Dean Says No to Federal Money from "No Child Left Behind"

[slinkerwink]

By Kate Mccann, Associated Press, 11/30/2003 13:15

MERRIMACK, N.H. (AP) Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean said Sunday he would have turned down money from the federal No Child Left Behind Act if he still was governor of Vermont.

''Vermont would have been the first state to turn down that money,'' Dean told a crowd of teachers and supporters at Merrimack High School.

Dean said the law lowers the standards for good schools in New Hampshire to make them more like poorly performing schools in Texas.

The Bush administration believes ''the way to help New Hampshire is to make it more like Texas,'' Dean later told supporters in Manchester, adding that ''every school in America by 2013 will be a failing school.''

more....

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/334/region/Dean_says_he_would_have_turned:.shtml

[TLM]

1. Yep, and who lined up to vote for this stink burger of a bill?

Kerry... Edwards... Lieberman... Gephardt.


They couldn't vote yes on that steaming pile fast enough so they could all stand around and put out statements about how much they supported Bush.

[slinkerwink]

3. at least Dean recognized the dangers of NCLB....

and didn't implement it in Vermont.

[sandnsea]

7. Yes he did

See #6. What a pandering piece of shit this guy is. I guarantee you if America loved this bill, he would too.

[salin]

45. ah... here we are...

Dean as a piece of shit human being.

I make it a rule to never listen to ANYONE about ANY candidate whose hatred goes to that level. Completely marginalizes ANYTHING raised because once one holds so firmly such a view... NOTHING can ever be considered objectively.

So for those who keep insisting that Clark was tied to WACO and the work in Kosovo was genocidal because Slobo was not really doing ethnic cleansing... they are all avoided.

For those who can't get past Kerry SUPPOSEDLY being in a frickin "secret society" who now look behind every nuance as some kind of coded 'intentional enabling of Bush' (O please)... they don't get heard either.

Thanks - sorry for wasting my time trying to talk about ed policy. I don't have time with those bent on party self annhiliation through divisiveness at this level. I don't believe any of the candidates are a piece of shit human being. Just don't. And since it is now clear, by your own words that it is your crusade to make people believe this... have fun. I will try to remind myself not to waste my time.

[mzmolly]

2. Good on Dean...

:)

[SoCalDem]

4. Too bad most people cannot see through empty rhetoric

The "Turn your schools into piles of steaming crap" plan would not receive the rah-rahs that the "oh-so-sweet" sounding LNCB..

[slinkerwink]

5. yep, I'm in Texas now....

and it's disgusting how the TAAS has more precedence over actual school subjects. :-(

[democratreformed]

12. Too bad it does not matter

People ask such stupid questions of our candidates. Things that can NEVER be proven or disproven. How does that help anyone decide?

[SoCalDem]

68. What's your favorite soup??

:puke:.. They never ask real questions, because they know the candidate will shun them in the future if they are put on the spot.:(

TRhere should be a standard set of questions that is asked of ALL candidates.. A formal vetting, like NON ELECTED officials have to undergo..

We deserve to know where they stand on the vital issues..

I could not care less how religious they are, or what their favorite flower is, but I DAMNED WELL want to know what they think about medicare, taxes, helathcare, education,, etc.

[sandnsea]

6. He accepted the funding

What a goddamn liar. I cannot believe what this guy gets away with. He did ask the state to consider the costs and benefits of NCLB, because he gets his panties in a twist over 'local control', like every right winger I've ever heard. But in the end, HE took the money.

"Gov. Howard Dean says the state plans to accept this year’s federal education dollars and will later assess the financial impact of new Bush administration requirements attached to those funds."

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/49828.html

[salin]

9. I don't follow... what is he lying about?

Are you suggesting he never considered or recommended exploring the option of no longer accepting federal title 1 funds in order to opt out of the program?

Or are you angry that he didn't opt out? Of course neither did any other state, so I am not sure why this is more egregious for Dean than for any other Democratic Governor.

Sometimes reactions folks have hear to candidates is so reflexive that it stops making sense.

There are issues to talk about with WHO does opt out (wealthier districts who receive few federal dollars) and who is perceived unable to do so (Districts with large proportions of students receiving free and reduced lunch and thus sizeable Title1 funds.) Or about the costs of NCLB (I don't know how feasible short-term vs long-term opting out is - would be interested in seeing studies reflecting this). There are issues around this that can be looked at politically at the state and federal level as it gives insight into legislative/executive branch actions. But - when the critique reads a bit irrational and invective - any discussion gets thrown in the ditch - as it begs for reflexive responses.

