If a statistic in a report indicated how many red-haired, green-eyed drivers (RH GED) were involved in accidents in Douglas County, the number itself would not tell you much. A reader would not know what percentage of all drivers were RH GED, how many miles were driven in comparison to total miles, what kind of vehicles were involved, the time period, the condition of the Douglas County roads, how serious the accidents were.

And especially that number would not indicate who was a fault in each accident.

Suppose, then that the state of Kansas ordered Douglas County to decrease the number of RH GED accidents and set a specific number of accidents for a specific time, but the state did not provide increased funds for highway safety or law enforcement, did not determine the relationship between RH GEDs and other drivers, did not provide leadership or funds for driver training and boasted about how safety-conscious the state had become.

The state then would be performing identically to the federal act known as No Child Left Behind. The best part of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, an overhaul of the l965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, is its dramatic and touching title.

The act has successfully stimulated discussion by setting a national goal for academic achievement and progress by 2014; it aspires to increase local flexibility, revamp professionalism and provide more educational options.

In reality, No Child Left Behind has become a giant gasbag, hanging overhead threateningly while school districts, administrators and teachers try to deal with the reality of the complicated process of education.

The Women’s Assembly of Kansas and Missouri has documented the weaknesses of an act that is a perfect example of legislators making decisions when they are not accountable for the consequences. The assembly points out, first of all, that the act is woefully underfunded. Quality education takes dedication and insight, but it also takes money. Those states, counties and school districts which have publically decried the act say that the threatened consequences are not balances by processes that offer solutions.

The Woman’s Assembly points out that the act puts too much emphasis on testing (which encourages questionable practices), has not been communicated at the national or local levels, has too many loopholes, discourages a positive approach to diversity, isolates certain student groups, does not adequately consider evaluation and assessment tools, has inspired costly lawsuits in all states, does not address wages of teachers and paraprofessionals, and does not place enough importance on health, safety, mental and physical well-being issues in the schools.

Everything I have written so far is meant to support a statement that I feel very strongly is at the core of successful education: The assessment of a student’s progress and of the school’s quality is a family opportunity and responsibility. Every parent can sponsor an act called My Child Won’t Be Left Behind.

There is a place for test scores and national rankings, but concerned parents can start out by assessing key factors, such as class size. In most academic settings, overly large classes are a red flag. Parents can find out what a school’s teacher-turnover statistics are.

Another red flag is the loss of young professionals. Parents can read their child’s textbooks. They might find that a history book talks about current president Taft, or a literature book says that Mark Twain is our greatest living writer. Parents can check out the library, the computer center and the science lab. The bottom line is involvement. No national act can replace a parent who runs for election to a school board, serves on a committee, asks hard questions, makes comparisons and does whatever is possible to help avoid leaving anyone behind.