No Child Left Behind

Jennifer Toomer-Cook wrote an article on Rep. Margaret Dayton's bill on No Child Left Behind (NCLB) -- HB 135 (Implementing Federal Educational Programs). I mention both their names because I like people who work hard and get it right at whatever it is they do, and Jennifer and Margaret are two good examples of people who do exactly that.

My brother asked me, "What is the deal with the Utah Legislature and No Child Left Behind? Aren't y'all big Bush supporters?"

We are strong supporters of President Bush. But that doesn't mean NCLB isn't seriously flawed. NCLB is a textbook example of the framers' wisdom in making the federal government a government of limited powers -- with the plenary powers remaining with the people and the states. NCLB might be beneficial for states and school districts that don't have a clue. But for the others, it shows that one size does not fit all.

When passed, NCLB already was several years behind Utah requirements. Utah already had moved toward a greater focus on accountability and competency-based education, through the U-PASS requirements, as just one example. Hence, Rep. Kory Holdaway's HJR 3 (Resolution Regarding Federal No Child Left Behind), recognizing:

that the Utah Performance Assessment System for Students (U-PASS) should be the basis for assessing and monitoring Utah's students and schools;

and

that the state should control its public education budget and allocate money according to Utah's priorities and needs, driven by decision-making of local school boards.

Because Utah cares so deeply about education, the various players and interest groups rarely agree on much of anything. However, Rep. Dayton has rallied all the players and interest groups I can think of behind the principle that NCLB does not help Utah accomplish what it is trying to do in education. The requirements of NCLB are meddlesome and unrealistically rigid.

For example, NCLB's yearly progress requirements guarantee (as a simple matter of math and principles of diminishing returns) that the highest achieving school in my legislative district will soon be branded a failing school and face the punitive provisions that designation brings with it. Why? Because it simply and realistically cannot do much better than it already is doing. Other schools in my district did not start at such a high performance level and, therefore, do have room to meet the annual progress requirements. This is just one example.

Perhaps I could have Rep. Dayton drive this site as my first guest blogger to provide more examples. I previously asked her if she wanted to debate the issue over at the daily debate, but we couldn't find anyone who wanted to take the side that NCLB is a good thing for Utah. Maybe one of the "federal education officials" coming to talk with us about Margaret's bill would be willing to argue that the state superintendent and the superintendents' association, the state school board and the state school boards' association, the Utah education association, the state PTA, the Utah taxpayers association, the eagle forum, and anyone else involved with Utah schools in any way simply don't have as clear a view of what is best for Utah schools as do the good people in Washington, D.C.