No Guile Left Behind in Reauthorization Debate

Mike Antonucci on the NCLB dust-up and unusual splits and alliances:

No Guile Left Behind  in Reauthorization Debate. I applaud the fortitude of those commentators who waded into the midst of the Congressional hearings on  reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act while they were going on.  Instant analysis in such situations is dangerous waters, and I opted to stay  on dry land.
 
As I write this, I have in  front of me some three dozen different news stories, op-eds, blog posts, and  other documents from last week. These are just the ones I printed out of the hundred or so I read. I've divided them into three categories, none of which  really have anything to do with the substance of the law, but which highlight  NCLB's unique status in today's American national political debate.
 
Liberal Democrats vs. Liberal  Democrats – Splits in the Democratic Party tend to be along the  moderate/liberal fault line, even on Iraq. But on NCLB, you have liberals on  both sides, moderates on both sides, and conservatives on both sides. In a  political atmosphere where you can easily predict which group will support what position, I find this refreshing, if a bit weird.
 
Miller vs. NEA – The newswires and the  blogosphere lit up when Rep. George Miller and NEA President Reg Weaver had a  testy exchange <http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5go2oZU5y9gKBUOnNKIDJmMgdo_-g>  over the inclusion of a performance  pay proposal in the reauthorization discussion draft, with Miller saying, "You  can dance around all you want. You approved the language."
 
This was followed by an  exchange of letters, first from Weaver to  Miller <http://www.eduwonk.com/WeavertoMiller.doc> , then Miller to  Weaver <http://www.eduwonk.com/91207MillertoWeaver.pdf> . Then we had op-eds and press releases galore.
 
It's easy to make too much of  this. Few remember that NEA and Sen. Ted Kennedy went at it hammer and tongs  (in private) during the run-up to the original NCLB. But Miller, Kennedy and the mobs of Democrats who voted for NCLB have constituencies other than NEA to please, which makes this one rare education law.
 
On the other hand, Rep. Miller  (like Sen. Obama in July <http://www.eiaonline.com/2007/07/nea-convention-concludes.html> ) failed to recognize NEA's  internal imperatives. I don't know what conversations NEA and Miller had about performance pay when discussing the TEACH Act of 2005, but Miller should have  known that putting the same provision in an NCLB reauthorization bill was a different kettle of fish.
 
NEA has red meat issues.  Vouchers, seniority, tenure and merit pay are just a few. The union holds the  positions it does on these issues not only because it is in its interest to do so, but because it also serves a greater organizational purpose. Many people  have commented on the NEA presence at the hearings and its series of action alerts before the bill has even been introduced. Could the union generate that  kind of participation, enthusiasm and activism if the purpose was to cut a  deal on performance pay?
 
A union officer would much rather tell the members, "We oppose this bill because it contains merit pay"  than tell them, "We support this bill because it contains many good things for  us, despite the merit pay."
 
In short, you can't give a  rousing battlefield speech and then join the other side without angering your  troops.
 
NEA vs. CTA – This was the oddest  angle of the entire week. For the better part of a day, some commentators thought there had been a split between NEA and the California Teachers Association over the Miller-McKeon discussion draft.  As it turned out, it was a misunderstanding because CTA announced its opposition to the draft at a press conference <http://www.cta.org/media/newsroom/releases/20070910_1.htm>  on September 10, which made news a  lot more quickly and prominently than NEA's  own press release <http://www.nea.org/newsreleases/2007/nr070910.html>  announcing its opposition to the draft  language.
 
What made it more confusing is  that CTA is more militant about  NCLB than NEA is (yes, really!). There is a significant faction in the  California union that wants the law entirely scrapped. However, the hypothesis that CTA could publicly oppose such a high-profile bill that NEA supported demonstrates a poor knowledge of NEA governance. If for no other reason, a  state or local affiliate's annual UniServ grants from NEA require active support of "national program priorities."
 
Don't expect to see much NEA  movement on any provision of NCLB. They've invested in a zero-sum game and  they'll be the last to fold.