When President Bush and Democratic leaders put together the bipartisan coalition behind the federal No Child Left Behind Act, they managed to sidestep, override or flat out ignore decades of sentiment that education is fundamentally a prerogative of state and local government.

Now, as the president and the same Democrats push to renew the landmark law, which has reshaped the face of American education with its mandates for annual testing, discontent with it in many states is threatening to undermine the effort in both parties.

Arizona and Virginia are battling the federal government over rules for testing children with limited English. Utah is fighting over whether rural teachers there pass muster under the law. And Connecticut is two years into a lawsuit arguing that No Child Left Behind has failed to provide states federal financing to meet its requirements.

Reacting to such disputes in state after state, dozens of Republicans in Congress are sponsoring legislation that would water down the law by allowing states to opt out of its testing requirements yet still receive federal money.

On the other side of the political spectrum, 10 Democratic senators signed a letter last month saying that based on feedback from constituents, they consider the law’s testing mandates to be “unsustainable” and want an overhaul.

“It’s going to be a brawl,” said Jack Jennings, a Democrat who as president of the Center on Education Policy has studied how the law has been set up in the 50 states. “The law is drawing opposition from the right because they are opposed to federal interference and from the left because of too much testing.”

Sam Dillon, New York Times, April 7.

A year ago, six months ago, even six weeks ago, the "experts" were telling the industry not to worry about reauthorization (largely because they don't understand precisely how the law affects the industry). These experts were in the trade groups and the policy wonk community and included just about every political commentator.  Their estimate was based largely on almost universal support for the idea that No Child (should be) Left Behind.

Unfortunately, proclaiming support for NCLB proved to be a bit like "support for the troops". Neither really provided the listener with any real guidance about policy. In the case of school improvement industry members, played to a great deal of wishful thinking.  Close analysis of the battles over NCLB regulation to date would have told a different story.

For a more accurate discussion of reauthorization issues over the years listen to these "Letters from The Editor"  in New Education Economy®. The points remain relevant:

• The School Improvement Industry's Future Runs Through Washington (published 1/12/04, recorded 12/26/05)

• Moving the Industry to the Center (published 4/5/04, recorded 8/15/06)

• No Child Left Behind: Civil Rights Trumps States Rights (4/25/05)

• Deconstructing the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations (10/31/05)

• To the NCLB Commission - Consider the Role of Supply in Leaving No Child Behind (3/21/06)

• NCLB as America's Perestroika for k-12 Education (5/3/06)

• Becoming Part of Federal Policymaking for k-12 (5/30/06)

• Expect Domocrat Assault on Industry's Keystone - AYP (11/14/06)

• Our Industry's Interersts in NCLB II (II) An Agenda for Informational Hearings (3/27/07)

Let's hope the industry learns from this and takes actions that will prevent the next surprise.  Part of the answer lies in members of the industry taking more responsibility for political awareness by using free resources like edbizbuzz.com, and spending a few bucks on the likes of New Education Economy® and School Improvement Industry. It is really too much to expect any of the small school improvement trade group staffs to do this alone, and it is never a good idea to rely on one source of intelligence.

For a small, politically weak, emerging market sector, the only viable counter-strategy to the oppents of a strong NCLB is sound policy analysis. PR campaigns per se won't help in the least. Indeed, they will be counterproductive.  What is needed is fact-based analysis, explained in terms Congress appreciates, that demonstrates the industry's alignment with the idea of leaving no child behind. No one is going to stick their neck out for the private sector here. No one is going to stick their necks out to improve providers' sales. But they will stick their necks out for the civil rights of children - and if the industry can show that it truly offers these kids a chance to meet state standards - rather than more time on task, or parent satisfaction, or general rhetorical support - it can survive and thrive.  The industry can show this, if only it will get serious about the task.  This is not a matter of communications with a small "c," it's a capital "C" matter that requires leadership's sustained attention and bringing in some substantive expertise.