The one part of our "open letter" to the incoming Administration and Congress that seems to be surprising folks the most is our call to eliminate No Child Left Behind's public school choice and supplemental educational services (tutoring) provisions. Yes, this proposal is counter-intuitive. We at Fordham??are strong supporters of school choice (Jay Greene, it's true! ), and I personally worked on these initiatives while at the Department of Education. But as I wrote a few years ago , these programs are fundamentally flawed and are incapable of being improved. That's because they rely on school districts to do things they don't want to do, and to do them well. Not likely.
Here's how we put it in our letter:
Though we staunchly support choices for parents and believe in bold action at the state and local level in addressing school failure, this is one area where Uncle Sam should keep out. He should leave it to the states to design their own interventions. If he cannot restrain himself from staying involved, he could provide incentives (i.e., extra money) for states or jurisdictions that tackle these reforms aggressively.
That's a recurring theme for us "reform realists": incentivize, don't mandate, particular reforms. That provides local leaders the political cover they need to push for change, while avoiding the cat-and-mouse games that have characterized the NCLB era.
