Miller and Pelosi could indeed bring a bill (to reauthorize NCLB) before the House and possibly ram it through on a near-straight party line vote (though such a move would likely provoke more Democratic defections than GOP supporters) but it would come unglued in the Senate, where it's essential nowadays to have 60 firm votes for anything controversial. Which this would surely be.
The United States Congress these days is a near-to-dysfunctional institution. It accomplishes little of anything and less of importance. Call me cynical after too many years inside the Beltway but it appears to me that, on any but the most routine matters, lawmakers now act only when at least one of three (overlapping) conditions is met-and not always then. (1) There's a bona fide national crisis (e.g., 9/11, Katrina). (2) There's a huge public outcry. Or (3) there's a full-fledged Washington-style scandal needing to be redressed.... NCLB satisfies none of those conditions.
Readers know edbizbuzz.com is betting that NCLB will not be reauthorized until 2009. Finn's identification of Congressional dysfunctionality adds another reason to believe so.
It's a safe bet that the House will remain Democratic territory after the national election. It's
less safe to bet on a Democrat in the White House, but still more
likely than not. So
NCLB-watchers need to turn their attention to the upcoming Senate
races. Can the Democrats end up with the 60 seats required to get their way?
Unlikely. Can they come out of the election with a constellation of Democrats and
Republicans that yields 60 votes in favor of a bill that's much closer to
what Democrats want than it is to NCLB I?
Regardless,
if you are in the school improvement business, and haven't done so
already, start implementing a strategy to broaden your revenue base
beyond federal funding in general, and funding related to NCLB
accountability in particular. Other things being equal, your editor
tends to counsel against expansion too far from a school improvement
firm's center of gravity. But other things are not equal right now. The
idea of shifting resources on the margin to win a foothold in states
that do a big business with school improvement providers even aside
from federal funds (e.g., California, Texas, Arizona, Massachusetts)
deserves serious consideration.
Today is a time for creating as many potential revenue streams as
possible - "real options" - in the face of an uncertain future.
Wikipedia offers a useful definition of what might be seen as a form of insurance when applied to NCLB II:
[T]he real options approach forces decision makers to be more explicit about the assumptions underlying their projections.
This kind of option is... an actual
tangible option (in the sense of "choice") that a business may gain by
undertaking certain endeavors. For example, by investing in a project
or property, a company may have the real option of expanding,
downsizing, or abandoning other projects in the future. Other examples
of real options may be opportunities for research and development,
mergers and acquisitions, licensing....
More on what this means for school improvement industry marketing and sales later.