Reporter John Merrow's three-part series on NCLB is interesting more for its use as a scorecard of powers for and against the law than anything else. The reporter seems inclined to highlight the controversy more than the substance of the matter. The arguments against NCLB have not changed from the day after the law was passed.

What's different and notable? The fact that while opposition to the law extends from the classroom teacher to the teachers unions, from the unions to every other traditional interest group represented in Washington, and more or less across the Democratic party, it is close impossible to find much real support for the law past the President and Secretary of Education. 

There is no Republican of national stature ready to pick up the banner representing the principles on NCLB I. Yes, the business community voices support, but this is just one item on their political agenda. For the AFT, NEA, CCCSO, AASA, etc., etc. NCLB is the agenda.  The policy-wonk groups from center to right are as likely to oppose the law as support it, and don't count for much when all the other forces tilt so heavily in one direction. And there is no segment of the electorate that is going to work or vote for or against any candidate for national office based on their position towards NCLB reauthorization - aside from the non-trivial exception of teachers. All this was foreseeable, but missed by the school improvement industry's trade groups entirely. (A performance trade group members should review.)

Perhaps the single most important factor in determining the outcome of any negotiation is each party's Best Alternative To A Negotiated Agreement (BATNA); simply put, the quality of each side's backup plan. For those who would gut NCLB, the best alternative to an agreement now, when the Republicans still control the White House and have enough votes to block legislation in the Senate, is to wait. The deal they might get now will be no worse after the election, and may be much better. For those who would defend NCLB I's key accountability features, the deal they would get if NCLB were reauthorized today would almost certainly be unacceptable. They too are better off waiting in the hope that Harold Wilson was right that "a week is a long time in politics" and that once multiple measures of accountability are in the mix of any final resolution, the deal they might get after the election will be only marginally worse.

By now, every group opposed to NCLB I must know that it will almost certainly get a more favorable reauthorization after the 2008 election, so your editor belives that's when it will be taken up seriously by Congress.  Add another year for the new political alignment to get settled and Congress to address issues like Iraq and maybe health care.  It's not implausible that the education law will be subject to some kind of continuing resolution and dealt with in mid- to late 2009.

The upside for the industry is two more years under something like the current regime (although NCLB I Sec. 9401 does permit the Secretary to waive almost any provision - opening the way for a Democratic administration to make substantive changes without reathorization). So the question for the school improvement industry is how to make the best use of that time.

Your editor's suggestion is to do whatever it takes to demonstrate results and quality. The only hope providers' have of maintaining anything like today's school improvement market lies in showing materially significant gains in student performance over the usual performance of schools and districts. The industry's only real hope for political argument for anything like NCLB I  in NCLB II will be facts. Only facts will win over the moderates of both parties and bring the Republican party's education right back to the fold.  Not roughly the same outcomes, not marginally better outcomes, not "statistically significant" ioutcomes - but student test scores that no one on the left or the right can deny are truly superior to business as usual. 

This is surely about evaluation, something too many providers have been slow to embrace. It is also about providers' using ongoing evaluation to improve their programs, something even fewer providers have embraced. And it's about pushing the poor performers aside, or leaving trade associations where they exist and starting ones that have real standards, something no provider has embraced. There are certainly symbolic and practical reasons for a change in leadership now, either within the current trade groups or in the form of a new association.

If such actions are taken now, when 2009 comes around it is quite possible that the school improvement industry will be able to show that NCLB I standards are achievable, that the industry can prove it, and that the industry is capable of scaling in up.