The Sunday Education Weekly Reader: 10.23.11

Welcome to the Sunday Education Weekly Reader for 10.23.11. Stories this week highlight what the educational waivers for NCLB reauthorization mean (it's more federal control, not state determined solutions), a humorous look at Arne Duncan and his redrawing of our "maps", the question of why government is picking winners and losers in educational delivery and the wisdom of this practice, and the Kentucky Commissioner of Education finds himself in Rio de Janiero thanks to Pearson, an educational vendor for the state.

******************************************

Will you say goodbye to your great teachers in your school district?

Oak Norton writes about the redistribution of teachers (The Marxist Redistribution of Teachers and Forced Common Core Standards) that may be coming to YOUR school district. Do you like your teachers? Are they effective in your school? That's too bad. They may be reassigned. Ask YOUR superintendent and school board what plans they have to ensure the "highly effective" teachers in YOUR school are not reassigned to failing schools.

It's part of the waiver agreement Missouri is going to apply for...and 38 other states at the time of this writing.

*******************************************

Arne Duncan states the United States must "change our maps".

This article from The Washington Fancy takes the Secretary of Education at his literal word.

******************************************

Is the educational technology bandwagon the Federal Government is jumping on creating the educational equivalent of Solyndra?

Jay P. Greene wonders about the track record of the Federal Government picking winners and losers and directing the private sector in public education.

*****************************************

Should the Kentucky Commissioner of Education accept an all expense paid trip to Rio de Janiero from a courting vendor, give the vendor the business after the trip, and then declare there is no commercial interest on behalf of the vendor?

Following on the heels of the last piece, Pearson (a pre-determined CCSSO education vendor) treated school district officials in Kentucky with a trip to Rio de Janiero just prior to securing a $58 million contract for multi-year testing assessments.

The Kentucky Education Commissioner said "it was a great opportunity as a commissioner to learn what our global competition is doing in education and the economy". That's an interesting statement by the Commissioner. I thought technology was the heralded savior for our students and nation. Technology will make us all global without having to travel overseas. Why couldn't the commissioner learn about global education and economy via how students will be learning in the future? That would have saved so many carbon footprints.

*****************************************
Educational thought for the week:

Be miserable. Or motivate yourself. Whatever has to be done, it's always your choice. Wayne Dyer

(Maybe we'll see this self-determination embodied in the Common Core standards...or not).

Up Twinkles for Rand Paul! He Declares NCLB Reauthorization process "rotten from top to bottom"

If you interpret the roles of the Federal Government and the States according to the Constitution, you are cheering Rand Paul's recent procedural move in the Senate to stop the much heralded bi-partisan agreement for the NCLB reauthorization. GW Bush's No Child Left Behind legislation crafted with Ted Kennedy has largely been a costly disaster according to the left and the right. What does the current Harkin-Enzi reauthorization plan propose?

Who knows? It was being rushed through (just like the Health Care legislation) without legislators not having either the interest or the time to read it. It ballooned to 868 pages with 48 hours to review. The original Race to the Top document was also 800 pages and districts were given 6 weeks to review (during Christmas break) before they had to sign...or not.

Everything's a crisis! The sky is falling! This rush to reauthorize is nothing but a replay of RTTT, Obamacare, TARP, stimulus funding, etc. Thank you to Senator Paul for stopping this rush to nowhere (except toward more spending, mandates and federal control) so at least senators and taxpayers understand how the Federal government has taken over all local and state control of education. As he stated:

“I’m one of the old-fashioned conservatives who does believe that schools are and should be under local and state control.”

FINALLY. We are witnessing a politician who is standing up and requiring we look at the process, the content of legislation and question if the politicians are FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION. Where are the other senators backing him up? Where are the governors? Where are the constitutionally minded groups? Why is permissible to turn our educational system over to the Federal Government and private organizations to draft standards and assessments with taxpayer money with no accountability?

