Why NCLB is inherently Nonconservative

Despite the numerous reasons I could cite for my antipathy towards the No Child Left Behind legislation, there is perhaps one thing most of all that drives me nuts about it. It's become the pinnacle legislation of the Bush domestic policy and yet it is inherently nonconservative in nature. It is sold to the American people as though it were a solution to a bloated educational bureaucracy and some sort of inroad to consumer choice (and therefore free-market) in education. However, that is what makes it so hypocritical. NCLB does exactly the opposite. By standardizing education we are actually removing choice as a factor.

We are essentially socializing education into a federal mandated curriculum and destroying any schools that do not comply. This sounds more like a federal monopoly than a free market of ideas. What does this have to do with NCLB being nonconservative? The Republican party has long been the bastion of small government and free market rhetoric. The hypocrisy of NCLB is that it is quite antithetical to these purposes. NCLB has actually created a larger bureaucracy to deal with the problem of education and is now selling out standardized testing to the highest bidder. How is creating a government backed testing monopoly in any way free market? It's very similar to the invention of Homeland Security; which is yet another example of how small government rhetoric falls apart when the reality of Republican policy is revealed to actually support larger government bureaucracies and extension of government oversight and power.

What do we need to replace NCLB? I think that much is simple. We need to create a race for the next best mouse trap. Do we need accountability? Yes. Do we need choice? Yes. Do we need less government hand holding and direction pointing? Yes. So how do we do that? Simple. Create a government investment into educational research and design for schools. Let education leaders show the way forward. Think science fair or world's fair for schools. Let the best schools come together and share what they are doing that works. Then other schools can be rewarded with federal money for choosing a model to emulate. If schools choose not to emulate one of the leaders, they forgo federal money unless they are being sponsored for divergent research.

Essentially, if you want to find a solution for a problem then look for positive deviance. Find schools that should share problems that neighboring districts or schools have and then investigate what sets them apart. Schools then only need to follow their lead, or be paid to research a way of their own. Simple, accountable, and fair.

And, more importantly, it creates a free market of ideas where the consumers (parents and students) truly do benefit from competition.