We have bipartisan agreement that No Child Left Behind -- our nation's education law -- needs updating. Education has changed; technology has changed; testing has changed -- but the law hasn't.
George W. Bush signed NCLB into law in 2002, promising that schools and states would be held accountable for results. Students would be tested in reading and math, and later in science, and parents would have options if schools failed to make sure all students were moving toward levels of proficiency.
NCLB expired in 2007, but has stayed in place as Congress has continued to fund its programs.
Occasionally over the years we have hard talk about reauthorizing and updating the law.
But so far Congress hasn't acted -- no doubt because today's intense partisanship prevents compromise, and sometimes even prevents simple discussions of what policies should be.
A Glimmer of Hope?
Earlier this month, the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce said they want to re-write NCLB.
Both are concerned that the Administration is doing what Congress apparently can't -- that is, updating and modifying NCLB's requirements through a series of administrative waivers of key provisions of the law.
Essentially, the Administration is saying to the states, "Enact the reforms we want, and we will exempt you from some of the law's requirements." So far, 37 states have accepted the offer.
The waivers the Administration is granting are perfectly legal -- the law itself gives the Administration the authority.
Some within Congress are concerned about the scope of the waiver program, and the fact that so many states now are exempt from key accountability provisions of NCLB.
But can they do anything about it? Can they stop the partisan posturing and work together?
Everyone agrees the law needs updating. It's great that the leaders of the House Education Committee want to do it. I take it as a glimmer of hope -- not just as deja vu.
We all should support their efforts. We should encourage them. We should help them reach compromise on some of the more-contentious issues. Our kids -- and our country -- need a top-quality education system that will focus on their learning and hold schools accountable for results.
No Child Left Behind's goals are as valid today as they were over a decade ago when the law was signed. Congress should update the law to make it relevant for today -- and for tomorrow.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Monday, April 29, 2013
Changes in Latitude, Changes in Attitude
Most everybody knows Jimmy Buffett's song "Changes in Latitude, Changes in Attitude" where he talks about the joys of traveling and experiencing the world.
But not everybody shares that joy.
I met a man the other day who was quite proud of the fact that he never traveled outside his home state. In fact, he rarely travels more than 25 miles from his Carolina home.
As someone who works on international trade policy, among other things, and as someone who has been fortunate enough to have traveled the world on business and for pleasure, I felt he was missing something good.
When I talked about other countries, as well as the rest of America, he said he didn't really trust much of anything outside his local area and he wasn't really interested in learning.
Looking at our conversation from a policy perspective (kinda weird, I know), I wanted to ask his views on trade. I suspect if I had asked directly, his view would have been negative -- maybe he would have talked about outsourcing or China.
Instead, while talking about US-made goods and the Carolina textile mills shut down long ago, I asked if he thought US companies should be able to sell more of their products overseas. He said, "Of course."
I decided not to press the issue and point out that the inexpensive Asian-made t-shirt he was wearing would probably have cost him $25 or more if it had been made in one of now shuttered mills he spoke fondly of. And I decided not to point out that many South Carolina workers were making more money at the BMW and Michelin plants than they ever made in the mills.
I just couldn't get Jimmy Buffett's song out of my head.
My new friend is quite comfortable at home, and who am I to judge. But in most cases I believe if people can change their latitude and see more of the world and its people -- either by traveling in person or via the internet or other media -- then we will see more demand for other countries' products and services and more sales of ours, and everyone will be a little better off.
But not everybody shares that joy.
I met a man the other day who was quite proud of the fact that he never traveled outside his home state. In fact, he rarely travels more than 25 miles from his Carolina home.
As someone who works on international trade policy, among other things, and as someone who has been fortunate enough to have traveled the world on business and for pleasure, I felt he was missing something good.
When I talked about other countries, as well as the rest of America, he said he didn't really trust much of anything outside his local area and he wasn't really interested in learning.
Looking at our conversation from a policy perspective (kinda weird, I know), I wanted to ask his views on trade. I suspect if I had asked directly, his view would have been negative -- maybe he would have talked about outsourcing or China.
Instead, while talking about US-made goods and the Carolina textile mills shut down long ago, I asked if he thought US companies should be able to sell more of their products overseas. He said, "Of course."
I decided not to press the issue and point out that the inexpensive Asian-made t-shirt he was wearing would probably have cost him $25 or more if it had been made in one of now shuttered mills he spoke fondly of. And I decided not to point out that many South Carolina workers were making more money at the BMW and Michelin plants than they ever made in the mills.