The only suggestion I would give to Senator Paul in his speech: invite the parents and taxpayers who are funding public education for their input as well (in addition to the teachers, principals and superintendents).

From HotAir:

*************************************

Rather than unthinkingly reauthorize No Child Left Behind as the president would have had Congress do, the House of Representatives has conducted hearing after hearing about how best to revise it. In the Senate, however, no such process has occurred.

Instead, after a long period of relative quiet on the topic, the Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), last week proposed to his committee an 868-page bill to reauthorize NCLB. Then, on Monday, he added to it an 868-page manager’s amendment, a re-working of the original dropped bill. The members of the committee had just 48 hours to wade through the manager’s amendment before the committee proceeded last night to a markup of the bill.

But Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) objected to the rush. A markup, he pointed out, is supposed to provide committee members with the chance to debate, amend and rewrite proposed legislation. How on earth could they do that, he wondered, with just 48 hours to read the proposal? So, Paul used a procedural rule to halt the markup.

Harkin took the dust-up to the Senate floor, asking the Senate to agree by unanimous consent to allow him to reconvene his committee. Passionately, Paul objected:

“I find it a tragedy that we’re operating here in the Senate by introducing an 868-page bill with 48 hours to read it,” Paul said. “I’ve been here since January and there’ve been no hearings on No Child Left Behind. I’ve had no hearings that involve teachers, no hearings that involve superintendents, no hearings that involve principals. I think this is an affront to the process. As I go around my state and I talk to teachers, I’ve yet to meet one teacher who is in favor of No Child Left Behind. They abhor it. … This process is rotten from top to bottom.”

Paul’s objection sparked predictable cries of “obstructionism.” Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado, for example, painted Paul as a senator who doesn’t care to help children in poverty receive a college education. “The senator speaks of the tragedy of this process,” Bennet said. “I’ll tell you what a tragedy is. The tragedy is that only nine of 100 children living in poverty in this country in 2011 can expect to get a college degree. That’s a tragedy.”

But, to some extent, Paul’s move worked. Not only did he manage to postpone the markup until today, buying (a very little bit) more time to read the bill, but he also prompted Sen. Harkin and HELP Ranking Member Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wy.) to call a hearing on the subject of NCLB for Nov. 8 to at least obtain a little outside input on the reauthorization of NCLB before the full Senate votes for it. It’s not much, but it’s better than nothing.

The entire episode illustrates a couple important realities.

Firstly, while members of both parties agree that No Child Left Behind needs to be “fixed,” they don’t necessarily agree about what the federal role in education should be — and that’s ultimately what this debate is about. Paul gave voice to that in his objection when he said, “I’m one of the old-fashioned conservatives who does believe that schools are and should be under local and state control.” Given the federal government’s gradual encroachments in this area, Paul is right to be on guard.

Secondly, the Senate, by its pitiful attempts to seek input from those most affected by education reform, gives the appearance of being in collusion with the president’s plans to use the problems with NCLB to expand the federal role in education. Harkin says the bill does, in fact, “return a lot to local control,” and Enzi says the reforms in the bill, while not perfect, are “a start,” at least. I hope that’s true — but no harm in having a hearing or two and especially no harm in giving local-control advocates like Paul time to actually read the bill to ascertain its meaning.

Snaps to Paul for staying vigilant.

***********************************

(Thanks to the HotAir reader for the uptwinkle reference).

Arne Duncan's Waivers and "Upping our Game".

Arne Duncan has been dribbling in half-truths while implementing his goals for education. Common core standards are to be "voluntary" and "state led", but states were threatened with the withholding of Title I funding if they did not "voluntarily" agree to become participants in the national standards plan. Consortias are to be "state led", however, they are being funded by private companies with federal money.

Yesterday we wrote about Duncan's waivers to NCLB mandates to certain states:

With the new school year fast approaching and still no bill to reform the federal education law known as No Child Left Behind, the Obama administration will provide a process for states to seek relief from key provisions of the law, provided that they are willing to embrace education reform.

