Schools should be controlled locally

The News Virginian / News Virginian
Published: December 18, 2007

Following an issue as it is debated in Washington can be like trying to get a clear view from beneath the water's surface as a river bottom is dredged. It is hard to see anything amid those swirling, miry clouds. Such is the case regarding the No Child Left Behind law, the federal system for measuring public schools
Passed in 2002, No Child endeavors to have all public school students proficient in reading and math by 2014, a goal that seems equal parts laughable and laudable. To nudge the reluctant herds, the law established a program of state standardized tests to gauge schools' progress in moving students toward the standard. Schools, or states, that skip out are denied a spot at the feeding trough of federal education money.

So here is the funny thing about No Child six years in: It's actually working. In particular, by almost all accounts, the section of the law focusing on so-called disadvantaged students and those with disabilities has resulted in their receiving improved education. That fact is among the quietest successes of the Bush administration. Of course, successes under Bush have been rare at any volume.

No Child's critics nonetheless remain many and strong. They say the law neglects such vital subjects as science, civics and the arts. A fix proposed by the NAACP would give schools points for bolstering graduation and college admission rates. Others suggest recognition for increasing the number of students who ace Advanced Placement classes. Some lawmakers even want schools to get credit for pushing kids to exercise more. Maybe schools can be recognized for getting kids to eat more green beans, too.

The idea of adding standards comes in response to one of the more salient criticisms of No Child, namely that it leads to schools molding instruction around state exams - teaching to the tests - instead of their providing a broad, balanced education. Ask a high schooler about an important historical date, for example. Do not be surprised by the bewildered response. History, after all, is not on the No Child list.

But the law's backers are right when they argue that adding measures to the mix will only dilute and ultimately negate No Child's effects. It is vintage Washington to attempt to repair potentially problematic government programs by expanding them. Also vintage Washington is the result: Programs that are less effective and whose missions are less clear than before.

The law has another significant flaw that is seldom discussed - the absence of attention given to those at the front of the pack rather than at the middle or rear. In the understandable zeal to help struggling students catch up, if only to meet the law's standards, schools risk neglecting those more apt to lead than be left behind. Parity is the implied product of No Child. That is a worthwhile aim in the NFL, but not in education.

Most glaring among the law's weaknesses, however, are its assumption that government possesses the power to coerce outcomes and its failure to recognize the true driving forces in education. Most powerful among the latter are families. Some children can overcome the obstacles posed by broken homes and neighborhoods, but not all will, no matter how much government or laws insist on it.

This is one of the reasons we believe so strongly that parents, rather than federal government, should play the lead role in shaping local schools. Parents who exercise their right and responsibility to help shape how local school districts are run are far more likely to encourage, push and sometimes labor with their children to finish homework, study for tests and, ultimately, learn. Many teachers recognize this.

No Child, in its very premise, does not. The standardized state tests spawned by the law provide a valuable barometer for parents seeking to compare schools. In establishing this and prodding schools to improve instruction in the basics, the law has served us well. Its emphasis on accountability also is badly needed. Accountability to whom is the question. We believe the answer is parents and other local taxpayers, rather than federal government.