Congresswoman Bachmann supports the return of education control to the states, and the reduction in scope and size of the Department of Education. She has not specified the amount of reduction, and the amount of control returned to the state.
One of the examples cited by Congresswoman Bachmann as an overeach of federal power causing unintended consequences is No Child Left Behind. She notes that the school districts are required to give the standardized tests as part of NCLB if they want government funding, but the cost of those tests are extreme and the unintended consequences include teaching to the test. She has stated that the program makes it impossible for school districts and teachers to adjust to the needs of their children.
To address these problems, Congresswoman Bachmann had proposed the A-Plus Act. The A-Plus Act would allow states to develop their own curriculums under the guidance of the U.S. Department of Education.
Support for NCLB Reform
In March of 2007, Congresswoman Bachmann released a statement noting her support for reforming No Child Left Behind.
Bachmann Co-Authors Legislation to Overhaul No Child Left Behind
States Would Be Allowed to Opt Out of NCLB; Still Receive Federal Funds
Washington, Mar 16, 2007 - Congresswoman Michele Bachmann co-authored legislation introduced by Congressman Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) that would significantly impact the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law, which is up for reauthorization this year. The legislation would allow states more flexibility to improve local education without the red tape and unfunded mandates of NCLB.
“Education is the fundamental building block of our society and we need to make sure we are giving children an opportunity to succeed,” said Bachmann. “Minnesota is a leader in education and we need to keep it that way by ensuring teachers, parents and local school board members have control over the classroom – not bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.”
The Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success Act of 2007 (A-PLUS) provides States and their local communities with maximum freedom and flexibility to determine how to improve academic achievement and implement education reforms. The bill allows states to develop their own unique standards and tailor them to the needs of their students, while still allowing them to receive federal education funding.
NCLB Misses the Mark
In August of 2009, Congresswoman Bachmann wrote an op-ed discussing the need for reform to the No Child Left Behind Program.
No Child Left Behind Misses the Mark 8/11/2009 | Email Michele Bachmann | All Posts By Blogger
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.
Spending Cuts for NCLB
In November of 2010, Congresswoman Bachmann appeared on "The Situation Room" with Wolf Blitzer. When asked about what programs she would cut, she responded that she opposed the No Child Left Behind Program, and that she would cut the Department of Education to at least the levels of 2008 spending.
BLITZER: Give me one big ticket cut that would you make, $1 billion, $5 billion, $100 billion. Where would you find the money available to deal with the deficit?
BACHMANN: Well, number one, just go back to spending levels of ’08.
BLITZER: Give me a specific example.
BACHMANN: That’s 25 percent of the federal budget. Remember, the federal budget was no lean, mean machine when President Obama took over. In his tenure, less than two years’ time, he has driven up the size of the federal budget almost 25 percent.
BLITZER: There’s a specific cut you would make?
BACHMANN: Take every –
BLITZER: Department of Education?
BACHMANN: Every increase that he took, go back to the –
BLITZER: Department Of Energy? Give me a specific.
BACHMANN: OK. But go back — I am. Go back specifically to where we were with the budget in ’08. That was not a paltry budget. Go back exactly where we were, that solves a lot the problem.
BLITZER: No specific cut you would prose right now other than go back to the 2008 levels?
BACHMANN: Back to the 2008 level, because one thing — we can do across the board cuts, but I don’t think that’s prudent, because there are legitimate projects that have to be done.
Bridges have to be built. Water treatment systems built. I think we don’t want to cut off our nose to spite our face, we have to be smart about this.
BLITZER: You’re basically saying, just have an across the board cut to the 2008 levels?
BACHMANN: No, no. Go back to where the spending priority was in 2008. Start there to begin with because we have to check the driver of spending. Go back to ’08, from there, then we can take the time to go through the budget and find out which priorities we want.
BLITZER: Is there a priority you want to cut?
BACHMANN: That I want to cut?
BLITZER: From 2008, is there something from 2008 that you would cut beyond that 2008 level?
