15 months ago, we proposed dropping the supplemental educational services and public school choice programs from No Child Left Behind. This was not done lightly; once upon a time I helped to implement these very provisions from 400 Maryland Avenue (not without my share of mistakes, I might add). Back then we wrote:
Though we staunchly support choices for parents and believe in bold action at the state and local level in addressing school failure, this is one area where Uncle Sam should keep out. He should leave it to the states to design their own interventions. If he cannot restrain himself from staying involved, he could provide incentives (i.e., extra money) for states or jurisdictions that tackle these reforms aggressively.
So we support the Obama Administration's recommendation to drop these interventions from ESEA (except as an "option" for the worst schools in the country). Our reasoning hasn't changed: while these are good ideas in theory, the federal government doesn't have the tools to make states and districts implement them well in practice. And if they're not going to be implemented well, they are not worth doing at all.
But where will Republicans come down on this issue? Will they take the federalist side of the argument, as we have? Perhaps; John Kline, the House education committee's ranking member, didn't mention choice or SES in his press statement about the Obama plan. On the other hand, Education Week's Steve Sawchuk is probably right that this could provide a line of attack for the GOP:
Coupled with the administration's decision not to continue the D.C. voucher program, it leaves Duncan and Obama open to claims that they aren't "really" for school choice, despite their push for charters.
And as Sawchuk hints, it might be hard for Republicans to resist making hay with this issue, the policy merits aside. In other words, get ready for a fight.
-Mike Petrilli
