Not long after the 2008 election, Mike Petrilli and I penned an ?open letter? to the new powers that be in Washington, suggesting an approach to ESEA/NCLB reauthorization that we termed ?reform realism.? Fourteen months later, the White House released an Obama/Duncan ?blueprint? for ESEA reauthorization that begin with something of a ?reform realist? perspective. It's firm about education goals and standards but more relaxed about Washington's capacity to micromanage the nation's schools and it would cure many of the ills of NCLB, including that law's tendency to declare far too many schools ?in need of improvement.?
But, of course, the generally-dysfunctional 111th Congress has accomplished absolutely nothing on the ESEA front (and presumably won't during the lame duck session that's about to commence.) Which means that if anything is to happen on this overdue reauthorization front it will fall to members of the very different 112th Congress to do.
Some people I respect are already predicting that this won't happen, that Republicans on the Hill have no incentive to cooperate with a weakened Obama administration on anything at all and that the President, despite talk of bipartisanship on the education front, has other, larger, fish to fry?and is not himself much good at reaching across the aisle.
It is, of course, way too soon to be sure. But last week Mike and I suggested a way forward that, if the political stars could align, just might carry us a long way toward rectifying the failures and overreaches of NCLB while still pushing American education firmly in a reformist direction.
What makes this so hard, politics aside, is that, with rare exceptions, none of the three main levels of government in our federalist structure is very good at reforming schools. Uncle Sam can make rules but can't make anyone do anything. Most state education agencies exist to distribute funds and ensure compliance with rules (including Uncle Sam's) but don't have the capacity to compel the changes that might lead to kids actually learning more. And ?local control,? for all of its rhetorical appeal, means leaving things to teacher unions, unimaginative administrators, school boards that are typically preoccupied with budgets (when not themselves as dysfunctional as the Congress!) and a general public that is all too often smug about its schools, not to mention taxed to death and weary of people promising ?reforms? that never happen.
Rebalancing all this is going to take great skills. It may well be impossible. But if that turns out to be the case, it truly augurs badly for the country's future.
This piece originally appeared as a response in today's National Journal debate, which asks whether America's current political moment is ripe for a deal on education.
?Chester E. Finn, Jr.