This does none of us anygood.

[sandnsea]

22. Gee, let's see

"he would have turned down money from the federal No Child Left Behind Act if he still was governor of Vermont."

He accepted the funding when he WAS governor of Vermont. He already accepted the funding. Now he says he wouldn't? Sounds like a lie to me.

[salin]

27. When did he leave office?

What is the timing of all this. The nuts and bolts of NCLB was still being ironed out (regs and state requirements, timing, etc.) in November of 2001/December. The first rankings of school came from this past academic year as the first year that, I believe, it took effect (eg 02-03 academic year). I am not so sure that the timing you cite, at least from an educational policy eye (as in - following some state/district level aspects of this legislation), is correct. But perhaps I am off on when Dean left office.

[sandnsea]

30. Did you click the link?

July 2002 is when Vermont made the decision. Dean didn't leave office until January 2003.

[salin]

32. Did you read my information?

I was working on this issue - with the primary law firm in DC that was trying to sort out this mess of a piece of legislation. The final regs (defining the rules - by the dept of education - which determines the REAL costs of the legislation) were REVISED in DECEMBER of 2002. Get it? Congress passes a law. Executive branch (in this case the DoE) creates the rules (often changing intent) - and regulations which impacts costs... THEN in cases such as these it goes to the states.

In this case - states had to take some immediate actions (most states started preparing in summer of 2002 - because a freighttrain was barrelling at them) - but they had to do so in advance of the actual rules/costs/etc being finalized and released by the DOE. In January of 2003 states were finally getting the full impact/costs/requirements/obligations etc.

Understanding the CONTEXT helps. In July NO STATE had the information as to full requirements/regulations and costs.

[sandnsea]

38. Believe him if you want

I don't. He would have taken this money, I don't believe for one second he wouldn't have. He was already talking about the costs of the program last year, so he knew what they entailed to a large extent. And he took the money.

[salin]

42. er

have you read anything I have written? Context matters. Attack where warranted. But when you attack out of context... folks stop listening - as one marginalizes oneself as having valid points rather than just points colored by vitriol and lack of objectivity.

I am not a big Dean defender/supporter or a big defender supporter of any candidate. I am fed up with the reflexive posting of many that seems inevitable to harm our chances to work our butts of on behalf of any single democratic candidate come next summer. When smart people, become less than objective on issues, they lose their ability to persuade others - which is an ability we all need to have intact - as it will be us, one on one that will have to combat the rightwing media blitz.

Now on this topic - I happen to have a lot of information of how it came down on the state/district level. Also have experience in ed policy as an analyst. Your knee-jerk reactions on this issue - just are not warrented. Only know that from my work. Tried to explain that here. Sometimes cooling off - listening and contemplating what is being offered as information (rather than someone picking a fight) - in that cooler moment - with the right context, one might be able to still find a logical/critique. Instead it reads as closed-eared ranting.

[sandnsea]

47. It's complex

Which is exactly what I said down in post #46, I believe. Which is why when Dean throws out this garbage "I would have rejected it" in order to get votes, while ignoring all the complexities of NCLB funding, it pisses me off. It's not that simple and you obviously know it.

[salin]

49. whatever

once i read your characterizing one of the candidates as a piece of shit. I realized that any conversations on any topic will be read through such a thick biased lens that is really probably isn't worth the energy.

[slinkerwink]

54. yeah.....there's a lot of illogic being used here.

:shrug:

[JNelson6563]

66. I have noticed this about you,

that you are neither rabid attacker or defender of any candidate. IMO this makes your posts all the better. The fact that they are well written, intelligent and informative helps too. ;-)

Thanks for posting this info.

Julie

[NashVegas]

65. I Wonder How Many Other Governors Even Asked Their States to Consider

Opting out?

How many Democratic congressmen wrote their home state Governors to ask them to look at the fine print?

Care to take a stab?

[slinkerwink]

10. here-----

"As Governor of Vermont, I was an outspoken critic of this federal intrusion into state and local affairs because I understood that it was terribly flawed. I suggested that my state would be better off refusing the federal money and not participating, because Vermont already had accountability measures that empower our schools to succeed. Why should Vermont, or any state for that matter, participate in a system that encourages schools to dumb down standards or encourage dropouts? Time has proven that my skepticism was well founded. Implementing No Child Left Behind has driven up local property taxes, taken money away from needed school programs and made it even more difficult to pay competitive teacher salaries. Unless we seriously reform No Child Left Behind, these problems will only compound."

info below from deandefenseforces....

