The big goose egg that Bush laid with “No child left behind” is coming home to roost.

In a CNN (AP) article posted today, many schools are facing complete restructuring and other drastic measures as a result of the “No child left behind” unfunded mandate. According to the article…

“Falling short of requirements under President Bush's education law, about 1,750 U.S. schools have been ordered into radical restructuring, subject to mass firings, closure, state takeover or other moves aimed at wiping their slates clean.”

Now some would argue that “wiping the slate clean” would be a good thing for many schools and school districts in this country. And as for myself, being a Clevelander, I certainly don’t have much praise for my local school district. But is the “nuclear” approach really the right approach to our failing schools? As it is being applied under the auspices of “No child left behind”, I think not.

The President’s law takes an “all or nothing” approach to determine if a school is meeting the “No child” arbitrary requirements. Basically, if a school fails to meet a single requirement, it is labeled as “failing” across the board. This approach has the potential to take an otherwise successful school, with a weakness in one area, and force it to “reinvent the wheel” as far as management, staff, facilities, and curriculum are concerned.

The “No child” mandate is also encouraging many schools, and school systems to “cook the books” as far as test scores and other indicators are concerned. Thanks to the specific wording of the “No child” law, some schools are able to conveniently not report test scores of some minority students, which allows them to look better in the overall picture. This, of course, is in direct contrast to the supposed purpose of the “No child” law, which was touted as a method to provide a “level playing field” for poor and minority students.

The law also has some very interesting options for schools that fail to make progress for five straight years, and are forced to make a “drastic change”. In such a case, the school has the following options:

1. Hire an outside organization to run the school.

2. Reopen the school as a charter school, with new leadership and less regulation.

3. Replace most or all of the school staff with any ties to the school's failure.

4. Turn operation of the school over to the state, if the state agrees.

5. Choose any other major restructuring that will fundamentally reform the school.

I find it rather interesting (given the obvious corporatist agenda of this administration), that the first two options lean towards privatization of the education system. And again, this flies in the face of the original “intent” on the “No child” law, which was to address problems with education in this country. Sadly (I know from personal experience), and with few exceptions, charter schools and the privatization of public schools is all about the bottom line, NOT about educating children.

But this shouldn’t surprise anyone. Our country is being run by a regime that will sell our nation’s security to the highest bidder, our health care system to the highest bidder, our nation’s very future to the highest bidder. Why should education be any different?