Hillary to Union: "We’re Going to Get Rid of No Child Left Behind"
I'm not really sure how this went unnoticed for four weeks.
The January 16 Delegate Assembly of New York City's United Federation of Teachers was interrupted by a phone call from Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to UFT President Randi Weingarten. Placed on speaker for all the delegates to hear, Sen. Clinton thanked Weingarten for her help in securing her victory in the New Hampshire primary.
According to a January 31 story by UFT staff writer Michael Hirsch:
Badmouthing NCLB is a bipartisan activity, but getting rid of it was Bill Richardson's position, not Clinton's. Her web page on education reads:
I'm sure a clever campaign staffer will be able to craft a rationale that explains how these two statements are consistent, but perhaps former President Bill Clinton shed some light on it in his February 6 speech in Springfield, Missouri:
The January 16 Delegate Assembly of New York City's United Federation of Teachers was interrupted by a phone call from Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to UFT President Randi Weingarten. Placed on speaker for all the delegates to hear, Sen. Clinton thanked Weingarten for her help in securing her victory in the New Hampshire primary.
According to a January 31 story by UFT staff writer Michael Hirsch:
"'Education and children are the causes of my life,' she said and promised that
'we're going to get rid of No Child Left Behind,' a promise that brought
delegates to their feet roaring approval."
Badmouthing NCLB is a bipartisan activity, but getting rid of it was Bill Richardson's position, not Clinton's. Her web page on education reads:
"Since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, we have learned a lot about how
this law can be improved. I will use the pending reauthorization to expand
support early childhood education, improve teacher training, lower class size,
enhance parental involvement, eliminate environmental hazards in schools, and
protect the programs that work for all of New York’s children. And I will
continue to hold the Administration accountable for not providing the resources
that it promised to allow the landmark legislation to succeed."
I'm sure a clever campaign staffer will be able to craft a rationale that explains how these two statements are consistent, but perhaps former President Bill Clinton shed some light on it in his February 6 speech in Springfield, Missouri:
"I could go to Idaho to a place where there's not a Democrat within 50
miles and get a hand if I say we're going to get rid of No Child Left Behind.
It's the only surefire applause line in America today. And yet when that bill
was adopted it had the support of everybody from President Bush to Senator
Kennedy. They all thought it was something to vote for, and I'll never forget
the conversation I had with Hillary about it. She said, 'you know, we're all
going to have to vote for this because it's got so much money for schools,' but
the people that wrote it never talked to any principals or teachers. They
couldn't have or they'd never have done this."
I guess if there's no love from the Kennedy clan there's no reason to make nice with them.
I wish I understood the politics behind NCLB better though. My conjecture, that the GAO report that showed widespread misappropriation of Title I money as the reason for the fabulously bipartisan support for NCLB just seems kind of weak.
Where was the NEA during deliberations over the bill? How much pressure could they have applied given the overwhelming votes?
And why was there such overwhelming support?
Especially, why on Democratic side? There are way too many in the way of well-known, long-time supporters of the educational status quo, as dictate by the NEA, who voted for passage for there not to be some potent reasons I'm not just not seeing.
Posted by
allen |
February 10, 2008 7:49 AM
Post a Comment