January 01, 2003
A.2.iii. Education: "What is the Vermont record on education?"
Vermont has an excellent school system. As Governor, Dean took the lead before the federal government and implemented a strong and fully-funded accountability program for Vermont's school system. He also provided funding so that Vermont's rural schools could utilize technology that would allow them to share in opportunities typically only afforded more rural areas. In addition, he put into place a strong teacher quality program that guaranteed that teachers did a good job and rewarded them for going the extra mile. (Dean For America Link)

One of Dean's more controversial acts as Governor was his support of and signing of Act 60 "The Equal Educational Opportunity Act" which equalized education funding across the state. Dean stood up for the bill, declaring, "It's only fair for everybody to have the same chance in Vermont whether you come from a small town with a small school or a large town with a large school." (Issues 2000 and DfA link above)

Return to FAQ.

Posted by Matt at January 1, 2003 01:02 AM

Comments

[sandnsea]

25. He accepted the funding

He can blabber on as long as he wants as much as he wants. The bottom line is he accepted the funding. That's what he actually DID, which is a whole lot more important than campaign pandering.

[Scott Lee]

62. BEFORE any of the ramifications of NCLB were known

So let me get this straight - Dean said that, were he governor TODAY (hint: That means after the rancid smell of NCLB finally came out) he would not accept the money; and you magically turn this statement into an acceptance of the monies with the post 2002 modulations, back when he was governor?

See, this is why the antiDean frothers aren't taken seriously outside of their basement sized clique.

[dsc]

19. Wouldn't local control be nice?

My school district gives the names of its students to the military. Why? Bush makes them.

My school district has to teach abstinance only sex ed. Why? Bush makes them.

My school district has to allow the miliatry to recruit on campus. Why? Bush makes them.

My school district spends several days a year of instructional time on worthless tests. Why? Bush makes them.

My school district had a massive transfer of students from a school which isn't crowed to one which is. Why? Bush made them let that happen.

Local control sure sucks.

[sandnsea]

28. What a different tune

A few years ago we were all happy with these programs because local school districts were forced to teach sex education, drug/alcohol awareness, keep guns off school grounds, educate the disabled, provide reading programs, etc. Now that we have to put up with abstinence, we want local control. Seem a bit schizophrenic to you?

[dsc]

33. I would love to know what district you belong to

and what bildge they are feeding you but for the record. The feds have never required sex ed that wasn't abstance based. They just haven't. Drug and alchol awareness may be a federal requirement but I don't think so. (they didn't teach this in MS when I worked down there). The keeping guns off school grounds was a federal law and not to do with funding. It is no longer the law. This disabled are educated due to the ADA which applies to all entities. Special ed, which is a differnt thing, is a federal requirement. But my point mainly was that local control isn't right wing especially now. I think MA gays are damn glad that states have rights at this point for example.

[sandnsea]

35. Implement program,

Get funding. That's the way it works and the way it's always worked. That's exactly the way NCLB works. If you don't want to do it, don't take the money.

[salin]

36. if it were so simple

many districts would walk away. Somehow those that have... have very few students for which title1 monies are recieved. So wealthier districts have a greater ability because they don't lose much money (because they get so fer dollars as these are dollars specificallly that are allocated based on the number of students in a school/district that receive free and reduced lunch).

[sandnsea]

39. I know

That's why Howard Dean would have taken the money.

[dsc]

41. No it isn't

Most programs only cost you funding for that program. If you don't run special ed right, you lose special ed funds etc. Here you lose all Title funding if you refuse to do one of many, many different requirements. This is a huge power grab.

[sandnsea]

46. And schools need the money

Which is why Howard would have accepted it. I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with this bill, but for Howard to stand up there and pander that way is sickening. And the left is all for federal programs when the money is coming in to support things they like. My kids have been in sex ed programs and abstinence was never a part of them, birth control and preventing STD's with condoms was the focus. Now that a strong abstinence based sex ed is promoted, we jump on the local control bandwagon. Do you want to give up the zero-tolerance guns, smoking and drugs/alcohol programs in order to get local control over abstinence education? Do you want to give up requirements for special ed and reading in order to not test kids? These are serious questions and throwing around rhetoric is not a solution, that's all.

