Last week, Mike explained (in the Washington Times), that NCLB needs to be "flipped" on its head. What does he mean? Well, "Right now, NCLB micromanages the formula and timelines by which schools are labeled and sanctioned, yet it allows states total discretion over the academic standards and tests used to judge schools (and kids) in the first place." Instead, he explains,
Provide incentives for states to sign up for rigorous nationwide (not federal) standards and tests. Make the results of this testing publicly available, sliced every which way by school and group. But then allow states and districts (or private entities, such as GreatSchools.net) to devise their own school labels and ratings--and let them decide what to do with schools that need help... [R]easonable people on all sides of the issue will see that this approach is better aligned with Uncle Sam's skill set. After all, Washington is at least three or four steps removed from the operation of local schools. There's only so much policy-makers can do from Capitol Hill and the federal Education Department, whatever their intentions.
Diane Ravitch agrees--and elaborates. "In his article, Petrilli said that 'Washington is at least three or four steps removed from the operation of local schools...' I would amend that to say, 'Washington is at least 300 to 400 steps removed from the operation of local schools...' Here is a law written jointly by the Bush administration, and by Senator Ted Kennedy, Congressman George Miller, and their staffs. This group of politicians and their advisers decided how to reform every school in the nation. What experience does Senator Kennedy or Congressman Miller have as school reformers?"
If we reread our Weber, we'd know that the whole point of bureaucracy is to decentralize control--not micromanage. And I think we'd all agree that Washington has bureaucracy down to a science. Hopefully, Washington is also listening to both Mike and Diane.