What wasn't clear from this DOE statement is exactly what education reform was called for by Arne Duncan. Let's look at Duncan's stated goals for education reform from EdWeek:

• There would be three kinds waivers under No Child Left Behind, and states would have to sign up for all of them—it wouldn't be an either/or thing. This is something Duncan made clear in the initial waiver announcement.

• To waive the 2014 deadline for all students to be proficient in math and language arts, states would have to adopt college- and career-readiness standards and assessments. It's not clear yet what that would mean. But, presumably, Common Core would be involved. Student growth could be used to measure achievement.

• To essentially freeze in place the law's system of sanctions, states would have to propose their own differentiated accountability systems that would incorporate growth and establish new performance targets. States also would have to establish differentiated school improvement systems that more accurately meet the needs of schools with different challenges. The accountability systems would not have to include choice or free tutoring. Districts also no longer would have to set aside Title I money for such programs.

• To waive the law's highly qualified teacher requirement and get funding flexibility, states would have to adopt evaluation systems for teachers and principals that are based on growth and make sure districts actually do what they say they're going to do.

Are these more federal mandates masquerading as local control so states can escape the "impossible to reach" federal mandates already in place? It sure sounds like it.

If you have some time, read this release from The White House on education:

"A world-class education is the single most important factor in determining not just whether our kids can compete for the best jobs but whether America can out-compete countries around the world. America's business leaders understand that when it comes to education, we need to up our game. That's why we’re working together to put an outstanding education within reach for every child" (emphasis added)

-President Barack Obama, July 18, 2011

We'll be writing about what exactly "up our game" really means. And who's the "we" in "we're working together to put an outstanding education within reach for every child"? From preliminary reports, I don't see mention of the word "taxpayer" or "parent".

Pay attention to the pre-K Race to the Top references in this release. Child care is included now in education. Will your state have to open baby sitting facilities for a educational waiver? Stay tuned.

The Syllogistic Dishonesty of Arne Duncan

If we are doomed to common core standards, I hope the communication arts standards include learning about syllogisms so students can begin to dissect political arguments and babble, and determine what is truth and what is spin.

What is a syllogism?

syl·lo·gism

noun

1.

Logic . an argument the conclusion of which is supported by two premises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term (middle term) that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical form is “All A is C; all B is A; therefore all B is C.”

2.

deductive reasoning.

3.

an extremely subtle, sophisticated, or deceptive argument.

We previously wrote about how this current "reform" of education (touted by Arne Duncan and many Republicans) takes away any semblance of local control. Now let's focus on the syllogistic "deceptive argument" Duncan is furthering.

Politico reports Duncan has used his alleged authority (this has been called into dispute) to issue waivers for certain No Child Left Behind mandates instead of legislating through a waiver-granting process. NCLB was to be reauthorized by September and Duncan believed Congress was dragging its feet and the reauthorization would not be ready. To the reader not familiar with the political misgivings about NCLB's impact on education, it would appear as if Duncan is truly riding in on a stallion, giving the school districts relief from the onerous mandates. Here is the press release from the US Department of Education which states in part:

With the new school year fast approaching and still no bill to reform the federal education law known as No Child Left Behind, the Obama administration will provide a process for states to seek relief from key provisions of the law, provided that they are willing to embrace education reform.

Melody Barnes, Director of the Domestic Policy Council at the White House, and U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan jointly announced the President's directive in the White House briefing room on Monday, August 8. Barnes explained that the administration's proposal to fix NCLB has been with Congress for 16 months, been the topic of numerous meetings and hearings, and been subjected to partisan politics in the House. Last March – a full year after submitting his proposal – the President called for a bill before the start of the school year.

And to add to this wonderful executive order, the press release ends with this:

Duncan said that NCLB is "forcing districts into one-size-fits-all solutions that just don’t work. The President understands this and he has directed us to move ahead in providing relief -- but only for states and districts that are prepared to address our educational challenges."