[dsc]

51. I, nor you, have any idea if he would have or not

but his state would be better situated than many for saying no. His funding is more controlled by the state (after Act 60), has fewer Title cases per capita (due to better distribution of wealth), and has better finances than most states due to his stewardship. Those combine to make Vermont one large, fairly insulated district as far as Title one is concerned.

[sandnsea]

58. Yeah, it's doing great!

Yes, Howard Dean was governor in 2002.

http://timesargus.com/Legislature/Story/48313.html

http://www.act60.org/necrpt2.htm

[dsc]

61. editting computer strikes again

MONTPELIER — Vermont is headed toward a $25 million deficit in its state budget as the recession continues to catch up with state government.

Administration Secretary Kathleen Hoyt said Monday the shortfall would be covered by withdrawing money from the state’s savings account known as the rainy day fund.

“The significant point is that the revenues for fiscal year 2002 have been progressively slowing and we will undoubtedly dip into the rainy day funds at the end of June,” Hoyt said.

end of quote.

The part Dean had control of, the existance of a rainy day fund. covered the part which Bush caused, the fall in revenues. In short, like a prudent person he planned for the future. Good for him.

Second article.

A total of 116,000 Vermont households received prebate checks under the income sensitivity provisions of Act 60. Given that there are more than 240,000 housing units in the state, fewer than half of the households in the state received an Act 60 prebate check.


Act 60’s income sensitivity provisions benefited just a small group of Vermonters: 11,600 Vermont households, representing 10 percent of the prebate recipients, received an average prebate check for $1,500; 65,000 households who received the smallest checks (and the same amount of money in total as the top 10 percent of prebate recipients) received an average prebate check for $256. What this shows is that a very small number of Vermont households received a large share of the income sensitivity payments and a large number of Vermont households received checks for a small amount of money.

snip

The gap between low and high spending towns has not changed much as a result of Act 60. Statistical measures of the disparity remain high. However, since Act 60 was passed, the lowest spending towns have raised their per pupil spending by more than the average increase in school spending in the state.

Total education spending by state and local governments in Vermont increased by 17.3% from FY98 to FY01. Local share spending is now 40% higher than it was in FY99. If such rapid increases in a nearly $850 million program continue into the future, significant tax increases of some son will be needed. Act 60 will do this by “automatically” raising local share property tax rates substantially to raise the needed revenue. This is a continuation of the school spending and property tax trends that existed in Vermont before Act 60 was passed.

end of quote.

There is more in there making my case but I am out of space I can legally quote. The first two paragraphs show a program which did what it was supposed to. This was not supposed to lower the tax burden it was supposed to change who paid it. The rebates are supposed to help low income people. They are. About 40% of people got rebates. Some got a lot others got only little. That was a function of two things, both progressive in nature. One, you paid 2% of income up to 75k or the property tax which ever is lower. Thus low income people got large rebates and upper middle class ones got small ones. When people like Kerry and Edwards advocate policies like this you call the policies good. When Dean does it you call them bad. Funny how that works.

[wtmusic]

20. A goddamn liar?

'State education officials haven’t received “a straight answer” on how funding could be affected if Vermont were to opt out of the law’s requirements, he said.'

Sounds to me like they wanted to see how opting out would affect other federal funds beside Title I--probably was a prudent move.

When Dean says he 'would have' aren't we talking about the theoretical 'if I were still governor'? I don't understand your problem with his stance.

[sandnsea]

23. He already did

He accepted it last year. He already did.

[dsc]

26. because he wasn't told by Bush's feds

how much money he would lose. Now he knows and wouldn't take the funds.

[salin]

29. the regulations/costs and details

were revised november a year ago and still unclear to states in December of 02. Districts that opted out, I believe, did so this academic year (03-04); and might have in 02-03; but not before then - as there was no clarity around the law/regulations/costs etc. Not sure with how that gels with Dean's end of term/retirement from the Governorship.

[sandnsea]

31. He said the same thing in 2002

Suggested Vermont not take the funding, made a big stink about it. In the end, he took it and he would have this year too. I don't understand how somebody can stand up and say the exact opposite of what he did in office, over and over and over, and people still think what he says this year outweighs everything he's done for the last ten.

[dsc]

37. No that isn't what he said

He said he had considered it but since he didn't know the cost he couldn't do it. Evidently now we do know the cost

[sandnsea]

40. Couldn't do what?

Clarify.

[dsc]

44. He couldn't opt out

without a specific figure because he would have no idea what the budget hole would be. If he did that he would have left his successor to clean up a big mess if all federal funding were lost. Which Bush refused to tell states at the time.

