Throughout the 2004 presidential campaign, liberals and Republicans claimed the legislation that called for overhauling public education would itself have to be overhauled to ensure that the law would reach its audacious goal to have all public school students proficient in both math and reading by 2014. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings earlier this year fine tuned some aspects of the No Child Left Behind Act, including those pertaining to students with disabilities. While we continue to support education reform on the federal level, we nonetheless urge policy-makers to revisit NCLB as critical deadlines approach and as local and state authorities rightly question the breadth of NCLB.
Two deadlines are in the upcoming school year. The first of those two is January 2006, when paraprofessionals must prove they are “highly qualified” to be in the classroom. The second is the end of the 2005-06 school year, when teachers must prove that they are “highly qualified” and proficient in certain subjects. Neither deadline is a surprise to local and state education authorities, because NCLB, which President Bush signed into law in 2002, states that classroom educators would have to prove their mettle no later than four years after enactment of the law. Strict enforcement of the competency mandate means that school districts across the country might lose good, effective classroom teachers and that teachers might meet the same the fate as their students — failure to measure up. The superintendent of D.C. Public Schools, for example, already has primed anyone who cared to pay attention: He told a congressional committee in May that 1,400 of the city’s 4,700 teachers cannot prove they are licensed to instruct in certain subjects (as if consistently low test scores and high illiteracy rates said otherwise).
That the competency of veteran teachers is questionable is not surprising either. As the Hoover Institution’s Koret Task Force on K-12 Education has pointed out: “Some states have used their discretion under NCLB to adopt tests for new teachers and alternative requirements for veteran teachers … that are far too easy. Unless this portion of NCLB is modified, the law will not significantly improve the quality of teachers.” The Koret group recommended revising the definition of “highly qualified” to include teachers: who have a bachelor’s degree; and can prove they either majored in the subject being taught, passed a national subject competency test or can demonstrate through test scores that their teaching methods significatnly raised student test scores.
The National Education Association is unambiguous about where it stands on quality teachers: Pay new teachers higher salaries and they will come; pay veteran teachers still higher salaries and they will stay. While we strongly disagree with the NEA’s position, we do agree with Hoover’s Koret: NCLB will not reach its ambitious 2014 goal of 100 percent proficiency in reading and math without certifiable quality teachers.
Moreover, there are the politics of NCLB itself. NCLB has drawn criticism from all quarters. While some unions and liberal groups repeatedly blasted NCLB as unfunded mandates, some Republicans decry the constitutionality of NCLB, while some states simply want out. At a recent forum at the Cato Institute, Utah state lawmaker Margaret Dayton characterized NCLB as “unrealisitic and unconstitutional.” She also cited the contrariness of federal mandates regarding special education: NCLB measures student and school achievement by grade level, while the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act uses a measuring stick that is based on ability level. Such contradictions led Mrs. Dayton, a Republican, to draw near-unanimous bipartisan backing for her NCLB “opt-out” legislation. “Schools should be accountable to the communities in which they are located,” Mrs. Dayton said.
As for federal overreach, suffice it to say that both Ronald Reagan and the Constitution got it right. “Education is the principal responsibility of local school systems, teachers, parents, citizen boards, and state governments,” said Mr. Reagan, who had promised to abolish the Education Department if elected. The 10th Amendment assigns no proper federal role regarding education. In fact, it states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The No Child Left Behind Act we envisioned during the 2000 presidential campaign is the not the same No Child left Behind Act that Mr. Bush signed into law in January 2002. The liberal lions on Capitol Hill, the NEA and other lobbies made sure of that. For their part, to make the law less rigid, both Mrs. Spellings and her predecessor, Rod Paige, relaxed some requirements, including those for rural districts, special education and new non-English-speaking students — surefire signs that NCLB was getting in the way of itself (not to mention, again, the Constitution).
It’s worth noting at this juncture that NCLB is not up for reauthorization until 2007, but that hardly means critics and skeptics will remain quiet until then. Assistant Deputy Secretary Nina Rees told the Cato audience that the fact that the debates are being held and some states are suing is viewed by the White House as “signs of success” of NCLB.
We don’t hold the view that states suing the federal government and vice versa as “signs of success.” The fact of the matter is that the No Child Left Behind Act, like innumerable federal laws, is flawed but reparable. The Bush administration should take full advantage of the next 12 months to reinforce the successful pillars of NCLB — school choice and giving parents more information about neighborhood schools. Inside the Beltway, timing is everything.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.