Despite an auspicious beginning, the federal No Child Left Behind Act has become the law everyone loves to hate. Hailed early on as a powerful way to eradicate troubling achievement gaps, the law’s noble goals unified legislators on both sides of the aisle. The day NCLB was signed, White House officials described it as “the most sweeping reform of federal education policy in a generation.”
That was in 2002. Six years later, the law is a bipartisan punching bag. Conservatives abhor its massive federal intrusion. Liberals decry its emphasis on high-stakes testing. Public support for NCLB has ebbed as well because of the law’s inflexible mandates and implementation problems.
According to a poll released in August by Education Next and Harvard University’s Program on Education Policy and Governance, more than half of Americans want an extreme education makeover: 27 percent say Congress should renew NCLB with “major changes,” while 24 percent want the law scrapped entirely.
They might have to wait a bit longer. NCLB is set to expire this month, but 2008 reauthorization is unlikely, given the fall election. Instead, lawmakers are expected to pass another extension. NCLB is, however, “sure to see votes” in 2009, Time magazine says.
When it does, debate will be lively. Congressional divisions over how to proceed are sharp. Rep. Mike Castle, an author of NCLB, wants to fix, but preserve, the law. In July, Castle introduced the “Improving NCLB for All Students Act,” targeting problems such as the law’s lack of flexibility.
His bill would allow states to use student academic growth over time to count toward Adequate Yearly Progress, NCLB’s key benchmark. Under the original system, schools meet AYP if subgroups of students hit proficiency targets; if students fall short — even if their performance improves from the year before — the school misses AYP.
North Carolina was granted permission by the U.S. Department of Education to pilot such a “growth model” two years ago. Castle also would ease testing requirements for disabled students or those learning English. His bill, according to Education Week‘s David Hoff, “could be the starting point for discussion in 2009.”
Still, such legislative tweaks won’t tackle NCLB’s fundamental flaw: its heavy-handed federal intrusion. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, an early opponent of NCLB, wants to solve that by allowing states to opt out of the law altogether. Dubbed “Congress’ lead champion for local control of schools” by Education Daily, Hoekstra introduced the “Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success Act” last year. Under Hoekstra’s plan, states aren’t absolved from working assiduously to narrow achievement gaps and improve schools. In fact, they must exhibit “transparent” accountability systems and report annually on school performance. But states could do so unfettered by NCLB’s burdensome regulations, leaving them free to innovate. According to the latest tally, the bill has 66 House co-sponsors, including N.C. Reps. Walter Jones, R-3rd, Patrick McHenry, R-10th, and Virginia Foxx,R-5th.
Clearly, Hoekstra and his numerous congressional allies understand the perils of top-down, federal education reform. NCLB has spawned far more problems than it has solved, as countless school administrators would attest. As lawmakers consider NCLB, Hoekstra poses this question: “Who will decide the future of our children’s education? Faceless bureaucrats in Washington, or parents and local administrators who know our children’s names and needs?”
The answer seems straightforward. When it comes to improving schools, those closest to the student know best. That principle explains why parental school choice, the truest embodiment of local control, works so well.
In the end, NCLB has affirmed this: We desperately need genuine education reform, just not from the federal government. Will our multiyear NCLB experiment serve as a powerful object lesson in the limitations of federally mandated reform?
It should. More than ever, it’s time to leave this law behind.
Kristen Blair is a North Carolina Education Alliance fellow.