[sandnsea]

48. And there'd still be a budget hole

So how can he say he'd opt out now? It's fine to talk about specific changes, programs, and needs. But just throwing out these kinds of statements is nothing more than pandering to emotions, it's not laying down real solutions for anybody. And it just seems to me that considering that great big budget hole, he wouldn't opt out, he knew it last year, he knows it now. He's lying.

[dsc]

52. Yes there would

but he would know how much it was and could plan for it.

[salin]

8. Many school districts have opted out... but generally those

that don't receive much title I money (as in... those serving few students from economically disadvantaged homes.)

Most states, however, now have to add a huge number of annual tests (most states only test students every couple of grades, eg: 3, 5, 8, 10) - and now have to add all grades from 3-8; AND over several years add more subject areas. I have not seen an analysis that shows how much projected costs at a student, school or district (or state) level compare to the projected federal monies at stake.

[slinkerwink]

11. here....he equalized funding for all schools in vermont

One of Dean's more controversial acts as Governor was his support of and signing of Act 60 "The Equal Educational Opportunity Act" which equalized education funding across the state. Dean stood up for the bill, declaring, "It's only fair for everybody to have the same chance in Vermont whether you come from a small town with a small school or a large town with a large school."

[gristy]

15. I learned about this while having Thanksgiving dinner with a friend

in Burlington. What a great idea. He said it was controversial at the time.

[salin]

17. Didn't know he had done this... very controversial in other states

when done... fought tooth in nail most places and called "Robin Hood" plans - under the idea that they are 'stealing' from wealthier disticts to give to poorer districts.

The approach became so politically sticky (good ole rightwing rhetoric) that the approach - known as equalization in funding... was dropped at most state... in favor or adequacy in funding... where a bottom was placed that the state might subsidize (determined as an "adequate rate") upon which wealthier districts could add.

[slinkerwink]

18. I think it's the most fair policy when it comes to funding schools

[sandnsea]

34. Under court order

Just like in every other state where equalization has happened. In Montana, it happened back in 1989. I'm surprised it took Vermont so long to care for its kids.

[salin]

43. it has also, i believe, been reversed in many states

and moved to adequacy formulas (which are never equal.)

[sandnsea]

50. But it wasn't his great idea

That's all.

[salin]

53. again... whatever

did I say it was his idea.

I think earlier I stated that I didn't know that the state had equalized funding - as most states reversed or backed away from such funding schemes by the early nineties. Again, I was interested in the timing - as it was the opposite direction of trends elsewhere in the country. Wasn't trying to raise kudos for the candidate that you have claimed to be a piece of shit human being.

Boy what a useful and enlightening conversation :eyes:

[sandnsea]

59. That's not the point

This post is just another example of Howard Dean's campaign trail zeal that doesn't match what he did. He guarantees health coverage to everyone, he doesn't tell anyone how much it will cost them. He talks about Vermont's surplus, without saying the state is running a deficit. He talks about his health care plan without telling people he raised taxes several times, and that the health care plan is still running a deficit. He doesn't tell people private insurance rates have risen dramatically because he cut payments to doctors and hospitals, some insurance companies have left the state. He tells people was just complying with federal regulations, he'll have to take another look at Yucca Mtn; when he actually wrote Congress in support of it, he was much more involved then he leads people to believe. It just goes on and on and on. And he doesn't get called on all of it because he might just be the Democratic candidate and the rest of the party doesn't want to make it harder for him to win. But not Howard, he doesn't care. He'll slander anybody on his egomaniacal quest for the White House. Yes, I think he's a piece of shit human being, I've never made any secret of it. I don't care that he's a Democrat, shit is shit.

[salin]

63. i think the point is your crusade to convince people that he is a piece of

shit.

not much conversation there. Tell me how many people you have successfully "CONVERTED" using those tactics. Right. The art of persuasion. See when you are so hell-bent on creating a case, even in situations where the case doesn't fit, you get dismissed. It is the crusade mentality, that frightfully too many people have adopted of late, that leads to losing any objectivity. And the resulting discussions do two - both completely nonproductive things... sing to a choir (amen brother/sister!) or push the other into the same lockstep blind/biased retorts to their choir.

See - I can't even take a word you say in this post seriously, given your lack of 'listening/responding' to other points on this thread without it being read through the screen of nuhuh dean is shit... nuhuh... your context/reasoning doesn't matter because dean is shit...

