Eugene Hickok, Bradley fellow in education at The Heritage Foundation and former deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, recently spoke at a North Carolina Education Alliance reception in Raleigh. He also discussed the federal No Child Left Behind Law with Mitch Kokai for Carolina Journal Radio. (Go to http://www.carolinajournal.com/cjradio/ to find a station near you or to learn about the weekly CJ Radio podcast.)
Kokai: Anyone who has followed the federal government or education at any level in recent years has heard something about No Child Left Behind – and probably has heard good things and bad things about it. What kinds of things should people be thinking about No Child Left Behind?
Hickok: Well, probably some good things and some bad things. The good things I think are an emphasis on results – long overdue in American education. We’ve spent a lot of time talking about how much money to spend. Now we’re talking about whether or not those dollars are making any difference in terms of student achievement. Looking at the achievement gap: that huge disparity between minority and low-income students and their wealthier white peers. It’s a real travesty in this country if you believe in the promise of America. Accountability, broadly speaking, is a good thing in that the goal here is to make sure that parents – the most important taxpayers regarding school – have a good sense, a strong sense, of how well their schools are doing, how well their kids are doing. Those are all good things.
One of the bad things, I think, is a larger role than ever before from Washington in local schools. I used to make the case all the time that the Department of Education in Washington doesn’t educate anybody. And yet, now more than ever before, it’s greatly involved in state and local education policy. And I think even though the law called for more options and more choices, the reality has been fewer options and fewer choices than we had hoped for.
Kokai: You recently wrote about the fact that the president and his administration are asking for about $1 billion more to deal with No Child Left Behind. You make a case that perhaps the federal government needs to be stepping back rather than stepping more into this issue. Why is that?
Hickok: I don’t think dollars are the answer. More federal dollars just aren’t the answer. If dollars were the answer, we’d have the most well-educated population on Earth, able to compete with any other nation on Earth. The facts are that we spend more than most, but we’re right in the middle of the pack with other nations – if not behind the pack.
The real reason, though, is because I think the more that Washington gets engaged in local and state education policy, the more it undermines what I consider to be the most important part of education policy, and that’s ownership. These are, after all – for lack of a better term – your schools, your children. Those teachers work for you. Those taxes you pay go to run your schools. And the more Washington gets engaged, the more the sense that somehow they’re government schools, that Washington decided what should be taught, when it shall be taught, and who shall be taught. And that’s just not a good thing, so for me, I like what NCLB did to get the ball rolling on results and accountability. But accountability really should lead to more responsibility at the state and local level and not less, in the name of government.”
Kokai: How then should we change the system? If the federal government is going to be involved, how should it be involved?
Hickok: If I had my way, I think I’d have Washington more engaged in doing research and development – R&D – on education. This nation does no investing into R&D in education. But that’s probably not going to happen. Washington’s not going to step back and do what I think it should be doing. I think what I would recommend, and there are members of the House and Senate who are proposing this, is to provide more flexibility so that states who can develop strong systems of accountability and good systems for transparency – which means reporting results to parents and taxpayers in an efficacious way – states that do that should be given the freedom to do that. If North Carolina has a way of getting the job done that demonstrates success, why should North Carolina have to bow to the heavy hand of Washington? The other point I would make is that even though Washington is spending more than ever before of your dollars, it’s still about 8 percent to 9 percent of total spending on education. So it would be smart as far as I’m concerned for Washington to assume a role more in proportion to the resources it spends.
Kokai: We know that No Child Left Behind exists. We know that the president wants to add more money to it. Are there competing proposals out there – or ones that you would like to see – that would be better?
Hickok: There are some competing proposals coming primarily from Republicans in the House and the Senate. One would say sort of a state charter. The state could apply to the Department of Education and say in so many words, ‘We have an alternative way of getting that accountability that works for us. Let us do it.’ And the Department would give them the ability to do that. I like that idea. I don’t think it’s necessary that you should have to apply to the Department of Education – to the bureaucracy – for the permission to do it. But political realities are political realities.
In the House, there’s an even bolder version than this that says it should be possible for states to accept federal taxpayer dollars – after all, it is their money – and still not have to do some of the provisions of NCLB, as long as they can demonstrate that they’ve got an accountability system that works. Both of those emphasize flexibility for the states. And I should point out that flexibility was one of the key principles that President Bush articulated when he introduced No Child Left Behind. Having been a former governor, I think he meant it at the time – that we needed to find ways to create flexible options at the state and local level. NCLB doesn’t provide much right now, and so the proposals I just mentioned in the House and Senate are really getting back to some of the original ideas that that law started out with.
Kokai: You mentioned the idea of increased flexibility. I imagine that even some who think there should be a large role for the federal government in education would accept the idea that if we have these states operating as “laboratories” – as you’ve heard sometimes – for different plans, we might come up with some better ideas than top-down administration from Washington. Are you hearing any of that?
Hickok: Yes, I am. And remember, too, that the world has changed pretty dramatically since No Child Left Behind was introduced. Right now, we in American public education do talk more about making sure results are accurately reported in a way that is easily understandable. That was not being done much before NCLB. So that having been put in place, it’s a lot easier for states to be able to make their case. And remember this, if you believe in federalism, we are a nation of states. We should provide incentives for states to compete. If North Carolina can make a better case for the way it educates its kids than Virginia can, it should be allowed to do that and to be able to demonstrate it in a way that convinces those who might want to locate their businesses in North Carolina or move their families to North Carolina, whether or not it’s a good place to move to get a good education. Right now, we have a system from the top down that tends to homogenize public education. What I’m looking for is a way to energize this public education.
Kokai: If people want to find more good information about No Child Left Behind, what’s the best place for them to start?
Hickok: Obviously you can look at the Web site of the Department of Education. You’ll get a point of view there. I’d recommend that you go to The Heritage Foundation and look at some of their publications on the Web site. Take a look at what’s being done at places like the John Locke Foundation here in North Carolina. Take a look at really the rich debate going on and be willing to contribute to that debate.