NCLB Defenders Re-invent History

[Bob Schaeffer <bobschaeffer@earthlink.net>]

Looks like NCLB apologists are getting desperate as calls for a 
comprehensive overhaul of the law grow from across the political spectrum.

The nonsensical arguments in the final paragraph (e.g. "No one was 
really focused on results" pre-NCLB, a statement which ignores the 
existence of many state accountability systems) demonstrate the fantasy 
world which true-believers are forced to conjure up to defend their 
position.

"NO CHILD" IN THE CROSSHAIRS

CONGRESS SHOULD BE TAKING ABOUT STRENGTHENING, NOT ABANDONING, THE 
FEDERAL SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY LAW
Washington Post Editorial -- July 2, 2007

No one in his right mind would demolish his home because it had a leaky 
basement or it needed new carpeting. But that's the approach being 
advocated by those who find fault with the No Child Left Behind Act. The 
federal law is not perfect, but its architecture of educational 
accountability, transparency and equality is sound. With the law up for 
reauthorization this year, Congress should be debating how -- not 
whether -- to continue this landmark education initiative.

The law faces a perilous political situation far different from the 
climate in the fall of 2001. President Bush, then popular and riding a 
wave of patriotism that grew out of Sept. 11, was able to quell 
traditional Republican concerns about federal involvement in education 
and form a partnership with Democrats. The political support that the 
president enjoyed is gone. And now, as the Post's Amit R. Paley 
reported, mounting criticism from both the political right and left have 
supporters of the law worried about its prospects for renewal.

The latest attack on the law comes from a surprising quarter: former top 
Bush aides who were instrumental in its implementation, such as Eugene 
W. Hickok, deputy education secretary during the president's first term. 
He and a growing number of Republican lawmakers would allow states to 
opt out of the federal requirements.

No one can doubt Mr. Hickok's commitment to bettering schools. Nor can 
some of his arguments about the unintended consequences of No Child Left 
Behind be denied. For example, the law's requirement that states test 
students annually and show progress toward proficiency has caused some 
states to lower standards and water down assessments. It's difficult, 
though, to see how giving states even more flexibility will solve this 
problem. Wasn't the trouble caused by letting states decide what's good 
enough?

We've been unequivocal in our support of standards that have rigor and 
meaning. It's encouraging that Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), a 
proponent of No Child Left Behind who chairs the education committee, 
has identified this as one of his priorities. Some promising ideas come 
from the nonprofit advocacy group Education Trust. One is to encourage 
states to raise their standards to a "college-and-career-ready level" 
with the trade-off of getting more time to reach more realistic goals of 
proficiency. The law's original goal of 100 percent proficiency by 2014, 
while laudatory, may be unrealistic.

Other areas cry out for improvement. Schools that are failing need help 
in the form of guidance and resources, rather than just sanctions, if 
they are to improve. Students most in need of quality teachers still 
aren't getting them. Provisions to get extra help for struggling 
students, such as private tutors, are not being applied the way they should.

Consider the landscape before No Child Left Behind. No one was really 
focused on results, failure had no consequences, few people were talking 
about the achievement gap and parents had little choice if their child's 
schooling wasn't doing the job. A recent report by outside experts 
showed students nationwide doing better on math and reading tests, as 
well as a narrowing of the achievement gap. To let states opt out of 
doing the hard, necessary work of raising standards is to turn back the 
clock on education reform.