"There is no magic bullet for fixing education and the best ideas will always come from the local level -- from the hardworking men and women in our schools doing the hard work every day to educate our children," Duncan said. He added, "We're still hopeful that Congress can continue its work this fall. In the meantime, states and districts have an opportunity to move forward."

Duncan is using the syllogistic argument in a deceptive manner. Here is Duncan's argument as laid out in this press release:

• Major premise: One-size-fits all solutions don't work and the best solutions are provided at the local level

• Minor premise: Federal relief and funding will be provided to states prepared for those states that address our educational challenges

• Conclusion: One-size-fits all solutions don't work and federal assistance will be provided to those states that address challenges provided by local government

Wow! That is a panacea to educational challenges! Too bad it's too good to be true. What is Duncan's idea of providing federal relief and funding? From Politico 44:

Duncan announced in June that if Congress fails to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act by Obama’s deadline of the start of the next school year, he intends to develop a program that allows states to apply for regulatory relief if they pursue certain reforms. Duncan didn’t specify which requirements states would be asked to meet, nor did he specify when the program might be put in place. (emphasis added)

Could it be that this requirements might just be the Chicago-type of reform found in Race to the Top? Could these requirements be akin to why many states signed onto Common Core standards even before they were written...because Duncan threatened to withhold Title I money if they didn't agree to implement them? Where is the mention of local control in the Politico 44 piece?

There isn't any mention of local control because there is no interest in local voices shaping educational policy. The stakeholders mentioned time after time in federal documents with Race to the Top and common core standards don't include parents. Or taxpayers. And neither does this waiver. He talks about local control but he has no intention of giving federal money without more federal mandates...and that is the subject of tomorrow's blog.

"School Choice" is Aptly Named.

We welcome Scott Kerr as a guest commenter:

Born and raised in South Louisiana. Proud father of one daughter. Owned several companies that are now closed due to technological advances. Self employed in new ventures.

His comment caught my attention on an educational thread:

Public school issues go deep. NCLB was a failed attempt at increasing literacy and societal preparedness. It was a prime example of government's inability to correctly solve problems. It ignored the core issues of correctly educating children in public schools and, in essence, forced graduation upon students. It's purpose was solely to have statistics that made the public school system look better. It took the priorities of educating our youth away from good teachers and schools and replaced them with assembly line graduation rates.

The voucher system will be another failure. The end result of that will be more government regulation into private schools which in turn will make them resemble the failing public school system. The long term results of such programs are obvious.

The distinction between education in this country and other countries is simple. We are concerned with looking good and they are concerned with being good. The desire to look good encouraged all the corruption we witness in schools today and merit based pay slammed the point home. It's message to teachers, both good and bad : Graduate students with high test scores because your pay depends on it. Americans used to say, " We're # 1". Now they say, " I'm #1". If America continues down the path of looking out for #1 instead of the country and its future, we are destined to crumble.

NCLB has been described by both conservatives and liberals as being flawed. Its goal by 2014 was that 100% of students would be proficient. That goal was and is unattainable. Students aren't treated as individuals any longer, they are divided into subgroups and tested and taught to those labels. Educators and those interested in education have been calling for alternatives to NCLB for years. What is the answer? Arne Duncan's reauthorization of ESEA has been described as "NCLB on steroids".

So we have even more standardized testing and mandates and now let's throw in "school choice". It's aptly named, I'll give it that. You can choose your child's school, but you can't choose the type of education your child receives. That's left up to a consortia of states...not YOUR state or local district...no, no. Missouri's consortia is based in Washington state. It's no wonder it's labeled school choice and not educational choice. There is a huge difference, isn't there?

Administrators in true private education of choice have the capacity to deliver the type of education to their students as they deem fit. The parents are paying them for their decision making abilities to provide an excellent education for their children. If the parent does not like the education provided, they will take their child out and place them elsewhere. They will find the education most appropriate to their child. The private schools are autonomous and so can alter their educational goals, curriculum, teaching, etc to do what's best for the child. That's true private education and choice.

