Conducted By Avi Kupfer 

Congressman Buck McKeon (R-CA) has represented California’s Twenty-Fifth Congressional District since 1993. He became chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce in 2006 and currently serves as the committee’s ranking member.

While campaigning for the presidency in 1980, Ronald Reagan called the Department of Education “President Carter’s new bureaucratic boondoggle.” In the mid-1990s, Newt Gingrich led a strong coalition of legislators who favored dismantling the national involvement in education. Why has the Republican Party drifted so far from this commitment to a minimal federal presence in constructing local education policy?

Republicans have long been wary of inappropriate federal intrusion into state and local control of education, and I think that holds true today. At the same time, with the federal government’s investing tens of billions of dollars each and every year into education, Republicans are committed to ensuring that money is spent wisely. Under No Child Left Behind, for the first time ever we began demanding results in exchange for the significant federal investment in education. It’s about accountability in how we spend the taxpayers’ money.

In early 2007 you called the No Child Left Behind Act “one of our top priorities for the year ahead,” urging bipartisan support to reauthorize the act. However, many experts see NCLB as a departure from prior education policies and a striking expansion of federal authority over public schools. What are the constitutional and policy implications of continuing to increase U.S. Department of Education authority over state, local, and personal education decisions through NCLB reauthorization?

From the outset of the reauthorization process, I have been clear about my commitment to the three pillars of NCLB: accountability, flexibility, and parental choice. NCLB offered unprecedented flexibility to state and local schools in how they allocate federal dollars among key programs. This is because we recognize that the educational needs in one state are not necessarily the same as another. It’s the same reason why states—not the federal government—develop accountability plans under NCLB to bring all their children to proficiency by 2014. On the issue of personal education decisions, NCLB offered landmark new options, including free tutoring and public or charter school choice, which had never before been available to parents of children in chronically underachieving schools. I hope we can build on the state and local flexibility and parental options in NCLB—but let’s also acknowledge the progress NCLB has already made in these areas.

In a January 2006 Pew Research Center survey, respondents ranked “improving the education system” as the second most important priority for the president and Congress. The executive and legislative branches responded to such calls for reform and made a point of trying to meet the demands of education “consumers,” including parents, taxpayers, and employers. Does this focus on education “consumers” put negative pressure on the education profession, teachers’ unions, and the plethora of education service providers?

That’s an excellent question, because I believe it gets to the heart of the education debate. Are we looking out for “the consumers” or “the system”? My answer is unequivocal: the consumers—the students and parents, along with the taxpayers footing the bill and the employers who rely on our educational system to give students what they need to keep America competitive. For too many years, lawmakers and the education establishment viewed education policy in terms of “the system,” with not enough attention paid to the outcomes for students. I think NCLB has helped change the debate for the better by making it about students, and our belief that every student can learn and succeed.

You have advocated more flexibility for states under NCLB. However, critics claim that this leniency, which allows states to create their own tests to measure annual yearly progress, leads to inflated scores and shields chronically failing schools from corrective action. As evidence, these critics cite the huge discrepancy between the proportion of students meeting “proficiency” standards under each state’s own test and the national NAEP test. What do you make of these claims? In a reformed NCLB, should state tests be held to a higher standard?

There are critics who say NCLB creates too much federal intrusion and those who argue it gives states too much flexibility. I understand the concerns on both sides of this debate, and my answer is that we are doing our best and will continue striving to strike the appropriate balance between accountability and flexibility. It’s true that states are responsible for establishing their own accountability systems under NCLB to ensure their students reach proficiency, and different states have different standards. There may be ways at the federal level to encourage states to strengthen their accountability systems, and I think that is an area to be explored. At the same time, I believe state and local officials will ultimately recognize that it serves their long-term interests to have a rigorous accountability system that better prepares their students for postsecondary education and workforce competitiveness.

By 2004, the National Conference of State Legislatures identified 28 states that considered legislation that requested waivers, more flexibility and money, or that would prohibit the state from spending funds to comply or participate in the NCLB program. How does Congress rectify education policy with states that view NCLB as an unfunded mandate over local education?

As you know by now, I’m in favor of state and local flexibility, and I support steps that can be taken at the federal level to offer flexibility within NCLB so long as the goals of the law are not undermined. However, I also believe that as stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars, we have an obligation to ensure that the funds are being used effectively. If states do not want to accept federal dollars, they need not comply with this law. It is my hope, however, that as the law takes hold and accountability becomes integral to the system, these policies will be embraced.

A large portion of NCLB reform has focused on identifying failing schools and offering choices to parents. To what extent does this exasperate the problem, forcing educators to concentrate on compliance rather than real improvement?

The short answer is not at all. Without identifying schools in need of improvement, how can we possibly target resources to improve the schools that need help? Only by identifying schools and offering choices to parents can we hope to drive real improvement. At the same time, while these schools are making progress and working to improve, I believe we have an obligation to offer parents a chance to get extra help for their students. I know that these schools can improve, but I do not believe we should force students and parents to wait for educational opportunity until that happens.

NCLB required that by 2006 all teachers demonstrate competence in the subject they teach, genuinely attempting to address competency issues. However, the National Council on Teacher Quality, an independent research center, found that “even with the 2006 deadline looming, only a handful of states appear willing to comply with the spirit of that portion of the law that seeks to correct the long-tolerated, widespread, and inadequate preparation of American teachers in their subject areas.” How will the federal government coax states and local officials into adopting reforms that many view as contrary to self-interest?

Research has shown that effective teachers are among the most important factors when it comes to improving student achievement. Under NCLB, we attempted to establish a framework for states to ensure the availability of a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. It’s not surprising that states have struggled to meet that lofty goal, but we cannot, and they cannot, back away from the premise that all students deserve to be taught by an effective teacher. There are steps we can take in the reauthorization to improve opportunities for states and school districts to meet that goal. For example, we can incorporate existing regulatory flexibility for rural and science teachers into the law, update methods used to certify veteran teachers as highly qualified, and establish rewards for teachers who improve student achievement and agree to work in our neediest schools. Ultimately, however, I believe states should embrace the goal of increasing teacher quality, because it is in their self-interest.

Some argue that NCLB reflects the utopianism of an administration that stresses collectivism above individual responsibility. How can NCLB revive the parental choice provisions that were an integral part of its original proposal in early 2001?

This may be the first time I have heard anyone attempt to argue that Republicans favor collectivism above individual responsibility. The fact is, I am personally committed to the principles of individual rights and responsibilities, and in many ways, I think NCLB reflects that. I certainly wish the law did more when it comes to parental choice, and I have proposed legislation to increase the availability and type of choices that are offered to parents. At the same time, I would be remiss if I did not point out the groundbreaking elements of NCLB in the area of parental choice and individual educational opportunity. The public or charter school choice and supplemental educational services provisions of NCLB are an integral first step when it comes to giving parents a voice in their children’s educational future.

---