Money & Finance Opinion

Does a Lack of Political Will Make NCLB’s “100/2014" Impossible?

October 21, 2007 3 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

There are three potential reasons the 100/2014 goal might be impossible:

The first is that the goal lacks realism in some existential, absolute sense. As noted Friday, that argument would have more credibility if its makers were achieving 90% and the year were 2012, instead of 60, 70 or 80% today.

The real protest gets to the second possible reason. Opponents of 100/2014 would like to conflate their inability to reach the lower targets with the impossibility of the higher. The fight against 100/2014 is not about the higher goal for students. That’s a diversion. The underlying issue is what must happen to adult interests if the public school system is to get anywhere near the vicinity of 100/2014 and the stability of the balance of political power among adult stakeholders if those changes are made.

The second reason it might be impossible to achieve 100 percent student proficiency by 2014 amounts to a lack of political will.

Here’s what the industry ought to be saying....Political Will. None of the innovations required by NCLB were welcomed by state education agencies, school districts’ boards or superintendents, or the teachers unions. The law was challenged as an unfunded mandate in the courts. Its standards, testing measures and rules about student populations were manipulated to assure the maximum number of schools made Adequate Yeartly Progress, rather than identify real student needs. Supplemental Education Service provisions were undermined through active and passive resistance. Restructuring has been something of a joke.

It’s just not credible to argue that states, districts and unions were motivated to resist NCLB implementation from “Day One” in 2001 because they believed it’s impossible to make every student proficient.

A far more plausible explanation is that incentives to resist arose from how NCLB moved power in k-12 education from the states to the federal government; from school districts to parents; and from a market based on arbitrary relationships between administrators, publishers and local consultants, to one driven by objective measures of performance favoring evaluation-based products, services and programs.

It is equally reasonable to argue that if what it takes to move in the direction of 100/2014 is a decentralization of authority from states to districts to schools, and greater reliance on a review of outputs rather than a control of inputs, institutions threatened by the change will resist. State agencies, school boards and superintendents, and teachers unions, whose power has been based on central control of inputs with virtually no accountability for outcomes have not been eager to give up power or favorable rules.

States are used to regulating down to the classroom. They are not used to answering to Washington for performance. School boards are used to political interference in their own individual schools, but not to seeing a spotlight placed on schools that serve the mainstream well but minorities quite poorly. Superintendents are comfortable with sole command of a multi-million/billion enterprise, but not portfolio management of independent schools. Teachers unions’ influence over school systems disintegrates if they cannot exercise the privilege of seniority over assignment and pay grade.

Any leader of any of these institutions looking at what it will take to radically improve student performance can only be worried about what it means for their organization and the adults they represent. The vast majority can only be expected to balk, and do what they can to slow things down. And that’s what they’ve done.

Bottom Line: It is simply impossible to meet the individualized needs of student subgroups - precisely what is required to get in the vicinity of 100/2014, without giving schools a kind of authority that undermines the power of public education’s traditional adult stakeholders. Institutions resist this kind of assault with everything they have; state education agencies, school districts and teachers unions are no different.

Tomorrow: Where there’s a will, there’s a way. Not exactly. Public education lacks the capacity to approach 100/2014. Both the traditional k-12 education industry and its new “school improvement” rival share some blame.

Related Tags:

The opinions expressed in edbizbuzz are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.


Classroom Technology Webinar How Pandemic Tech Is (and Is Not) Transforming K-12 Schools
The COVID-19 pandemic—and the resulting rise in virtual learning and big investments in digital learning tools— helped educators propel their technology skills to the next level. Teachers have become more adept at using learning management
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Student Well-Being Webinar
Building Teacher Capacity for Social-Emotional Learning
Set goals that support adult well-being and social-emotional learning: register today!

Content provided by Panorama
Jobs October 2021 Virtual Career Fair for Teachers and K-12 Staff
Find teaching jobs and other jobs in K-12 education at the EdWeek Top School Jobs virtual career fair.

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Money & Finance Opinion There Is No Bubble in Educational Technology: Not For Businesses That Actually Make Sense
Many people are wondering whether there is a bubble in educational technology. Has too much venture capital been invested in the sector? Have valuations gotten too high? My answer is that there is a bubble in ideas that won't work and a dearth of capital for ideas that can work.
Matt Greenfield
4 min read
Money & Finance Opinion Nice Test Scores, Can I Buy You?; The Future of Financing Talent
A Company called Fantex recently announced it will be selling stock in football superstar Arian Foster, SEC-approval and all. With this breakthrough, is it only a matter of time before we can invest in the future earnings of promising kindergartners?
Tom Segal
7 min read
Money & Finance Opinion EdTech Titans of Industry: A Reflection
This week marked the second annual EdTech Titans of Industry event in New York City featuring some of the top players in education: Diane Rhoten, Jonathan Harber, Gates Bryant, and George Cigale. Here are some of the highlights..
Tom Segal
3 min read
Money & Finance Opinion Mark it a Ten: Tech Acquirers Enter the World of Education
With the rise of ed-tech over the past few years, we have seen a steady stream of publishers, media companies, and private equity shops acting on the back-end of the venture market as the ultimate acquirers. But we have not seen a major technology company jump on board... until now, with Amazon's purchase of TenMarks
Tom Segal
3 min read