All the talk about providing a great public education under the guise of public "school choice" should be examined for what it is: it is the same educational blueprint in a different location. It's not like private school. The mandates are the same from charter school to traditional public school to virtual school. The administration does not have the authority to amend curriculum or teaching methods to reach kids who are struggling or those who are bored. They have to stick to that common core.

What do YOU think about education reforms? What really constitutes "choice"? Is it just a choice on where to send your child...not the education plan behind the choice...but just the building? Private and home schooling parents now make the educational choice for their children with little governmental involvement. That ability does not and will not exist under the current school choice reforms with the implementation of common core standards.

If Scott's contention is true and governmental vouchers demand governmental educational mandates, what choice does that constitute: solely the physical location of the school? And that's the "reform" that will fundamentally change the face of public education?

Thanks to Scott for his comments and thoughts. We welcome yours as well.

Arne Duncan and His "Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad " Interview

The title for this blog is adapted from the Judy Blume book about Alexander's awful day. I've adapted it to illustrate Arne Duncan's astonishing terrible, horrible, etc, interview about education reform. Here is the NPR transcript of Arne Duncan talking about his ideas for education.

What are the topics covered in the interview?

Host Michel Martin and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan discuss No Child Left Behind, the plan aimed to improve failing public schools; as well as the Dream Act, which would create a path to citizenship for some undocumented youth.

Duncan's thoughts on NCLB?

DUNCAN: Well, the law is fundamentally broken. And the law is far too punitive, far to prescriptive, it's led to a dumbing down of standards. It's led to a narrowing of the curriculum. And what I'm so angry about, Michel, is if whatever the number, 75, 80 percent of schools are labeled as failures with the current law, that's dishonest. It's not true.

We absolutely have schools that are struggling. We absolutely have schools that we don't challenge the status quo, but many, many schools are doing an amazing job. And as we talked at the start of the conversation doing a great, great job in very tough economic times.

And so to label schools that are getting better each year as failures, that's demoralizing to hardworking teachers and principals. It's confusing to parents. It's confusing to the community. And so, we've challenged Congress to fix the law. And we want to fix it together in a bipartisan way, and we want to fix it with a real sense of urgency.

I absolutely hope that happens. But if it doesn't happen, I'm prepared to use our waiver authority to provide some relief now to states and to districts that are doing this hard work.

What he doesn't tell the listeners is the way he wants to fix the law is make it even more assessment and mandate heavy and punish schools financially if they don't follow the new restrictions. He hasn't "challenged" Congress to fix the law, he's taken a dictatorial and bullying stance to the states and threatened to withhold federal funding. His waiver authority is currently being challenged by the House Education Committee. As Representative John Kline has stated, "he's not the nation's superintendent".

What are his plans to improve the nation's schools?

DUNCAN: Well, there's no upside to when state and local governments are cutting back and these are tough economic times, as you know, Michel, at every level state and local and federal. And what the president is trying to do is lead by example and walk the walk. And in these very tough economic times, when he basically flat-lined the rest of domestic spending, he asked for a $4 billion increase in our budget, in education's budget.

What he fundamentally sees is that education is an investment not an expense. And that where folks cut back, that's penny-wise and pound-foolish. This is the best investment we can make. So, I've challenged all 50 governors. I've challenged local political leaders that, you know, when you cut back in early childhood education and when you go from five-day weeks to four-day weeks, when you eliminate extra curriculars and art and P.E. and music, you absolutely hurt your children and ultimately you hurt your state.

And so, budget, Michel, reflect our priorities. They reflect our values. And we either care about children and we're going to continue to invest in them or we're not.

It seems the answer is to challenge the nation's governors to spend more money their states don't have into a system that doesn't work. A 190% increase in federal spending in four decades of the DOE has resulted in flat lined scores. You can couch it as an "investment" instead of an "expense", but the truth is more money thrown at a broken educational organization is going to give you the same results at even greater expense.

