From Deseret News archives:

The 'No Child' conundrum

Published: Wednesday, Oct. 25, 2006 4:03 p.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
The federal No Children Left Behind law evokes mixed feelings. On the one hand, it is a bureaucratic intrusion from Washington into public education — a government function that always has belonged on the local level. And yet, on the other hand, it's difficult to argue that schools in Utah would be taking improvements as seriously without it.

The state's school leaders announced this week that, upon further review, four of the 14 schools initially listed as needing improvement under the law had indeed achieved desired levels of performance. Two schools, Doxey Elementary in the Davis School District and Lewis Elementary in Ogden, have now gone two years meeting what the law describes as adequate yearly progress.

If schools receiving federal Title I funds fail to reach adequate yearly progress two years in a row, they face sanctions that may include giving parents the option to transfer their children to better schools or, in some cases, a takeover of the school by state education officials.

Prior to the No Child Left Behind law, Utah had made various attempts to require tests that measured how well students were being taught, but there was no serious effort to apply any penalties for failing to meet standards. Without meaningful sanctions, no form of accountability will be taken seriously.

Story continues below
The law provides this much-needed element, which has forced real progress in many schools. It also has brought much-needed attention to the gulf in achievement between white students and minorities in Utah.

The best situation, however, would have been for Utah to impose standards and penalties on its own. The law is an unprecedented move toward centralized, federal control over education, and it has come without much federal funding to cover its requirements. That it would come from a Republican Congress and administration is particularly curious considering that party's traditional disdain for federal incursions into education.

Centralized solutions to local problems generally don't work. In this case, the law also usurps the powers of local school boards and the Legislature. But there is no denying that it is forcing a sense of urgency in schools that need to improve.

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.

previousnext

Latest comments

what an awesome game, really the only one that we can reasonably win. The...

Editorial: Lessons from Berlin

interesting | 1:56 p.m It's more than the "Tear down this wall"...

Letters: Term 'Latino' misused

I guess I would call myself an American mutt. Born in American with a mix of...

Letters: Will wrong on warming

Warm, cold, tepid, nothing you can do about it anyway. Short of eliminating...

Re: Not about the money. Other good reasons to want TCU to win 1. I...

U. hopes to keep clicking

It's embarrassing when you're 8-1 and ranked #16 ... and your fans have...

Mapleton rejects mtn. airport bid

Isn't it somewhere by Scipio?

What fascinates me is the contrast between the tone taken by the DN writers...

Editorial: Lessons from Berlin

interesting | 1:56 p.m. If your posting contains mis-representations it...

Yeah if Utah beats TCU then they would certainly lose enough skill and to...

Advertisements
Advertisement