As former members of the Bush education team from the pro-voucher and pro-states' rights wings of the Republican party part company with Administration policy on NCLB, the President's June 25 remarks on reauthorization to the 2007 Presidential Scholars remain pretty much on track with what he's said from the start.  For obvious reasons, Bush chose not not draw attention to Reading First, but otherwise it's the same "no retreat" from student performance as the measure of accountability or from the sanctions failing schools face, and "no surrender" of his position on vouchers. And "no mention" of the private sector providers that are required if the President understand that public schools can't be beaten into leaving no child behind - they need programs that work.

Your editor agrees with no retreat, disagrees on no surrender, and dispairs no mention. But that's neither here nor there for the purpose of this posting. As with Iraq policy, Bush is sticking to his principles - which, other things being equal, is admirable, but ignoring the mood among key constituencies, including his own - which is why "quioxtic" can now be found close to "Bush" in much commentary on the President. It is hard to imagine the President being much further from the control he exercised over party colleagues in Congress  in 2001, than he is today - but it could get worse.

What is worrisome here, as in Iraq, is that the President is running out of time for a compromise brokered by centrists from both parties, and there is no Richard Lugar on the Senate Education Committee with the stature to make the point clear. (I am not implying that debate.. is bad. I am suggesting what most Senate observers understand intuitively: little nuance or bipartisanship will be possible if the... debate plays out during a contentious national election that will determine control of the White House and Congress.) If NCLB goes into the election with  reauthorization undone, the bipartisan coalition that passed the first version is bound to be torn apart. Something called NCLB II will be passed, but chances are it will not be closer to what Bush favors - or what the school improvement industry needs - than any deal he might strike today.

Meanwhile, what to make of the school improvement industry's trade groups? The choices appear to be that they:  have their heads in the sand, are standing idly by anticipating a train wreck, are too dumb to get out of the rain, haven't a clue of what to do, or think they can't do much to change anything. Your editor thinks trying to make a difference here is what association dues are all about.