is a presidential election year. It is harder to get the bipartisan consensus needed to pass major legislation against the backdrop of an intense presidential campaign...
If the law isn't revised by Congress, the existing law stands.
No changes at all? Wouldn't that be a hoot! Imagine all the howls and screams from teachers unions across the country! Imagine the California Teachers Association in fits of apoplexy.
Update, 11/3/07: This from the Democrats for Education Reform web site:
NEA to Congress: Comply or Perish
The powerful National Education Association is giving members of Congress until the close of business on Nov. 16th to sign on as official co-sponsors of the union's favorite accountability-busting bills to amend the No Child Left Behind Act, according to letters sent yesterday to members of the House and Senate.
If they aren't listed as co-sponsors by the time Congressional staffers are on their second beer of the evening (official close of business?) it will adversely impact their rating on the NEA Report Card for the session. Getting placed on the NEA's "naughty congressman list" will obviously play a role determining future support from the union.
What ever happened to support for multiple measures? Isn't it cruel/unfair to hold a Legislator accountable for the results of a single test? Basing someone's job status on a test score? Shouldn't we allow for voting growth models, for Congressmen who aren't totally there yet but making praiseworthy progress? Holding non-English speaking electeds to the same standard? Etc.
You get what I mean.