Orwell Award Announcement SusanOhanian.Org Home

NCLB Outrages

An Educational Quagmire: Many Questions Plague Prospects Of No Child Left Behind

By Chester E. Finn Jr.

With every passing week, the 110th Congress looks less likely to reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the fate of which will therefore hinge on the 2008 election. This contentious law cannot be revamped absent a fairly broad and bipartisan consensus. George Miller and Nancy Pelosi could conceivably bring a bill before the House and possibly ram it through on a near-straight party-line vote (though such a move would provoke more Democratic defections than GOP supporters), but it would come unstuck in the Senate, where it's essential nowadays to have 60 firm votes for anything controversial. Which this would surely be.

The truth is, despite all the fuss and feathers about NCLB, thereâs little agreement on exactly what ails or what might cure it - which is not to say thereâs a shortage of advice. A five-foot shelf of books, studies, reports, commission recommendations, etc. is rapidly accumulating. (I plead guilty to having helped contribute a few inches.) Its very amplitude attests not only to the length and complexity of the law, but also to the disputed nature of what, exactly, is awry in NCLB 1.0 and what should be the essential attributes of version 2.0. Even more important, underlying all the technical specifics are five immense dilemmas that go to the heart of the matter.

⢠Is NCLBâs grand goal itself naïve and unrealistic? Politicians pledge that no child will be left behind, yet I donât know a single educator who seriously thinks 100 percent of American children can become âproficientâ (according to any reasonable definition of that term) by 2014 in reading and math. Exemptions have already been made for seriously disabled youngsters. In truth, raising American kids from their current proficiency level of some 30 percent to 70 or 80 percent would be a remarkable, nation-changing achievement, yet I canât imagine a lawmaker conceding this. The first thing hurled back at him would be, âWhich 20 percent of the kids donât matter to you?â

⢠Is the program upside down? My Fordham colleagues and I think NCLB inverted a fundamental design principle: Congress opted to be tight with regard to means and loose with regard to ends. It trusts every state to set its own standards, but micromanages measurement systems and sets rigid sequences for school and district interventions. It would be far better to promulgate a single national standard and assessment system, and then to trust states, districts, and educators to devise their own means of getting there on their own timetables. But half of Congress will recoil in horror from the freedom and flexibility implied therein while the other half will be put off by uniform standards.

Is the governmental architecture usable for this purpose? In LBJâs day, it made sense for Uncle Sam to distribute his new education dollars via the traditional structures of state education departments and local school systems. Four decades later, however, the main focus of federal policy is altering the behavior and performance of those very institutions in ways they donât want to be altered. Itâs beyond imagining that the old, multi-tiered architecture can satisfactorily handle the new challenge of making it change its ways. Yet nobody is thinking creatively about alternative structures by which NCLBâs goals might more effectively be pursued.

Can Washington successfully pull off anything as complex and ambitious as NCLB in so vast and loosely coupled a system as American K-12 education, one in which millions of âstreet-level bureaucratsâ can ignore, veto, or undermine the plans of distant lawmakers and regulators? Iâm no great fan of local control of schools but Iâm even less a fan of bureaucratic over-reaching.

Do the likely benefits exceed the ever clearer costs? Boosting skill levels and closing learning gaps are praiseworthy societal goals. But even if we were surer that NCLB would attain them, plenty of people - parents, teachers, lawmakers, and interest groups - are alarmed by the price. I donât refer primarily to dollars. (Theyâre in dispute, too, with most Democrats wrongly insisting that theyâre insufficient.) I refer to things like a narrowing curriculum that sacrifices history, art, and literature on the altar of reading and math skills; to schools that spend ever more of the year prepping kids to pass tests; to gifted pupils being neglected so as to pull low achievers over the bar; and to the homogenizing of schools - including charter schools - that crave the freedom to be different and offer parents distinctive choices.

So long as these monster questions lack agreed-upon answers, I donât see much hope for an NCLB consensus, and I donât see much hope for NCLB 2.0 anytime soon.

— Chester E. Finn Jr.
National Review Online:


This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.