President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" Education Plan
President Bush released his education blueprint, "No Child Left Behind," on Jan. 23. The "parental choice"—or voucher—proposals may be the most contentious in the plan, but these are not the only items proposing fundamental changes in the relationship between federal education funding for disadvantaged students and the states and local districts.

The President's proposal offers states more flexibility (block grants) in using federal funding, relying on financial rewards and sanctions tied to outcomes to hold states accountable. The plan calls for consolidating federal funding for E-rate and technology grant programs and consolidating the Class Size Reduction and Eisenhower Professional Development Programs into "flexible teacher quality grants" to states and local districts. It would also consolidate funding for Safe and Drug Free Schools and after-school programs, with a specific provision that allows religious organizations equal access to federal funds.

The plan also calls for testing of younger students each year, a comprehensive "science-based" reading program for the early grades, financial bonuses for successful schools, cuts in federal administrative funding to states that fail to demonstrate results and increased funding for character education.

A Closer Look
Educators and policymakers from both sides of the aisle praised the President's commitment to education, but many voiced strong objections to the voucher proposal. Further fights loom over Bush's plan to increase funding flexibility through block grants, a fundamental change that opponents argue would move federal dollars away from their target of supporting the neediest students and schools.

In addition, Bush's call for science-based reading programs in Head Start, preschool education and in the early grades could trigger a revival of the polarizing "reading wars," which pit phonics against comprehensive reading approaches, and could provoke further opposition to the president's plan.

Bush's plan allows each state three years to craft its own standards and tests, but calls for state funding to be tied to the state's ability to demonstrate it is narrowing the achievement gap between students as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress in math and reading. Questions over the validity of relying on single-test results, the specific measures for defining school failure and success, who to blame for disappointing progress and how to calculate the costs of new accountability mandates are also likely to emerge as areas of contention.

The Democrats Offer "Three-Rs" Proposal
While President Bush took a page out of the children's advocates' book by giving his education plan a title derived from "Leave No Child Behind," the Children Defense Fund's trademark slogan, centrist New Democrats drew on conservative rhetoric by calling their education plan, "The Three-Rs."

While there is much overlap with Bush's proposals, the New Democrats' proposals call for different means for achieving similar goals. The "Three-Rs" proposal sets federal funding for educating disadvantaged children at higher levels, combines federal funding streams without block granting and financially rewards and sanctions states based on the state's performance in meeting specific objectives set by the state, not on the basis of annual student test performance. The Democratic proposal would preserve federal funding to help reduce class sizes, increase money to recruit and keep good teachers and to help finance school repairs.

NEA Gives Bush A for Effort, but F for Vouchers
While applauding President Bush's emphasis on education as a top priority, Bob Chase, President of the National Education Association (NEA), rejected the argument that vouchers are an effective strategy to reform schools. The NEA bipartisan agenda calls for making low-performing schools a priority by providing extra help to meet high standards; promoting teacher quality by investing in recruiting and keeping caring, qualified teachers; investing in early childhood education; modernizing schools; and fully funding special education programs.