How does the DREAM Act affect education?

MARTIN: In Congressional testimony last week, you talked in support of the DREAM Act. How do you see this as an educational issue?

DUNCAN: I'm a passionate, passionate supporter of the DREAM Act. And quite frankly, Michel, I think as a country we have our priorities absolutely backwards on this. To deny young children who have, you know, come to this country, their parents brought them sometimes when they were infants. They've worked hard. They've gone to school. They've gotten good grades. They've been community leaders. To deny them the chance to go to college is absolutely crazy. And we need their talents. We need their expertise. We need their creativity. We need their ingenuity. We need them to create the jobs of the future.

And so, it's two things. One, this is an issue of fairness to not give them a chance to go to college is simply un-American. It's not fair. And secondly, as a country, we have, I think, a selfish interest that we need their talents and we don't want them to be the next generation of teachers and entrepreneurs and engineers and innovators or they're going to be stuck doing, you know, under-the-table, you know, small-time jobs the rest of their life, you know, for cash.

If it's not the children's fault their parents brought them to the United States illegally, then why not direct these individuals to apply for citizenship when they turn 18 years old? Why grant them automatic citizenship because of the parents' actions? Do you see any parallel to the DREAM Act position taken by Duncan and the Atlanta cheating scandal as it pertains to the culture argument? It seems to be nobody's fault that anyone is breaking the law in immigration matters or educational cheating.

MARTIN: I wanted to talk about an education story that's making headlines now. A Georgia state investigation revealed on Tuesday that 178 teachers and principals in the Atlanta public school system cheated on standardized tests. And they're saying that part of it is that there's just too much writing on test scores now and it creates an environment where people are desperate, and desperate people cheat. Well, what do you make of that?

DUNCAN: Yeah. Well, you always want a balance. But the other day, Michel, was so disturbing. There - this was clearly part of the culture. This is endemic. And I think approximately 80 percent of schools had cheating in it. So, this isn't - wasn't an isolated incident.

If our culture bends immigration laws, why not bend the methods for reporting educational progress? If the educational mandates are so onerous and jobs and funding depend on the results, what do you think will happen? Here is Duncan's response:

MARTIN: But why do you think this happened, though? I mean, are you saying that - why did this culture exists? Do you think these are just bad people or they're lacking in morality or...

DUNCAN: I don't think - no, I have no idea on the details there. But at the end of the day, what I care about is, you know, are we helping children fulfill their tremendous academic and social potential? Are they getting the support they need? And clearly, there was a culture here that at some levels was rotten.

Is he serious? Does he really not know the details? Does he understand the Federal Government is a huge part of this problem? When the government has designed educational and immigration reform systems that can't possibly succeed, what result can it expect? I guess it means more money, more mandates and ignorance of existing laws will need to be put in motion.

But don't worry, note the NPR's title for its piece: "How Dream Act Can Cut Deficit". This is absurd and aptly illustrates Arne Duncan's "Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day" in this NPR interview.

If All State Superintendents Stood Up to the Federal Education Bullies....

...maybe, just maybe we could stop this nonsense of the impossible accountability standards via the Reauthorization of No Child Left Behind being crafted by Arne Duncan.

Idaho, Montana, South Dakota and Kentucky are instituting the "just say no" method to the Department of Education. These states believe the goals to make Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) are unattainable and financially out of reach:

In Montana, Ms. Juneau said she is freezing performance targets in part because her office simply doesn’t have the staff to deal with an increasing number of schools that may face penalties under NCLB.

“Our office resources are better used to continue our work with schools already identified for assistance than to increase the number of schools that cannot be offered the required additional resources,” she wrote in her April 25 letter to the department informing them of her decision to freeze proficiency targets.

The states are saying they don't have the money to fulfill the underfunded mandates dictated to the states. These states are digging their heels in and telling Washington what they will do and what they won't. Imagine that. States are beginning to claim their constitutional authority to make their own educational decisions.

