Terrible twos for NCLB

By Don Soifer

The federal No Child Left Behind Act enters its terrible twos this week, and already the tantrums have begun.

Signed by President Bush in January 2001, this massive education reform has resulted in much criticism from entrenched teachers unions, enemies of the Bush administration and even some skeptical conservatives. But NCLB has also brought about a new commitment to improving academic results around the nation and to providing parents with well-informed choices about their children's education.

Recent headlines have often gone to the law's loud detractors, ignoring the soft thrum of states and school districts that are shifting their machinery toward standards-based education and academic progress. To some extent this is understandable: Change has happened slowly, and many of the most promising success stories are still in the early stages of implementation.

It is an unfortunate fact, however, that most education bureaucracies are not accustomed to being held accountable for the academic improvement of their students. So it's not surprising that they complain like stubborn children being forced to eat their peas. But their new responsibilities, however distasteful at first, will benefit them in the end.

While he is certainly not the law's only critic, few have protested louder than Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, currently the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

In recent months, Dean has branded the NCLB law "a draconian takeover of local and state control," blasting its reliance on standardized test scores and calling its accountability measures burdensome and inflexible. But this simply isn't true.

Under NCLB, states -- not the federal government -- set their own academic standards and define adequate levels of student progress. As can be expected, these vary substantially. States also have a great deal of latitude in establishing their education-reform plans, including the time frames with which they are implemented.

Although states retain considerable control, they are required to make annual progress toward academic goals for all categories of students.

Families in underperforming districts -- where the local public school fails to improve student-performance levels over a period of years -- are given unprecedented new options to seek alternatives. Such options are not about dismantling public education. They are about giving all parents equal opportunities to be informed and empowered consumers.

One good example of how NCLB's new system has worked so far is the way states have responded to the law's provisions for the nation's 5 million English learners.

"It is important to note that Florida, like every other state in the nation, had previously not assessed reading, writing and comprehension [for English learners' progress toward fluency] in grades K-3," said one recent NCLB document the state submitted to the federal Department of Education. This remarkable observation indicates just how valuable the law has become to this crucial segment of our nation's schoolchildren.

Under NCLB, states are responsible for keeping academic standards high. Dean has argued that this burden of responsibility will lead "schools to dumb down tests so they can show progress." However, if state officials attempt to dumb down standards to continue to register progress, they will be held accountable by parents, voters and anyone else with a stake in their schools' success.

Dean and other critics of NCLB have been quick to brand the law rigid for local schools. But, in fact, it offers new local flexibility options that reform-minded school districts are only beginning to benefit from.

Recently, Seattle became the first district in the nation to enroll in NCLB's Local Flexibility pilot program. Local Flex allows school officials to combine several categories of federal funding and redirect spending to local priorities -- at their discretion.

In turn, participating school districts must show that the funds are being used to increase academic achievement. While NCLB allows 80 school districts nationally to enroll, Seattle so far remains the sole participant.

It is not surprising that NCLB has proven controversial, as parents, educators and elected officials alike are confronted with the notion that their schools might not measure up. Such growing pains may cause temporary discomfort. But in the long-term, No Child Left Behind will greatly benefit America's schoolchildren.

Don Soifer is executive vice president of the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va. His writing and research, which were instrumental in the formulation of the No Child Left Behind Act, have been cited numerous times by the framers of the law.