John Kerry's education critique of Bush doesn't add up.. . . .
05/19
In his big speech in Topeka commemorating the 50th Anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education Monday, Kerry included his usual dig at Bush's signature education accomplishment, the "No Child Left Behind" Act (NCLB)...which Kerry voted for.
"You cannot promise no child left behind and then pursue policies that leave millions of children behind," Kerry said. "Because that promise is a promissory note to all of America's families that must be paid in full."
At the center of the Kerry's argument is the charge that Bush isn't increased federal spending on schools enough. (Of course, he's had to shout to be heard over the grinding teeth of conservatives. Bush said last week, "we've increased federal spending quite a bit here in Washington, D.C.," and it wasn't a complaint or apology.)
"Having in large part voted for the bill, Democrats have decided that this is the avenue in which to attack NCLB, that it's an unfunded mandate," says Justin Torres, research director at the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, an education-reform think tank. "It's just not true. NCLB might be unfunded in certain, very specific [school] jurisdictions, ones that have serious problems with teacher quality and certification or very high levels of special education students. But the vast majority is adequately funded."
Torres says that the education establishment's charge that NCLB compliance will cost states billions each year assumes that implementing the program will result in no new efficiency and no elimination of redundant testing regimes or teacher training programs.
"Republicans are always at a disadvantage when it turns into a bidding war on who's spending more," Torres said. "For many people in education, it will never be properly funded. Of course, most of them just don't want to do it in the first place."
Kerry's campaign has charged: "The president has left a $72 billion gap between what he promised to spend on education and what he has actually proposed — leaving hundreds of thousands of children behind. The president visited Arkansas, a state that was promised $176 million for disadvantaged children by the White House in the No Child Left Behind Act. Instead, the Bush budget provides the state with only $117 million."
The "promised" and "actually proposed" figures come from the authorizing language in NCLB and Bush's budget proposal for this year, which, the Kerry campaign presumes, will reflect the final appropriation numbers for this year. Of course, Congress has spent beyond Bush's budget called for in many areas.
This "Legislation 101" from the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography explains the difference pretty well:
Generally, authorization is policy guidance (i.e., writing the law) and appropriation is cutting the check. The majority of legislation is authorization bills — it authorizes the federal government to do something, such as buy out of fishing vessels from fishermen, implement marine protected areas off the West Coast, amend the tax code, etc. Many times, authorizing legislation involves a cost. For example, fishermen may lobby for a bill to authorize the U.S. government to spend around $50 million to buyout fishing vessels. Even if this bill passed the House and Senate and was signed into law by the President, it does not mean that the fishermen will get $50 million. They need language in an appropriation bill to actually get the money. The authorization bill merely says the government CAN spend the money on this purpose if it so chooses.
Very, very few programs get the maximum amount they're authorized for. For example, the Payment In Lieu of Taxes program, which helps reimburse counties that have a lot of untaxed federally-controlled public lands, has never received more than two-thirds of the amount authorized by the PILT Act. The authorization bill often represents what lawmakers wish they could spend; the appropriation is what the appropriations committees — not generally known as tightwads — feel is an appropriate level. If the president and Congress "broke their promise" to schools, then every year they break thousands of promises to almost every government program.
And yet, the Kerry team — no group of Beltway novices — points to Bush's campaign stop and charges, "More than 60,000 Arkansas kids will be denied federal education assistance."
The number of children "denied federal education assistance" comes from the American Federation of Teachers' accounting of what the money could buy if a state's entire shortfall was spent on smaller class sizes — i.e., hiring more teachers/union members. For Arkansas, they calculated that 64,430 children could have had smaller class sizes this year if the NCLB Act had received the maximum amount of funds authorized.
According to Education Week, however, students are not being crammed into Arkansas classrooms: The average class size there is 20, a bit below the national average of 21.2. The state has the 20th-lowest class sizes in the nation.
The Kerry team's release continues, "All told, Bush is proposing to reduce funding for almost one third of Arkansas school districts from the levels of one year ago."
That argument comes from an AP story that states, "The federal department calculated aid for 310 school districts in Arkansas, although the state now has 308 districts. Of those, 220 will receive more funding starting in July than they did for this school year."
By the way, the lead of that story? "Starting in July, Arkansas school districts could receive 11.6 percent more federal funding than in 2003-04 under President Bush's budget proposal, a Bush administration official said Friday... Based on Bush's proposed budget and the most recent Department of Education estimates, Arkansas should receive a total of $118.3 million in Title I aid for 2004-05. Arkansas is one of 41 states or territories slated to receive an overall increase." Apparently Kerry left some facts behind.
nationalreview.com |
