Page is part of an undergraduate assignment at Davidson College.

No Child Left Behind

In 2001, President Bush passed the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation (Introduction 2004). The merits of this piece of legislation frame the education reform debate between the two U.S. Senate candidates from South Dakota. Challenger John Thune praises the initiative and points to the innovative ideologies that NCLB offers (“Education” 2004). Senator Tom Daschle agrees with the basic concepts of the program but insists that the administration has failed to properly fund the project, and without this funding the Congress should repeal the measure (“Quality” 2004). Each candidate has stayed close to the party line, and each has represented the issue accordingly to his constituents.

The NCLB has four basic “pillars:” “accountability; basing on scientific research; parental options; and local control and flexibility” (Introduction 2004). The program hopes to guarantee increased funding on the basis that schools meet standard requirements. NCLB allows parents to make decisions about schooling and states to make decisions about allocations.

Thune sings the praise of the Bush administration for crossing partisan lines and passing a program that affects the entire country. Thune exclaims his contribution highlighting the program’s inclusion of rural education initiative. This aspect of the legislation secures higher funding for rural areas, traditionally most lacking areas. Speaking to those in favor of states’ rights, Thune also stresses the initiative’s requirement that states have a larger stake in the allocation of funding. Thune closely aligns himself with the republican message that education has become his party’s issue (Education 2004).

As Pitkin suggests, sometimes the political environment most strongly influences a candidate’s representation. As the republican challenger, Thune must closely associate himself with the positive accomplishments of the Bush administration. He is successfully speaking to the republican base in South Dakota who desire a candidate that can match the republican ideals the state represents (Pitkin 1967).

Tom Daschle does mention the positives of NCLB. However, supporting the democratic line, Daschle broadcasts the administration’s failure to effectively implement a successful plan. In a recent debate, Daschle claimed that the administration under-funded NCLB by $29 billion (“SD: Daschle” 2004). Instead of just passing meaningless legislation, Daschle claims he will oversee the adoption of bills that actually put money in the hands of schools. Clearly, Daschle is effectively representing the dissenting voice of democrats dismayed by Bush’s program (“Quality” 2004).

Though the two candidates both agree on the importance of education reform, they both speak to their respective party bases and take stances that echo the sentiments of their party ideology.

Home