September 20, 2008

Oh, How Names Do Matter!

Posted by Aaron Tang at 6:59PM

• Comment Now
• Email
• Print
• Reprints
• Share

"I've always said you get 100 votes if you change the name." - California Congressman George Miller, the Chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, discussing the likelihood of No Child Left Behind being renewed in the next president's administration.

Representative Miller's comment sheds light on an interesting phenomenon with the controversial law No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The American public overwhelmingly supports action to improve public education, even at the federal level. When asked in general whether they support the goals of the law--increasing student achievement and narrowing the achievement gap for low-income and minority children by holding schools accountable for student performance--large numbers of voters agree.

But when you ask someone how they feel about the actual law named "No Child Left Behind"? Cringe, sneer, boo.

Need numbers? Start with last month's Phi Delta Kappa / Gallup poll, which found that 67 percent of Americans thought the law should be changed or scrapped. Or how about this ETS poll, which found that Americans favored the law 56 percent to 39 percent when it was explained based on its component parts and goals, but were against the law 43 percent to 41 percent when it was actually referenced by name.

Maybe that's why the NCLB is the "10,000 pound gorilla" in the room that neither of the candidates is talking about.

But how, you ask, is it the case that so much about the law rides on the name alone, and not the actual substance? Part of it is a branding issue--interest groups actually opposed to the substance of the law such as the teachers unions have done a great job equating the brand of NCLB with teaching to the test and other unsavory, if vague, notions.

Another part is just a general lack of understanding about what the law actually entails; a post hoc ergo propter hoc effect, so to speak. Public schools have been struggling, particularly in low-income urban and rural areas, for quite some time in the US. Yet today's observers tend to attribute this failure to the most recent event in education policy: NCLB. It's no better logic than attributing my winning $10 on an instant lotto ticket because I had a banana for breakfast, but it's a common enough fallacy that NCLB would be probably unpopular regardless of its name.

However, one thing is certain. Both candidates have been smart to strategically steer clear of mentioning NCLB in their campaign speeches. It's toxic, and it's just as easy to score points by talking about education as a values issue instead of the nitty-gritty that seems to make NCLB so controversial. Seems like we'll have a big gorilla just hanging out until the election is over, when some new catchy name will be unveiled to headline a law that will most likely be strikingly similar to the existing No Child Left Behind Act.