Dear Secretary Duncan,

I am concerned. On the surface, the executive decision to unilaterally lift the 100% proficiency requirement of NCLB for states that meet a set of as-yet-unnamed requirements seems like a great thing.

But can’t shake my sense of doubt.

It’s the only states that agree to meet a high bar will receive the flexibility they need to improve education on the ground for students line that worries me. What is that high bar? Changes to charter law? Teacher tenure? Merit pay? Common Core adoption by the final few states who haven’t yet — and the Pearson / Gates Foundation designed assessments to match?

You see, I’ve tried to look at this move in the most charitable light I possibly can. I mean, you’re lifting the nearly impossible NCLB requirement of 100% proficiency by 2014 – a requirement that not one school in Pennsylvania has hit yet. That’s got to be good, right? As an educator, I should be thrilled. But the way you are going about it just doesn’t sit right with me.

Politically, my hat is off to you. It’s a brilliant strategic move to get more states to pass laws in line with your agenda. I mean, the pressure on state legislators will be immense to do so, because any state that doesn’t will have every school categorized as a failing school by 2014.

And that’s the move, isn’t it?

"Enact our agenda at the state level or every school in your state will be labeled as a failing school in three years."

And that’s not really a choice, is it?

So while the political move is impressive, it strikes me profoundly anti-democratic play, and it is not a gambit worthy of a great nation. The reforms you promoted during the Race to the Top process are controversial, and many states engaged in vigorous debate about your ideas. Those debates should continue, and with every high-stakes lever you press, you push harder that those debates will be profoundly influenced by the carrots and sticks you hold.

But I understand not wanting to see these reforms battled over in fifty statehouses. There are those who would make the argument for increased federalization of American education. And if that is what you believe, then you should argue for it. I know that Congress is more than a little frustrating these days, and with everything else going on, reauthorization of NCLB seemed like a low priority for many lawmakers. But that’s the process we’ve got. Doing an end run around it, even in – perhaps especially in – the name of the children, is a poor idea, no matter which party is in power.

Again, I admire the politics of the move. I really do. But I urge you to consider what you are asking states to do. Reprieve from a Draconian law should not be dependent on adopting more controversial policies.

Let’s have a great debate about education in this country. Let’s have an honest discussion about how our educational system needs to evolve. The pace of change in a democracy can be maddening, especially, perhaps, when compared to what folks like Bill Gates and Eli Broad experienced when they were in the corporate world. I get that. And I think I speak for many Americans when I say that I too am frustrated by Congress, so I understand the move to circumvent them.

But that doesn’t make it right.

This isn’t about whether or not I agree with what expectations you eventually set for the state waivers. This is about our democratic process. Please don’t make states choose between your agenda on the one hand or damning all their schools to being labeled failures on the other. Please don’t legislate major changes in federal education policy from the Executive branch of government.

No Child Left Behind needs reform, of that we profoundly and deeply agree. Let’s make sure we do it the right way.

Yours,
Chris Lehmann