BACHMANN: I’ll give you one example going back to when President Bush was in office. I disagreed with President Bush on no child left behind. I thought it was a failure, and it failed, a failed opportunity. In that bill the federal government ramped up spending more than we had ever seen.
BLITZER: For the Department Of Education.
BACHMANN: Department of Education.
BLITZER: So you would cut that?
BACHMANN: You could start there.
BLITZER: That’s a specific cut.
BACHMANN: Start there.
Palmetto Freedom Forum
In August of 2011, Congresswoman Bachmann participated in the Palmetto Freedom Forum in South Carolina. She spoke about education and the constition and noted that the involvement of the federal government in education was not constitutional.
Fox News / Google Debate
In September of 2011, Congresswoman Bachmann participated in the Fox News / Google debate. She was asked about education and stated that she would repeal the education laws, end the department of education, and return the funding to the states.
BAIER: Congresswoman Bachmann?
REP. MICHELE BACHMANN, R-MINN.: We need that to do with education what has always worked historically, and that's local control with parents. What doesn't work is what we see happen right now.
I'm a mom five biological kids. We've raised 23 foster children in our home. The reason why I got involved in politics was because of the concern I had about our foster children and the education they were getting. What I would do as president of the United States is pass the mother of all repeal bills on education. I would take the entire federal education law, repeal it. Then I would go over to the Department of Education, I'd turn off the lights, I would lock the door and I would send all the money back to the states and localities.
Huckabee Forum
In December of 2011, Congresswoman Bachmann participated in a forum that was hosted by Mike Huckabee. In that forum, she was asked abut the abolishment of the Department of Education and states that she would indeed support abolishing that department.
Official Website Statements
Education Reform
Every child in America deserves access to a quality education and I am committed to giving teachers and parents the tools they need to help students achieve excellence. In Minnesota, we are fortunate to have one of the best education systems in the nation, and I believe Congress must ensure states like ours can continue to pursue teaching methods that work while helping the nation’s low-performing schools improve.
As the mother of five biological children and 23 foster children, I know firsthand that every child learns in a different way and believe teachers must have the ability to tailor lesson plans to meet the needs of each child. While well-intended, the No Child Left Behind Act has created a classroom environment of “teaching to the test,” a one-size-fits-all approach to learning that does not work well for every student. That’s why I’m an original cosponsor of H.R. 1539, the A-Plus Act, which would allow states to develop their own curriculums under the guidance of the U.S. Department of Education. This would give local school administrators, teachers and parents the flexibility to determine what teaching strategies are most effective for their students while improving accountability in the classroom.
Campaign Website Statements
Minnesota Values
As a strong advocate for a culture of life, I have earned the support of the Susan B. Anthony List, Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), and the National Pro-Life Alliance. My legislation, the Positive Alternatives Act, makes it clear that the pro-life position supports the unborn child and the mother.
As a former foster-mother for 23 children, I have been an advocate for foster families in Congress and was recently appointed to the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute’s Advisory Board. In fact, I testified before the House Ways and Means Committee for my School Choice for Foster Kids Act, which would provide some stability for foster children.
In the State Senate, I led the charge to free Minnesota education from the federal No Child Left Behind mandates and in Congress I am continuing my work to return control over education to parents and local educators.
I fully support Minnesota’s hunting and fishing heritage, earning me the backing of the NRA and sportsmen across the District.
Voting Record
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act
In May of 2010 the House voted on reauthorizing the America COMPETES Act. The act passed the House 262-150. Michele Bachmann voted against reauthorizing the America COMPETES Act.
Michele Bachmann voted against reauthorizing the America COMPETES Act.
College Cost Reduction and Access Act
The College Cost Reduction and Access Act is a significant education bill dealing largely with funding for higher education. The bill removes tuition sensitivity for Pell Grants, increases the amount available for Pell grants, Funds the Upward Bound program, establishes the TEACH Grants, reduces student loan repayment rates, sets deferments based on need and establishes some partner based grants. The bill got the full support of the Democrats, but passed with the support of only about 1/4 of the Republicans. Michele Bachmann voted against the College Cost Reduction and Access Act.
