Now that the financial markets have steadied themselves a bit, and Congressional leaders have started putting Humpty-Dumpty together again, it's easier to look at the demise of the bailout bill on Monday with cool detachment. And what's clear is that three factions were responsible for the bill's defeat: liberals, conservatives, and members from swing districts, particularly freshmen. What's interesting to me is that these were the same factions that rebelled against Chairman George Miller's No Child Left Behind reauthorization bill last year--and that would likely kill a similar bill today if it were brought to the floor.
Seven years ago, when the original NCLB made its way through Congress, it benefited from strong presidential leadership (in the wake of 9/11), plus liberal and conservative bases mostly willing to go along with their party bosses. Obviously those dynamics have changed.
As I write, leaders in Congress are working to tweak the bailout plan to get a few more votes on either side of the aisle so the bill can make it out of the House. Likewise, what would it take for an NCLB reauthorization bill to succeed? It seems to me that there are two choices for Democratic leaders, who will maintain their control next Congress. First, they can opt for a party-line vote by loading up the bill with lots of goodies for the teachers unions (i.e., more spending) while stripping out most of the accountability and school choice provisions from the law. That would be bad for school reform and (I suspect) bad for Democrats over the long-term, putting them on the side of the special interests against meaningful change. But it could work legislatively.
Or Democratic leaders could try for a "grand bargain" that would bring liberals, conservatives, and moderates on board. Here's the deal: devolve key provisions back to the states, such as the minutia of how "adequate yearly progress" should work, or whether and how students with disabilities and English language learners should participate in testing. That will appease states-rights conservatives and pro-union liberals. Then, to placate the center, add incentives for states to sign onto rigorous, common standards and tests.
In other words, turn NCLB on its head, with a "tighter" focus on what students should learn, and a "looser" approach to what happens if they don't get there. Not only is this good politics, it's good policy, too.
