The federal No Child Left Behind program needs more flexibility, not an extra $1 billion in federal government spending, says a former deputy U.S. education secretary who helped put the program in place.
“More federal dollars just aren’t the answer,” said Eugene Hickok, who served in the U.S. Department of Education during President Bush’s first term. “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.”
Hickok delivered that message Tuesday evening to about 40 state lawmakers and education leaders at the N.C. History Museum in Raleigh. A former Pennsylvania education secretary and federal education official, Hickok is now a Bradley fellow in education at The Heritage Foundation and senior policy director at Dutko Worldwide.
“American education is in trouble,” he said during his speech. “I think it’s in serious trouble. I think it’s in very serious trouble. I think we need a revolution in American education. I think we need to rethink the whole thing.”
No Child Left Behind has had some positive benefits since Congress adopted the plan in 2001, Hickok said in an interview with CJ. “The good things I think are an emphasis on results — long overdue in American education,” he said. “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,” he added. “Those are all good things.”
Those benefits come with drawbacks, Hickok said. “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. 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.”
Growing influence from Washington bureaucrats causes problems, Hickok said. “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,” he said. “These are, after all, 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 decides what should be taught, when it shall be taught, and who shall be taught. And that’s just not a good thing.”
That’s why Hickok raises questions about the Bush administration’s proposal for a $1 billion spending hike for No Child Left Behind. Now that NCLB has increased the focus on results and accountability, state and local governments should get more flexibility, he said.
“If I had my way, I think I’d have Washington more engaged in doing research and development — R&D — on education,” he said. “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.”
Instead, Hickok is focusing on ideas floating in Congress now. “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,” he said. “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?”
Competing proposals from Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate look promising, Hickok said. “One would [be] sort of a state charter,” he said. “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.”
Some representatives tout an even bolder plan, Hickok said. “It 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,” he said. “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,” Hickok added. “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.”
Positive reform is possible, Hickok said. “The world has changed pretty dramatically since No Child Left Behind was introduced,” he said. “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,” he added. “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. 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.”
Mitch Kokai is an associate editor of Carolina Journal.