However, there is a problem that states have gotten themselves into. They still need money to operate:

Ms. Juneau indicated that there was one thing that could get her to revert to those higher targets: if federal officials threaten to withhold money from the state. “I am not willing to put our schools’ federal funding in jeopardy,” she said.

Why do the states need the Federal money? Is it to fulfill previous Federal mandates? Is there any way to get away from the Federal stranglehold? If more states would stand up to the Chicago bully tactics at the DOE, maybe we could begin to operate our schools as they were intended...by local control instead of federal decree.

Forward this following comment by an Education Week reader to your superintendent and politicians. Perhaps it would be a good idea for our politicians and superintendents to refresh their knowledge of the Constitution and apply it to this situation. I would only hope Missouri would follow these states who have the best interests of students, parents and taxpayers in mind as they take a stand against the DOE:

"But the Education Department is warning states that flouting the law will not be tolerated, even if Congress fails to rewrite the Elementary and Secondary Education Act—the current version of which is NCLB—before the start of the 2011-12 school year."

Arne: please go back and read the Constitution of the United States. You are treating States as though you are a lawmaker and they are citizens. Neither is the case. You are an unelected bureaucrat, and States are sovereign powers. Since education is not one of the enumerated federal powers, then 10th amendment means that the federal government has no legitimate role in regulating anything.

Let's have more "defiance" by other states. Far too many states are tolerating federal interference in education.

Representative John Kline on Arne Duncan: "He's Not the Nation's Superintendent"

Does Arne Duncan have too much money and power?

In a sharp rebuke to the Obama administration, the Republican chairman of the House education committee on Thursday challenged plans by the education secretary to override provisions of the federal No Child Left Behind Law, and he said he would use a House rewrite of it this year to rein in the secretary’s influence on America’s schools.

Representative John Kline:

“He’s not the nation’s superintendent,” Mr. Kline said of Mr. Duncan, who assumed powers greater than any of his predecessors when, in 2009, Congress voted $100 billion in economic stimulus money for the nation’s school systems and allowed the secretary to decide how much of it should be spent.

“Unquestionably, Congress gave the secretary way too much authority in the stimulus bill when it said, ‘Here’s $5 billion, go do good things for education,’ ” Mr. Kline said.

Duncan previously said if Congress does not reauthorize and amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)—popularly known as No Child Left Behind—he will take actions to amend the law himself. Representative Kline isn't impressed with Secretary Duncan's apparent belief he can craft legislation.

Idaho legislators don't seem to impressed with Duncan either. From Ed Week:

Idaho Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna is putting the feds on notice: His state will not follow key parts of the No Child Left Behind law anymore. Instead, Idaho will use its own accountability system.

"Idaho, like many other states, does not have the luxury of spending time and limited resources on meeting the rigid requirements of an outdated accountability system," Luna wrote. "If Congress and the Administration will not act, states like Idaho will."

Kentucky is out in front on this, and already has asked for permission (unlike the Idaho way of ask-forgiveness-not-permission) to use its own accountability model.

Duncan & Co., who so far have refused to articulate their waiver plan, are at risk of losing control of this debate over what happens to NCLB in the interim. Since they haven't gotten out in front of this issue, the states are doing so. And, if a bunch of states band together in defiance of NCLB and the feds, what will Duncan do about it, especially since he himself has admitted the law is fundamentally flawed?

Note the last paragraph of this article:

I'm waiting for a response from the Education Department. It seems unlikely the department can just let states such as Idaho call their own shots and ignore the law. What it can do is spell out a plan for waivers, and quickly.

"It seems unlikely the department can just let states such as Idaho call their own shots and ignore the law". The Department of Education shouldn't have the power to "let" states call their own shots. It's a state constitutional responsibility to educate its own students. The states should not have to ask the Federal Government for permission or have permission granted to set state standards.