That Settles That

Yesterday we had a long, multi-blog debate about the idea, widespread among educators, that NCLB is part of a conservative conspiracy to destroy public education. Today, the Washington Post went above the fold with an article titled "Dozens in GOP Turn Against Bush's Prized 'No Child' Act," wherein conservative NCLB opponent Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) says "The President believes in empowering bureaucrats in Washington, and I believe in local and parental control," while the Fordham Foundations' Mike Petrilli notes that "with the president so politically weak, conservatives can vote their conscience."

Meanwhile, on the Op-Ed page, Robert Novak quotes Tom Delay about President Bush: "he has expanded government to suit his purpose, especially in the area of education. He may be compassionate, but he is certainly no conservative in the classic sense."

Hey, I wish it was always this easy. (Points to first Q&E reader who sends in an example of an NCLB opponent chalking this up to some sort of brilliant double-blind conservative deep game strategy: "You see, that's just what Karl Rove wants you to think....")

While it's nice to have the newspaper make your points for you, I question the article itself. First and foremost, what the heck is it doing on the front page? True, this legisation "could severely undercut President Bush's signature domestic achievement," if the Republicans controlled Congress. Which they don't. And if they did, they wouldn't have introduced the legislation in the first place. Isn't this just another piece of minority-party protest legislation, designed for purely political purposes?

The article notes that:

"Once-innovative public schools have increasingly become captive to federal testing mandates, jettisoning education programs not covered by those tests, siphoning funds from programs for the talented and gifted, and discouraging creativity, critics say."

Really? Which critics? Did they offer any, you know, examples or data to support those criticisms? If not--and I'm guessing not--doesn't that suggest that this is, again, a purely political exercise?

To his credit, Kevin Drum notes that the article undermines a lot of the argument he made yesterday. But I still think he's getting key parts of the law wrong. The testing requirements aren't reallly "outlandishly complex," indeed a lot of the most valid anti-NCLB criticism focuses on the tests and school performance indicators being too simple (not that some people won't happily make both arguments simultaneously). And, per Eduwonk yesterday (and again this morning), it's just not true that "80% of our schools systems are basically OK." Probably 80% think they're okay, but that doesn't mean they are. All those students not learning and dropping out go to school somewhere.