Michele Bachmann voted against the College Cost Reduction and Access Act.
To provide for a 5-year SCHIP reauthorization for coverage of low-income children, an expansion of child health care insurance coverage through tax fairness, and a health care Federalism initiative, and for other purposes.
Allows each state to submit to the Secretary of Education a declaration of intent, applicable for up to five years, permitting it to receive federal funds on a consolidated basis that would otherwise be directed toward specific programs furthering the stated purpose of title I (Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Requires each declaration to be formulated by a combination of specified State Authorizing Officials or by referendum, and list the programs for which consolidated funding is requested. Allows states to use such funds for any educational purpose permitted by state law, but requires states to make certain assurances that they will use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, abide by federal civil rights laws, and advance educational opportunities for the disadvantaged. Allows states to amend their declarations. Requires each declaration state to: (1) inform the public of its student achievement assessment system and annually report on student progress toward the state's proficiency standards, disaggregating performance data by specified student groups; and (2) keep aggregate spending on elementary and secondary education at no less than 90% of such spending for the school year coinciding with this Act's enactment. Limits administrative expenses. Requires consolidated funds to be distributed in a manner that allows for the equitable, as determined by each state, participation of private schools.
Requires the Secretary of the Treasury to make an annual determination of states that have chosen to opt-out of K-12 education grant programs.Requires the Secretary of Education to determine credits due to states as opt-out state education amounts.Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow individual taxpayers in states that opt-out a refundable tax credit for a share of the opt-out amount creditable to such states.
Authorizes states to transfer or consolidate funds made available to them under certain federal transportation, education, and job training programs: (1) beginning with the calendar quarter after the United States experiences economic growth at an annual rate of less than 1% for two consecutive calendar quarters; and (2) continuing until 18 months after it experiences economic growth at an annual rate of 1% or more for two consecutive calendar quarters.
Allows each state to submit to the Secretary of Education a declaration of intent, applicable for up to five years, permitting it to receive federal funds on a consolidated basis that would otherwise be directed toward specific programs furthering the stated purpose of title I (Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Requires each declaration to be formulated by a combination of specified State Authorizing Officials or by referendum, and list the programs for which consolidated funding is requested. Allows states to use such funds for any educational purpose permitted by state law, but requires them to make certain assurances that they will use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, abide by federal civil rights laws, and advance educational opportunities for the disadvantaged. Allows states to amend their declarations. Requires each declaration state to: (1) inform the public of its student achievement assessment system and report annually on student progress toward the state's proficiency standards, disaggregating performance data by specified student groups; and (2) keep aggregate spending on elementary and secondary education at no less than 90% of such spending for the school year coinciding with this Act's enactment. Limits administrative expenses. Requires consolidated funds to be distributed in a manner that allows for the equitable participation of private schools.
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow a tax credit of up to $100 ($200 for joint returns) for charitable contributions to an education investment organization that disburses 90% of its contributions to provide grants to students for elementary and secondary education expenses, if at least 50% of such disbursements go to students who qualify for free or reduced-cost school lunches. Requires a taxpayer claiming such credit, as a condition of eligibility to receive it, to first claim a state qualified scholarship tax credit.
Repeals specified provisions of the: (1) Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; (2) Early Learning Opportunities Act; (3) Higher Education Act of 1965; (4) Higher Education Amendments of 1998; (5) Education of the Deaf Act of 1986; (6) Higher Education Opportunity Act; (7) Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980; (8) Higher Education Amendments of 1992; (9) Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968; (10) Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006; (11) Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act of 2004; (12) Head Start Act; (13) Workforce Investment Act; (14) National Environmental Education Act; and (15) America COMPETES Act. Prohibits the Secretary of Education from obligating any funds to implement a literacy program for prisoners under the National Literacy Act of 1991.
