蜜桃影视

Many years ago, back when the Great American Political Conflagration of 2017 was just a handful of feverish sparks in the Tea Party鈥檚 eyes, a young Delaware Republican named Christine O鈥橠onnell set out to take the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Vice President Joe Biden.

She got off to a tough start. While anti-establishment, anti-elites demagoguery pulled her through the Republican primaries, reality bit back in the general election. O鈥橠onnell had and a range of other聽 鈥� including聽 in which she claimed to have 鈥渄abbled in witchcraft.鈥�

Desperate, O鈥橠onnell launched an ad. 鈥淚鈥檓 not a witch,鈥� . 鈥淚鈥檓 nothing you鈥檝e heard.鈥�

The ad 鈥� spoiler alert 鈥� lift the curse on O鈥橠onnell鈥檚 campaign, but her protests against her public labeling became an instant legend. In the world of politics, nothing is more difficult than unraveling an established narrative.

Which 鈥� no, really 鈥� brings us to No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Beloved at its inception, confused in its implementation, the law was almost universally dismissed when it was replaced by the Every Student Succeeds Act in late 2015. If we could wave a wand and cast a spell that would raise it back to life, NCLB might well be spluttering just like O鈥橠onnell.

鈥淚鈥檓 not a draconian federal intrusion into American schools. I鈥檓 not the destruction of public education,鈥� it would say. 鈥淚鈥檓 nothing you鈥檝e heard.鈥�

How did this happen? Well, in the two or three decades before NCLB, the federal government tried a variety of mostly voluntary ways of getting states to set 鈥� and raise 鈥� their expectations for schools. Some did. Most didn鈥檛. To a degree, NCLB represents a certain national exasperation with the pace of progress under state-driven education reform.

That鈥檚 why No Child Left Behind expanded the federal government鈥檚 involvement in state and local educational decisions. It significantly increased the pressure on states to define what they believed students should know and be able to do in each grade. It required states and districts to use assessments to track how students were doing at meeting those expectations. It increased transparency in public education by requiring the collection and publication of more data on student achievement. In particular, it made states break out student achievement data by different student groups 鈥� English learners, students of different races, etc 鈥� that made it much easier to see achievement gaps.

The law鈥檚 approach wasn鈥檛 perfect 鈥� it was probably too blunt in a number of places. But neither was it some impossibly foreign idea in education policy. After years of , begging, and states to set basic academic standards and whether kids were meeting them, federal policymakers decided to just make states do it.

But at every stage of the way, states monkeyed around with the supposed mandates. NCLB required them to set some academic standards, but it didn鈥檛 really specify how rigorous those had to be. Predictably, .

NCLB also required states to administer some consequences for schools where kids were routinely falling short of those (again, disparate) academic expectations. It even included a list of options, and they sounded fierce. Persistently struggling schools (those missing targets for five consecutive years) were required to do things like fire all the staff, submit to a takeover by the state, convert into a public charter school, or contract out to a private schools operator.

And yet, the law also permitted such schools to try 鈥渙ther major restructuring.鈥� suggested that did not have the appetite for NCLB鈥檚 dramatic options; most opted instead for other less comprehensive, less disruptive, and less impactful strategies.

Put another way, No Child Left Behind pulled its punches, even if its critics never did. It sounded rough, it sounded tough, but it gave states ample room to shield their schools鈥� performance from most of its strongest provisions. Then, after this partial and inconsistent application led to , opponents could focus on all the law鈥檚 tedious, unpopular, (usually) inflexible requirements.

That鈥檚 no way to evaluate a policy. Or, to carry the conceit a bit too far 鈥斅�. It is, however, a perfectly effective way of undermining an idea鈥檚 public standing 鈥� in preparation for its dismissal.

鈥淚鈥檓 nothing you鈥檝e heard,鈥� insists the law. 鈥淚鈥檓 not too overbearing 鈥� if anything, I鈥檓 too weak.鈥�

And yet, the Every Student Succeeds Act gives states far more room to set their own definitions of educational success and equity. Do they have the capacity 鈥� and the political will 鈥� to do this well? To do this fairly? In the best-case scenario, the infrastructure of standards, assessments, and institutional expectations that NCLB built will maintain some level of transparency and accountability for low-performing schools. In the likely-case scenario, however, that obscure school performance, generally ignore weak federal legislative text, and generally allow the NCLB era鈥檚 reform urgency to dissipate.

So spare a thought today for the boxed-in, those who have been defined out of legitimacy by the political currents. Their detractors wrote them a tragic role in our public narratives, and no amount of magic could bring them back. As for O鈥橠onnell, witch or not, she a difficult figure to in any case, and the stakes weren鈥檛 particularly high 鈥� especially as far as kids are concerned.

If only we could say the same for federal education law.

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 蜜桃影视鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.