It is called an object lesson in how to marginalize oneself. Even thinking minds will stop listening because it is a waste of time and the source has lost all objectivity.

[LWolf]

55. I don't have the numbers.

But I can tell you that our economy and our state budget have tanked. We're in the red. School districts have made massive budget cuts. Let's see. In my district, I have purchased most of the pencils, crayons, tape, and basic classroom supplies the last few years myself. Parents donate the rest. I make about 2/3 of the copies my class uses out of my own budget. This year, so many positions have been cut that my district has teachers trying to manage whole departments at the district after hours, in committees, because the managers of those departments have been laid off. No extra pay; it falls under the "other duties as necessary" clause in our contract. I haven't done less than 12 hours a day since school started. Sometimes I have to do more. And I'm still bringing work home with me.

We are still paying for the damned tests, though. And not just the mandatory test; since there are schools in the district who didn't make their annual "improvement" goals, we've got sanctions. In order to prove compliance with all of the goals stated in NCLB and concurrent state high-stakes testing legislation, my district has decided that we need to test more. They are paying for more tests. Enough to take about a week of instructional time every quarter. And enough to add about 80 unpaid hours per year as "extra duty" for each and every teacher correcting the damned things and sending the scores in. They haven't said what they're going to do with the scores. We don't keep them at the school site. They don't even have anybody at the district level to do anything with them, even if they had a plan. But damn, we've got the money for more tests. And for the scripted programs Bush Inc. approves of for use in American classrooms.

The amount of paperwork and manpower/hours involved in administrating the mandated yearly test, not to mention all of the rest of the testing, is staggering. Plus, of course, the cost of purchasing and scoring tests.

[SadEagle]

57. The make you PAY for tests?

Huh? Did they give some pork-barrel contract to develop them, requiring schools to pay tons of royalties, or is it something more mundane?

Oh, and thank you for your hard work, yours is perhaps the noblest profession of them all..

[LWolf]

64. You're welcome.

Yes, of course we pay for the tests. There are only about 5 companies in the US who publish tests, and not all are "approved" for high-stakes testing use. Guess which companies get the action? Those with connections to the Bush family. What a surprise. The tests were problematic to begin with, and now those problems have been multiplied; there are more errors in the tests and in scoring the tests than ever before, because they are trying to keep up with testing every child in America. School districts purchase the tests, and pay for the scoring and reporting of the tests. A standardized test must be scored at the source; by the publishers.

[Le Taz Hot]

67. Actually, there are more than 5

the problem is getting access to State Departments of Education. My husband and I started a business this last February that addresses ALL the ills of NCLB at an affordable rate but we can't get access to the big boys. I am truly not overstating the merits of this program that includes universal standards (yes, we have them), test creation and analysis, standards-based curriculum, student progress tracking and remediation, among other things. With the exception of one state, we can't get access.

My husband and I can write for days about how bad NCLB is -- we know, we've done the research, and it's gawdawful.

If any of our DU teachers/administrators are interested, PM me and I can send you a link to our website as I know advertising on DU is prohibited.

[madfloridian]

13. That impresses me...as a retired teacher I resent NCLB.

Good for him for understanding it and saying something.

"''the way to help New Hampshire is to make it more like Texas,'' Dean later told supporters in Manchester, adding that ''every school in America by 2013 will be a failing school.''"

Good statement.

[slinkerwink]

14. that's a good dig at bush

;-)

[remfan]

16. "Dean says no to federal money" ?

Actually, Dean says he "would have" said no to federal money.

[slinkerwink]

21. semantics......

:eyes:

[dsc]

24. In fairness it isn't semantics

While I applaud him saying he wouldn't take the money, I do admit that is different from not taking the money. He would have had to cut spending, increase taxes, or both to make up for the loss of funds.

[LWolf]

56. Interestingly enough,

the first states to discuss turning down federal funds were republican states; I read some articles over a year ago, and didn't save them, so I can't provide links. Memory tells me that one was Nebraska, and there were others I don't remember. At the time, I wondered why conservatives would stand up to NCLB when the democrats wouldn't. Of course, if the agenda is to do away with public ed in favor of vouchers/corporate schools, it's easier to understand. If a few states start opting out of federal funds, then the legitimacy of a dept of ed can be called into question.

And, of course, republicans aren't exactly breaking their hearts over needier students; I guess they don't need Title I.

[retyred]

60. What's with all the I would've, could've, should've "if" posts about?

Without having to actually have done it, the point is moot! Conjecture doesn't win elections.



retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read the book