It’s been reported this week that over half of Minnesota's public schools – or 1,048 schools – appear to have fallen short of the goals put forth by the federal law known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB). A year ago, 936 of approximately 1,950 public schools fell short and failed to meet “Annual Yearly Progress.”

I find this statistic extremely misleading and I think most Minnesotans do as well because we do not believe that 50% of our schools are failing our children.  We do not think our teachers are failing our children in 50% of the schools in our state.  And, we do not think that our children are getting failing educations in 50% of our schools.  This statistic is the result of federal bureaucrats putting in place their standards and benchmarks – standards and benchmarks that should be reserved for local officials, teachers, and parents at the local level.

The fact of the matter is that when you accept federal funding for education, you open the door to federal control. I entered politics because I wanted to give my children the incredible educational experience I received from public schools as a student. However, NCLB makes it nearly impossible for local schools to tailor their educational programs and curricula to meet their students’ needs and give our children the education they deserve.

This is an issue I've cared deeply about for some time now. In fact, as a State Senator in Minnesota in 2004, I introduced a bill that would extract Minnesota from the strictures of the No Child Left Behind law. This bipartisan legislation would have kept Minnesota from receiving federal funds for public education had it gotten past its unanimous approval in the State Senate, but it has been well documented that the costs for a state to comply with the program's requirements far exceed the funding received from the government:

•    A September 2005 study by the Virginia Department of Education found that local school districts would have to spend $62 million, $60 million, $61 million and $65 million more than they would receive from the federal government through fiscal year 2008 to administer NCLB.

•    A similar study in New Mexico in May 2005 found that the state would have to spend $37 million, $31 million and $26 million more than it received in new federal dollars for 2003-2005 school years, respectively.

•    Studies in March and May 2005 by the Connecticut State Department of Education found that through fiscal year 2008, it would cost the state – just the state – $41.6 million to administer NCLB.  In looking at local school districts, it found that just three school districts would have additional unmet costs of $22.6 million.

If this latest assessment of Minnesota's public schools tells us anything, it's that No Child Left Behind must be repealed and control of our education returned to the local level. Our children and teachers deserve better.

Here's one for those folks who think we're making too big a deal out of the outrageous price of gas. The MACCRAY School District that makes up the towns of Maynard, Clara City, and Raymond in western Minnesota is switching to a four day school week.

Why the switch?

Like everyone else these days, the price of fuel is blowing their budget. The district says it will save $65,000 out of a $7 million budget with the shortened week.

I imagine other districts around the country won't be far behind.

Another fine example of the everyday impact of the Democrat Congress' failure to address the issue of energy with any substantial piece of legislation. Sadly, our school districts are putting into practice the close relative of the gas plan of Barack Obama and other Democrats -- "get off the road and drive less." What's next, staying home from school all together? This is no solution.

Nineteen months in and the Democrat Congress still has no energy plan. We need to explore here, explore now, so we can pay less.

There is actually a lot going on this week – nothing to cut the costs of rising gas prices; but a lot of other pretty important legislation is being considered.  First, however, I want to get you caught up on an historic bill that passed late last week. We finally passed a supplemental funding bill to support our troops and it contained long-overdue reforms of the Montgomery G.I. Bill, providing expanded educational benefits to veterans and their families.

A key component of the reforms is that now for the first time ever, veterans will be able to transfer their G.I. Bill benefits to family members, a key provision not included in earlier versions of this legislation. That’s why I was a co-sponsor of a bill that allowed these benefits to be transferred to the veteran’s spouses and their children and I was pleased it was included in this funding bill. This long-overdue reform finally recognizes the sacrifices made not only by our brave soldiers, but also the sacrifices made by their loving families.

In terms of what’s happening on the floor this week:  Democrats are rehashing their blame-game price gouging legislation and bringing a tax hike bill in the guise of an Alternative Minimum Tax relief bill.  I'll be sure to keep you in the loop as it happens.

Last night, Congress voted 223-186 rejecting a critical increase in G.I. Bill education benefits. I am a co-sponsor to the “Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention and Readjustment through Education Act” (H.R. 5944) and was extremely disappointed.

H.R. 5944 provides for an immediate increase in the Montgomery G.I. Bill education benefit, and to improve retention and update this successful program for today’s service members.  Amongst the new features this bill provides for the GI Bill program, it allows military personnel to transfer their education benefits to a spouse or dependent children.   Simply put, this is not your grandfather’s G.I. Bill.

There is a competing G.I. Bill expansion bill out there, introduced by Senator Jim Webb.  But while the G.I. Bill expansion I am supporting is comparable in size and scope of benefits, it avoids the pitfalls of the Webb bill. 

(1)  The bill I support maintains the retention benefits of the G.I. Bill.  A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis found that the Webb bill could lead to a 16% decline in re-enlistment.
(2) The bill I support is not just a big money giveaway to universities and colleges.  It removes incentives for schools to keep hiking tuition costs.
(3) The bill I support is fully paid for.  The Webb bill simply passes the costs of educating one generation of GIs on to the next.
(4) The bill I support allows education benefits to be transferred to family members, giving service members and their families options for how they use the benefits they have earned.

While both pieces of legislation go a long way to increasing G.I. benefits, one does so in a more responsible manner. Hopefully, the House can reconsider this issue when we return to Congress after the Memorial Day district work period.