I just couldn't get Jimmy Buffett's song out of my head.
My new friend is quite comfortable at home, and who am I to judge. But in most cases I believe if people can change their latitude and see more of the world and its people -- either by traveling in person or via the internet or other media -- then we will see more demand for other countries' products and services and more sales of ours, and everyone will be a little better off.
Monday, March 4, 2013
South Carolina May Expand Access to Digital K12 Materials
The South Carolina Senate is looking at increasing access to digital instruction materials by enabling school districts to "purchase the digital equivalent of a textbook" as well as "support equipment" from vendors approved by the state.
Currently, South Carolina school districts request texts from a list approved by the State Board of Education. Then, the Education Department buys the text and any digital licenses and loans them to the district.
A bill under consideration would provide some flexibility by allowing districts to buy or license materials not on the approved list. The catch, of course, is that the districts would have to cover the expense themselves and couldn't rely on the state for funds to purchase any materials not on the approved list.
Teachers and superintendents generally favor the bill. They want the flexibility as well as additional digital offerings.
It's a start.
Digital instructional materials are more up to date and more in line with how kids learn.
Expanding access to high quality digital instructional materials can only help South Carolina students.
Currently, South Carolina school districts request texts from a list approved by the State Board of Education. Then, the Education Department buys the text and any digital licenses and loans them to the district.
A bill under consideration would provide some flexibility by allowing districts to buy or license materials not on the approved list. The catch, of course, is that the districts would have to cover the expense themselves and couldn't rely on the state for funds to purchase any materials not on the approved list.
Teachers and superintendents generally favor the bill. They want the flexibility as well as additional digital offerings.
It's a start.
Digital instructional materials are more up to date and more in line with how kids learn.
Expanding access to high quality digital instructional materials can only help South Carolina students.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Key Senators Urge Trade Promotion Authority Renewal
Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Chairman and Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee urged renewal of Trade Promotion Authority in a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk.
Their support, along with support from House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI), should go a long way toward enactment of this important process.
As I've mentioned previously, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) enables an Administration to negotiate trade agreements in consultation with Congress and submit them for an up or down vote without any amendments. This makes sure we get the best deal as our counter-parties can be confident that Congress won't ask for more after the deal is completed.
TPA isn't a partisan issue. It is a process necessary for negotiating the best agreements and actually getting them enacted so U.S. workers and farmers can benefit from increased sales of U.S. products and services overseas.
Every Member of Congress should support TPA.
Their support, along with support from House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI), should go a long way toward enactment of this important process.
As I've mentioned previously, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) enables an Administration to negotiate trade agreements in consultation with Congress and submit them for an up or down vote without any amendments. This makes sure we get the best deal as our counter-parties can be confident that Congress won't ask for more after the deal is completed.
TPA isn't a partisan issue. It is a process necessary for negotiating the best agreements and actually getting them enacted so U.S. workers and farmers can benefit from increased sales of U.S. products and services overseas.
Every Member of Congress should support TPA.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
U.S. House Ways & Means to Look at Restoring Trade Promotion Authority
I predicted in my January 4 post that Congress would look at restoring Trade Promotion Authority this year.
Ways & Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) is making my prediction come true. He listed Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation as a top priority for the Trade Subcommittee in his letter to two other Committees outlining Ways & Means' plans, as required by House rules.
TPA enables an Administration to negotiate trade agreements in consultation with Congress and submit them for an up or down vote without the possibility for amendments. This makes sure we get the best deal as our counter-parties can be confident that Congress won't add additional requirements or ask for more after the deal is completed.
TPA, also known as "Fast Track," was last enacted in 2002 and expired in 2007. The political issues surrounding it will be new to many Members of Congress and staff.
In years past, the party of the sitting President wanted TPA while the other party didn't want to grant it. It didn't matter which party was in the White House. The party that was in wanted it; the party that wasn't in didn't want to give it to the President.
TPA is a very important tool for actually enacting the trade agreements the U.S. negotiates with other nations. Chairman Camp understands this. He knows trade agreements help U.S. companies, workers and farmers sell more products and services overseas, which creates and supports jobs here at home. He is looking down the road when the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other agreements to boost economic growth and U.S. jobs will need to be approved by Congress.
Ever Member of Congress should support TPA.
