Editorial: Heed the chorus of criticism

Friday, Jan. 3, 2003 | 4:28 a.m.

WEEKEND EDITION: Jan. 5, 2003

Although the regulations for implementing it run 400 pages, the goal of the No Child Left Behind law signed by President Bush a year ago is simple: End the stark achievement gap that has existed for generations between students of different ethnic, racial and income groups. The clock on this federal program begins ticking Jan. 31, when states must submit plans for complying with the new regulations. The intent of the federal law is that by 2014 student scores on standardized tests will show that all elementary and secondary public schools are meeting proficiency levels -- with minority students and those from poor families achieving statistical parity.

The goal earned widespread support throughout the country and the law passed Congress with ease. The variation in opportunity and resources from one school to another has long been a major flaw of public education. For the benefit of the coming generations of American students, we support the reforms embedded in the law. For that same benefit, however, we also support a national time-out, a short period in which criticisms may be heard and, in some cases, incorporated into the regulations.

Educators, state legislators and others who will be involved in implementing the law have had a year to study it. Now a chorus of criticism is being heard from credible people in nearly every state. There are always naysayers who cannot muster the energy to improve programs. But the voices in this chorus are not from that group. They are those of school superintendents and principals, school board members, education consultants and state officials. The law's concept is not being challenged, but some of its rigid regulations are seen as counterproductive. The law, for example, requires schools to show year-to-year improvements while critics say progress should be measured over multiple years. Also, educators and state officials, including those from Nevada, are nearly unanimous in saying that increases in federal education spending coinciding with the law w ere not even close to matching the need.

The federal government should be flexible enough to incorporate sensible suggestions into the law. In other words, it should do what it wants its public education students to do: Listen and learn.