NCLB

Commenter Dave asked yesterday if my post on the boy crisis myth was "some kind of odd way of admitting that you think No Child Left Behind is a great idea?" As I've written in the past, I don't think NCLB was a great idea, but I agree with Ted Kennedy and George Miller that it was a good idea that made federal education policy better than it was before. In particular, I think that while relying on standardized test scores to measure educational outcomes clearly doesn't meet some kind of God-like standard of clairvoyance it's superior to the available alternatives.

I think the specific standards provisions of NCLB were, in a concession to the realities of American political culture, rendered somewhat silly and potentially meaningless by offering essentially endless deference to state authorities in setting standards. I support moves toward national standards and in general toward less local control of schools in terms of funding and expectations for students. There are many flaws with the NCLB framework, and people are good at pointing them out, but people who just want to point to shortcomings without offering any better ideas about how to get schools to better serve poor students aren't being very responsible in their attitude.