States that opt for the Obama administration's "conditional waivers" to the No Child Left Behind mess could well find themselves contending with a worse federal education nightmare than the one that already bedevils them.
Under this "deal," states will be relieved of NCLB's onerous provisions, "provided they are willing to embrace education reform." In other words, new rules for old, dreamed up by nameless, unaccountable federal bureaucrats who get paid for their cockamamie ideas -- not their results.
"(G)ranting NCLB waivers on the condition that states adopt the (federal) standards would relinquish state educational sovereignty to an unaccountable Department of Education," writes Lindsey Burke for The Heritage Foundation.
And that advances the abject failure of decades of federal education meddling and spending, all of which have accomplished nothing. Consider NCLB: It's projected that 80 percent of the nation's schools won't meet "adequate yearly progress" goals by the end of the next academic year.
Instead of waivers with sticky strings, states should support legislation before Congress that would restore local control -- not relinquish what's left of it to the dubious whims of Washington's educrats.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.