Inside the Revolt Over Bush's School Rules

(2 of 4)

But the timing of the rebellion is no coincidence. The law's provisions are gradual, so it is only now that many states are beginning to feel its effects. Meanwhile, after three years of dramatically raising education spending, Congress just passed a 2006 budget that cuts funding $2.2 billion. So the Governors are angry. And next year 36 of their seats will be up for grabs, which only encourages more tough talk about No Child. Says Patty Sullivan, director of the Center on Education Policy: "Something's going to give here."

THE MOVEMENT TO IMPOSE standards and accountability on public schools began long before Bush took office. In 1983, a landmark federal study, A Nation at Risk, warned of a "rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future." Politicians dutifully increased education spending, but no one--not Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush or Bill Clinton--had the political nerve to back up expectations for improvement with consequences if schools failed to measure up.

The 1994 education-reform law "required" states to develop performance standards. And if they didn't, that was O.K. too. Just to make doubly sure the law didn't trouble anyone, Congress inserted a short but unusual paragraph promising that states would not have to use their own money to carry out federal policy. Of course, it didn't matter much, since the policy wasn't enforced anyway. By 1997, only 17 states had set up ways to assess performance.

In 2000, George W. Bush came into office determined to follow through on a campaign promise to get serious about education accountability. Emboldened by his experience as Governor of Texas, he introduced an ambitious testing plan (which borrowed heavily from Democratic proposals made during the Clinton Administration). The proposal churned through grueling negotiations in Congress. But, with surprisingly little debate, the final version included the 1994 provision promising that states would not have to spend their own funds.

Flash forward to today, when the teachers' union has cited that very clause in its suit against the government. "I don't think you have to be a lawyer to say what that paragraph means," says Bob Chanin, general counsel for the NEA. "We'd be delighted to take on [the Department of Education]. If we get down to the merits, we think we clearly have the better of the case."

It's tricky, though, to nail down what states are spending because of No Child--and what they would have spent anyway to live up to their own laws. School districts don't break down the costs that way--and many of them are prone to exaggeration. In any case, the testing required by No Child is not all that pricey, but other requirements--to increase teacher training and offer after-school tutoring to children who are struggling--do add up.

But why are so many kids and teachers performing below par? As states like to point out, education is their responsibility. "Why weren't they educating kids in the first place?" asks Chester Finn, an Assistant Secretary of Education under Reagan and current president of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. "Some states were doing a reasonably conscientious job--Florida, Massachusetts. But I have no sympathy for states like Utah that, as best I can tell, were not lifting a finger."