• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Senators' No Child Left Behind 'Fix' Is on Washington's Terms

    Decade after decade, the federal role in education has grown. And decade after decade, this growth has failed to increase student achievement. The most recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965—the bill now known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB)—further expanded Washington’s role in education by setting a ticking clock on states: Under NCLB, by 2014, all children must be proficient in reading and math while showing Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) toward that goal.

    AYP and the 2014 proficiency deadline sound like worthwhile goals—who wouldn’t want all children to be proficient in reading and math? But the dead hand of big government always carries with it unintended consequences. In this case, many states made their student outcomes less and less transparent and, in some cases, even watered down standards to make it appear that children were meeting Washington’s demands.

    Now, a new proposal (actually, a series of five bills) in the Senate aims to “fix” NCLB. While NCLB gave states a federal pace (AYP) and deadline (2014) for when students had to be proficient on state standards and assessments, a new proposal introduced by four Senators last week would have Washington specifying the content that states should be using for their standards and tests.

    Last Thursday, four Senators—Lamar Alexander (R–TN), Johnny Isakson (R–GA), Mark Kirk (R–IL), and Richard Burr (R–NC)—introduced a package of five bills that together comprise their proposal to “fix” No Child Left Behind (NCLB).

    The primary bill—the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments (ESEA) Act of 2011—continues to work within the confines of the existing NCLB framework and creates concern about further federal overreach into an area that is the domain of states and localities: standards, tests, and curricula.

    The ESEA Amendments Act employs the Administration’s “college- and career-ready” standards language, the same language used by the Common Core initiative and the Obama Administration in its push to establish national standards and tests.

    Specifically, the proposal would replace the AYP groundwork language to specify “that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to receive a high-quality education that prepares them for college and a career.”

    The bills’ frequent references to “college- and career-ready” standards indicate they’re rolling right along with the terms used by the Common Core initiative and the Obama Administration to refer to national standards and tests for local schools.

    The use of these terms in the ESEA amendments proposal opens the door for conditioning federal funding on a state’s willingness to adopt them. Senator Marco Rubio (R–FL) rightly voiced his concern about the national standards push earlier this week, writing:

    I am concerned that the administration’s requirements for granting a waiver from NCLB would entail states having to adopt a federally-approved “college and career ready” curriculum: either the national Common Core curriculum standards, or another federally-approved equivalent…. Such activities are unacceptable.

    While the Senators’ proposal may cut down the page-count of the current NCLB, it does so by replacing detailed legislative specifics with an increase in the Secretary of Education’s direct authority over state education accountability systems. States will submit to the Secretary their plan to overhaul their accountability systems in the absence of AYP. It must then be approved by a peer review board chosen by the Secretary of Education.

    According to the bill language, “The peer review process shall be designed to promote effective implementation of college and career ready standards through State and local innovation; and provide transparent feedback to States designed to strengthen the State’s plans.”

    Moreover, the proposals do not set the stage for a fundamental overhaul of Washington’s role in education. And after a half-century of failed federal intervention in local schools, this is the time for that overhaul.

    That’s the kind of bold leadership House Education and the Workforce Committee chairman John Kline (R–MN) has shown. Kline says his goal is to downsize the federal footprint in education. His committee has taken significant steps in that direction by producing a series of proposals that eliminate ineffective and duplicative programs and give states flexibility to use $20 billion out of $25 billion in NCLB funding for educational priorities of their choice.

    Rather than working within the confines of the existing NCLB while ceding new authority to Washington, as the Senate proposals suggest doing, the House approach is a good first step in ensuring the decades of Washington-centric education policy are not repeated, and it would make schools accountable to parents and taxpayers, not the federal government.

    Posted in Education, Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to Senators' No Child Left Behind 'Fix' Is on Washington's Terms

    1. Bobbie says:

      Senators’ No Child Left Behind ‘Fix’ Is on Washington’s Terms? Then it's corrupt, unfit to implement and doesn't promote a productive service! These children are ours! the indoctrination to their minds is damaging with "LIMIT" as the target and socialism as the path! True history isn't even taught as if our children don't deserve the truth!

      Parents terms! Parents duty!! get the overpaid, unconstitutionally disrespectful, overreaching and mishandling their own positions of government control and their overpaid, unconstitutional, pompous unions out!!!!! SAVE THE YOUTH OF AMERICA!!!!!

    2. TimAz says:

      These senators who refer to themselves as republicans are declaring their desire to maintain and grow govt. with the education bills they are introducing. They are essentially as much of the problem in D.C. as the socialist democrats who seek to collapse our free society. They must be replaced because they are demonstrating no ability to represent the best interests of the American citizenry. Had enough yet?

    3. John B. Williams says:

      NCLB was never designed to improve student achievement. It was designed to level the playing field for students who had learning disabilities, or behavior issues, or simply could not learn at the same rate that many of their peers could learn at. It was also designed to give the less fortunate students the opportunity of working side by side with peers who although may have been more intelligent, were their same age and thus allowed them to be socialized with them. The objective was that they would not be intimidated later in life when they too sought employment competing with brighter individuals.

      In this respect NCLB has been successful. For the non-handicapped individuals however, it forced them to be less intellectually challenged and thus "dumbed them down." It this respect, it has been a failure. So I guess it is all a matter of perspective isn't it?

      • Bobbie says:

        My perspective is it's not right to dummy down some kids so other kids get a false sense of intelligence. I do agree with your comment, John.

    4. Mike, Wichita Falls says:

      Is the Secretary of Education accountable to us? Somewhat. Would this self-appointed peer review board be accountable to us? No.

      Behold another proposal, like Obamacare, that cedes authority to another bureaucracy, like IPAB. It isn't bad enough that the federal government is taking any role in education, which exceeds their Constitutional authority, but now our representatives in a far away land insulate themselves even further from responsibility and accountability to us.

      I think they expand government so that they may hold hearings and point fingers when the inevitable problems arise, get to the noble task of the "people's work" of vetting out waste, fraud and abuse and in the end expand it again.

      Solution…eliminate DOE.

    5. Michelle says:

      I am so thankful that we decided to pursue home education! Before the start of this school year, I compared our home education curriculum learning objectives to the state's standards of learning just to compare the differences. I was completely shocked at what I found. While our curriculum indicated it was for sixth grade students, when compared to the states criteria, it was actually equivalent to what is being taught in 8th or 9th grade, depending on the subject. I think to say that things have been dumbed down is an understatement. The biggest lesson I learned from this evaluation is that more centralization in the federal government is not the path to the most prosperous future for our children.

    6. Oscar Manful says:

      The Federal Government should really be commended for giving crucial loans disbursements in a timely and sustainable fashion. Congratulations ! We'll do our best to meet all their needs !

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.