repeal, reauthorize or revise

[George Sheridan <learn@jps.net>]

Can the so-called No Child Left Behind Act be "scrapped"  or "eliminated"? What 
would those words mean and what would be the result of such actions?

I decided to find out if there is any way procedurally to return to the status
quo ante.

I checked with someone in Washington, D.C., who is very involved with the three
R's - repeal, reauthorization. or revision. I was informed that "The entire law
is now called NCLB ? not just the stupid parts.  There is no portion of ESEA that
is called NCLB. " My friend went on to say,

    1. If ESEA is not reauthorized, it does not revert to the previous law ? it
      remains as it is.

    2. All federal programs (such as Title 1) would remain as they are now.


  NEA is not seeking to repeal NCLB (which is the renamed ESEA) because NCLB
  contains all the ESEA programs ? Title 1 for disadvantaged students, Title 9
  which affects girls? equity in sports, assistance for English Language
  Learners etc.  There is a general misperception that the testing insanity,
  stupidly worded ?highly qualified? requirements, etc. are some sort of
  attachment to the old ESEA.  All of the new provisions are embedded within
  the old law, and if we want to keep the good things that have always been in
  the law, we have to surgically remove or repair the portions (now the law is
  over 1,000 pages) which we oppose so that we can preserve and enhance what
  the law was originally designed to do:  assist states in providing programs
  to underserved and disadvantaged populations of students.


  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: George Sheridan [mailto:learn@jps.net ]
  Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:53 AM
  Subject: scrapping eliminating or reauthorizing


  What would be the status of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act if it
  is not reauthorized within the next twenty-four months?

  Would all Federal programs included in ESEA (such as Title !) cease to exist?

  Would the law revert to the language that existed prior to enactment of the
  so-called No Child Left Behind Act?

  Teachers in Kings and Tulare Counties, California, are seeking to "eliminate
  NCLB" and are organizing letters to members of Congress asking their
  representatives to  "reauthorize ESEA without NCLB attached."  <
  http://eliminatenclb.org>.

  Teacher leaders in San Diego have introduced a resolution to "scrap the
  current ESEA (NCLB)." They are suggesting that the law be rewritten by a
  bipartisan commission <http :// www.sdea.net/Column_VP/column_VP.html>.

  I am not asking about the wisdom of the strategies described above. I want to
  know whether the objectives are in any way practicable.





  ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Sheridan" <learn@jps.net>
  To: <arn-l@interversity.org>
  Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:04 PM
  Subject: Re: [arn-l] Fw: [arn2-strategy] Re: 10 Senators critique NCLB


    Nothing in Congress happens overnight. Even issues on which the Democrats
    acted within the first 100 hours in the House are still awaiting action
    by the Senate. Senator Kennedy expects that it will be more than a year
    before Congress completes work on ESEA reauthorization. That's enough
    time for us to lay out our positive agenda - the things that should be in
    the law. I wouldn't want to say "Erase everything that was done in 2001
    and just go back to what existed before that." We can say "What existed
    before 2001 is O.K. as a starting point. Now let's improve the law."



George Sheridan