Carrot and Stick for Schools

Congress headed home for the year Friday after partisan disagreements sank an attempt to dole out $100 billion in “economic stimulus” funding. But legislators deserve one round of holiday cheers for a bipartisan accomplishment earlier in the week: the decisive passage in the House and Senate of the No Child Left Behind Act, a grandiosely named but actually modest education reform.

The bill, pushed hard by President Bush, requires annual state tests in reading and math in grades three through eight and annual science assessments, as well as systems of school accountability reports similar to those already in place in California, Texas and other states. Schools will be given 12 years to make their students “proficient” in reading and math. The bill does not require all schools to reach a single proficiency standard, but schools must improve results for all groups of students. Among the biggest beneficiaries will be Los Angeles, which will get a $308-million boost in so-called Title I funds for disadvantaged schools.

The law is not nearly as tough as it sounds because each state will define “proficient.” It is also vague and will be hard to enforce, because education is still a largely local venture in the United States. But taxpayers and parents should be able to make much better comparisons between schools, as they already can in California.

To get the federal funds, districts will have to submit annual “report cards” comparing each school’s standardized test scores and teacher qualifications. States will have to submit to one independent benchmark: the highly regarded National Assessment of Educational Progress, which tests a sample of students in grades four and eight.

In cases of schools that show a persistent lack of progress, districts will have to use their federal money to offer transportation to better public schools or provide private tutoring, a possible boon to the nonprofit groups that currently struggle to meet tutoring demand. In extreme cases, districts could be ordered to replace a school’s entire staff. These measures were added to the bill in place of the private-schools vouchers that conservatives wanted.

The new law is about as generous as politics and a depressed economy allow, though it falls short in aid to disabled students. It is at least an explicit acknowledgement of a federal responsibility to public education. With its carrot of increased funding and the stick of more testing, the law reflected a decent balance of generosity and impatience. Just like Americans who want something better from their schools.