Way back when George W. Bush was still trying to loudly proclaim that he was a “uniter, not a divider,” education reform was one of his hallmark initiatives.  Working hand in hand with the late Ted Kennedy, he passed No Child Left Behind (NCLB) —one of the most ambitious laws ever to try to mend the flaws in American education.

Now, almost nine years after its passage, the Obama administration is talking about making major changes to NCLB. According to this piece, by the New York Times’s Sam Dillon, Education Secretary Arne Duncan wants to dispense with NCLB’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) measure. AYP was bureaucratic jargon for a simple idea—schools had to be advancing their students academically.  And this would be measured by tests.  The problem was (and is) that the tests designed to measure AYP are created by the states themselves.  As a result, many states have deliberately watered down their standards in order to meet AYP.  The proof of this is that when a random sample of students from each state was asked to take National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) exam, the results did not match up with the improvement that the states had claimed.  (Here are the gory details for 2005).

Though nothing concrete has been released yet, Obama’s main idea will most likely be to replace AYP with a larger goal—that all students in the United States be able to graduate from high school and college prepared for the workforce.  And this goal should be accomplished by 2020.

On the one hand, the attempt to improve NCLB—a well-meaning, but flawed law—is laudable.  On the other hand, it is likely that no combination of carrots and sticks will be able to turn the educational sow’s ear that is Mississippi into a Massachusetts silk purse.  And all of America’s students: college-ready by 2020?  I hate to be a cynic, but its probably no coincidence that by the time that this date rolls around, Obama will be rearranging the furniture at his presidential library in Chicago.

The major question that all educational reformers need to ask themselves is whether the United States should embrace a national system of education.  Yesterday, the New York Times called for national assessment of all students.  They didn’t go into details, but it’s likely that they would want the NAEP to move from being given to a sample of students to becoming the actual test that all students would have to take.  Carefully, the Times notes that “this is not a call for a national curriculum.” Is this caution warranted?

This is a tough one. We are a federal nation, and being divided into 50 semi-autonomous regions provides us with many advantages.  On the other hand, all the nations that really thrive in nation-by-nation comparisons are unitary countries that set and enforce nationwide standards.  Should we do the same?  Do we need a national curriculum?

It’s possible that in a perfect world this would be the way to go, but the United States is simply too divided—ideologically, geographically and culturally.  It’s hard to imagine some mandarins in Washington dictating lesson plans to every school in the nation—and the amount of money wasted would probably be incredible.

So, in the end, I have to agree with the Times.  Let’s assess all states with one national exam, but let each state use whatever methods they want to achieve those standards.  Perhaps a list of the best and worst could be published—in the international community they call this “naming and shaming.”  It’s not perfect, but a method like this may be the best way forwards.