No Remedy Left Behind

No Remedy Left Behind: Lessons from a Half-Decade of NCLB
Edited by Frederick M. Hess and Chester E. Finn Jr.
AEI Press, 2007, $25.00

View this press release/summary as an Adobe Acrobat PDF.

Order a copy of this book.

Media inquiries: Véronique Rodman
202.862.4871 ([email protected])

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 24, 2007

As the reauthorization of the nation’s seminal education law–the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)–rapidly approaches, a team of respected education scholars and analysts assess how NCLB’s interventions for poorly-performing schools are actually working.

Editors Frederick M. Hess of the American Enterprise Institute and Chester E. Finn Jr. of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation pull no punches. In No Remedy Left Behind (AEI Press, September 2007), seventeen education experts rigorously assess–across the nation’s states and school districts–the law’s public school choice requirement (which offers students enrolled in schools in need of improvement the opportunity to attend another school), its complex supplemental educational services provision (that is, free tutoring services offered to low-income students who attend failing schools), and its controversial “restructuring” mandate (which forces low-performing schools to plan and implement significant reforms).

This collection of essays has been described by David Driscoll, the Massachusetts commissioner of education, as “hard-hitting and direct.” Throughout the volume, contributors inform us whether big-city school districts are complying with the law, whether low-performing schools are informing parents of their options, and whether reported problems are due to flawed federal implementation or a fundamentally flawed statute.

Among the authors’ findings:

NCLB’s remedies (i.e., school choice and free tutoring services) for schools that fail to achieve “adequate yearly progress” on state tests are either not being used much or are being deployed in their mildest forms.
Little NCLB-inspired school choice is actually occurring.
Participation rates in free tutoring, though higher than before, remain laughably low in most places.
Nationwide, evaluation and quality control of the remedy provisions have received scant attention.
Outreach to parents has been half-hearted.
The free tutoring machinery has been difficult–a consequence, according to Hess and Finn, not just of the lackluster implementation of this program, but also of the mixed theories and compromises upon which this provision is based.

The editors and authors of No Remedy Left Behind recommend that:

Federal policymakers should be realistic about the NCLB goal of achieving “universal proficiency” by 2014.
Each school’s performance should be measured against a set of national standards.
Flexible interventions that span several years should be offered.
Remedies that are actually credible, enforceable, and fair should be adopted.
Parents should receive more information, in a timely way, about their schools’ status and their tutoring options.
The supplemental educational services provisions should be overhauled to promote more choice.
Incentives for success, and real penalties for failure, should be implemented.

As American public education continues to languish, policymakers continue to disagree and do nothing. Officials may not like what this book has to tell them, but the status quo is no longer acceptable. Both Hess and Finn encourage legislators to act and embrace some of the muscular, hardy recommendations offered in No Remedy Left Behind.

No Remedy Left Behind includes:

An introduction and conclusion by the editors, Frederick M. Hess, director of education policy studies at AEI, and Chester E. Finn Jr., president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
Chapter 1: “NCLB in the States: Fragmented Governance, Uneven Implementation,” by Paul Manna of the College of William and Mary.
Chapter 2: “America’s Great City Schools: Moving in the Right Direction,” by Michael Casserly of the Council of the Great City Schools.
Chapter 3: “The Political Economy of Supplemental Educational Services,” by Jeffrey R. Henig of Columbia University Teachers College.
Chapter 4: “The Problem with ‘Implementation Is the Problem’,” by Michael J. Petrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
Chapter 5: “California: Does the Golden State Deserve a Gold Star?” by Julian Betts of University of California, San Diego, and the Public Policy Institute of California.
Chapter 6: “New Jersey: Equity Meets Accountability,” by Patrick McGuinn of Drew University.
Chapter 7: “Colorado: The Misapplication of Federal Power,” by Alex Medler of the Colorado Children’s Campaign.
Chapter 8: “Michigan: Over the First Hurdle,” by David N. Plank of Policy Analysis for California Education and Christopher Dunbar Jr. of Michigan State University.
Chapter 9: “Rural Kentucky Districts: ‘Do-It-Yourself’ School Improvement,” by Stephen Clements of the University of Kentucky’s Institute for Educational Research.
Chapter 10: “Miami-Dade County: Trouble in Choice Paradise,” by Jane Hannaway and Sarah Cohodes of the Urban Institute.
Chapter 11: “Remedies in Action: Four ‘Restructured’ Schools,” by Julie Kowal and Bryan C. Hassel of Public Impact.
Chapter 12: “District Accountability: More Bark Than Bite?” by Joe Williams of Democrats for Education Reform.

###