Ways & Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) is making my prediction come true. He listed Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation as a top priority for the Trade Subcommittee in his letter to two other Committees outlining Ways & Means' plans, as required by House rules.
TPA enables an Administration to negotiate trade agreements in consultation with Congress and submit them for an up or down vote without the possibility for amendments. This makes sure we get the best deal as our counter-parties can be confident that Congress won't add additional requirements or ask for more after the deal is completed.
TPA, also known as "Fast Track," was last enacted in 2002 and expired in 2007. The political issues surrounding it will be new to many Members of Congress and staff.
In years past, the party of the sitting President wanted TPA while the other party didn't want to grant it. It didn't matter which party was in the White House. The party that was in wanted it; the party that wasn't in didn't want to give it to the President.
TPA is a very important tool for actually enacting the trade agreements the U.S. negotiates with other nations. Chairman Camp understands this. He knows trade agreements help U.S. companies, workers and farmers sell more products and services overseas, which creates and supports jobs here at home. He is looking down the road when the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other agreements to boost economic growth and U.S. jobs will need to be approved by Congress.
Ever Member of Congress should support TPA.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Is There a Better Way Than the G20?
The G20 finance ministers are meeting in Moscow to look at economic growth issues. The G20 leaders will meet in St. Petersburg, Russia in September.
Does anyone outside a small circle even notice?
It's great that key officials from these major economies meet regularly, but can they accomplish much?
The global economy is inter-connected and inter-dependent, yet local politics and interests often water down what the G20 can do on a global basis.
Moises Naim has a good piece in the Financial Times noting that individual countries cannot tackle global issues alone, but their ability to work with others often is hampered locally. We see this regularly when the G20 discusses policy issues.
I like Naim's suggestion of "minilateralism" as a way forward.
Naim suggests gathering the minimum number of countries necessary to affect positive change on a particular issue and have them develop a global solution.
We're seeing this with willing countries coming together to negotiate a major agreement to open markets for services, building on progress made during the WTO's failed Doha Round.
This approach also will work at the state and local level.
Yes, those who oppose change will attack Naim's "minilateralism" with complaints of elitism or exclusion.
My view: If you want to have a say in the solution, take a seat at the table instead of sitting on the sidelines and throwing stones.
Moises Naim is onto something.
Does anyone outside a small circle even notice?
It's great that key officials from these major economies meet regularly, but can they accomplish much?
The global economy is inter-connected and inter-dependent, yet local politics and interests often water down what the G20 can do on a global basis.
Moises Naim has a good piece in the Financial Times noting that individual countries cannot tackle global issues alone, but their ability to work with others often is hampered locally. We see this regularly when the G20 discusses policy issues.
I like Naim's suggestion of "minilateralism" as a way forward.
Naim suggests gathering the minimum number of countries necessary to affect positive change on a particular issue and have them develop a global solution.
We're seeing this with willing countries coming together to negotiate a major agreement to open markets for services, building on progress made during the WTO's failed Doha Round.
This approach also will work at the state and local level.
Yes, those who oppose change will attack Naim's "minilateralism" with complaints of elitism or exclusion.
My view: If you want to have a say in the solution, take a seat at the table instead of sitting on the sidelines and throwing stones.
Moises Naim is onto something.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
New US-EU Trade Deal Will Boost Growth, Jobs
In his State of the Union address, President Obama announced the launch of a new comprehensive trade, investment and regulatory cooperation agreement between the U.S. and the European Union.
The U.S. and the EU already have a good trading relationship. Every day, goods and services worth $2.7 billion are traded between the U.S. and the EU.
When completed, the new agreement will further boost two-way trade and investment and will create more jobs on both sides of the Atlantic.
U.S. companies, workers and farmers will benefit.
With 95% of the world's population and 80% of the world's purchasing power outside U.S. borders, international trade and investment are more important than ever for America's continued prosperity. American jobs are created and supported when American products and services are sold overseas.
The U.S. and the EU already have a good trading relationship. Every day, goods and services worth $2.7 billion are traded between the U.S. and the EU.
When completed, the new agreement will further boost two-way trade and investment and will create more jobs on both sides of the Atlantic.
U.S. companies, workers and farmers will benefit.
With 95% of the world's population and 80% of the world's purchasing power outside U.S. borders, international trade and investment are more important than ever for America's continued prosperity. American jobs are created and supported when American products and services are sold overseas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)