Sol Stern pens a long article in City Journal on the Bush education agenda and why the President deserves the moniker "Education President." It's interesting to note, Stern recounts, that time and again opponents of various Bush initiatives seemed nonplussed (to say the least) to discover that the administration actually meant what it said. That is, the Bushies meant it when they said, Reading First funding must be used for scientifically based programs or don't expect the money. They meant it when they said that, to get Title I funding, schools and states must show sustained increases in student performance. Stern is especially gifted at thinking through the implications of NCLB: how it could open the system up to heretofore unthinkable reforms-even such as vouchers-by making the inadequacy of many schools crystal clear. (Of course, that's precisely what many "establishment" critics of NCLB fear most-and have also glimpsed as a possibility.) Two quibbles: the piece wants a fuller discussion of some of NCLB's more glaring problems and inconsistencies. And pace Stern, achievement disaggregation by subgroup was not an idea germinated by Congressional Democrats. We're not sure why Eduwonk calls parts of the piece the "journalistic equivalent of a lap dance-some squirming and faux enthusiasm but no real payoff." In fact, we suspect Stern has shown a lot more leg than the administration would prefer when it comes to what NCLB might mean for the future.
"Yes, the Education President," by Sol Stern, City Journal, Summer 2004