Excellent point.

the long run progress demanded probably couldn’t be sustained by any school other than ones that started off very bad and ended up very good.

My view, for what its worth (and having seen it all before) is that the goals will be revised down as it becomes clearer to the D of E and, more importantly, State departments of instruction, as that they are unrealistic. As that happens, they will be more valuable—especially from an egalitarian perspective, in that they help to focus the attention of school districts and, more importantly, State Departments of Instruction, on the least well served and most disadvantaged populations. To be honest, the Republicans have no interest in dismantling a system of public schooling which serves their own natural voters very well indeed.

Thanks Laura—I did think of that as I wrote it, but thought that probably only people who were eager to return to teaching would want to do it in these circumstances. But mainly I wanted to keep it simplish, in hopes of it getting some attention…

By setting goals that no school can honestly reach…

I have some concerns about luring back the former teachers. I’m not sure that these teachers left for more lucrative jobs. They might have been bad teachers even though they had passed all the necessary coursework. They couldn’t handle discipline problems or couldn’t think on their feet or something else. Others could have stopped teaching because they started families. The new parents might need different incentives to get them back in the classroom.

Otherwise, I think it’s a fine plan. The lack of the funds was the main problem that the unions and other Democratic leaders had with NCLB. Early on, Bush had Ted Kennedy and others on board when they thought that it was going to be well funded.

Trying to fish something useful out of that stinking stew is to support its goal.