Anyone watching educational news this summer must observe, as Alice did when she traveled through Wonderland, that things are just getting "curiouser and curiouser." There are a number of events that seem bizarre, unexpected and just hard to explain.

In 2002, the federal government dramatically increased its role in public education by passing the No Child Left Behind Act. Using monetary rewards and spur-and-whip sanctions, it set a high and desirable goal of having all children become proficient at reading and math by 2014. Overall student test scores have increased since the passage of that law and, although growth has been difficult and uneven, the feds have kept up the pressure. Until now.

In July, Montana officials, facing an enormous increase in the number of failing schools, informed Washington that despite the potential loss of millions of federal dollars, they were not going to obey the law. Such defiance had been advocated before, but court rulings had vigorously pressured the states to comply. As recently as May, Arkansas and Kansas were sternly told that they would receive no leniency and that they had to come into compliance with the law.

Watchers then were shocked to see that Montana is being allowed to go its own way without any sanctions. In an abrupt abandonment of its well-worn NCLB trenches, Secretary of Education Arnie Duncan called the law a "slow-motion train wreck." His department will allow all states to request "get-off-the-hook" waivers as long as they are pursuing (but not necessarily achieving) "other" reform efforts.

Many of us see this curious reversal as heralding a sea change of federal pressure for making public schools more accountable. The pressure will not abate but will morph into other forms — read competition via vouchers and charters — as it moves from the national to the state level.

Pennsylvania's new Republican administration is likewise dismantling recent law as it seeks to cut costs and limit its unfunded mandates that interfere with local control of the schools. In June, the legislature enacted Act 24; among its curious provisions are some that have left me scratching my head.

• Most professionals receive specialized training and certification before they are allowed to move into jobs with higher levels of responsibility. Act 24, however, removes requirements that school superintendents or principals have any advanced level of before-being-hired training. A person is deemed to be acceptable as a superintendent if "he has a degree in business or finance" — not education — and has "at least four years of relevant experience in business, finance or management" — but not education.

Likewise, principals are not required to have specific before-being-hired training. Leadership training IS required only AFTER the person is hired and installed.

• Most professionals are required to keep their certificates current by attending "continuing education" sessions. Until recently, educators were required to amass 180 session hours of this "in-service" education every five years. Act 24, apparently assuming that such sessions have little value and are unnecessary, has proclaimed a two-year hiatus on this requirement while the Budget and Finance Committee determines if helping teachers develop new skills is worth the money.

• And in one of the most curious stretches of rationality that I have heard in quite a while, Gov. Tom Corbett claims that the thousands of teacher furloughs this summer have nothing to do with his new state budget. In a disingenuous use of smoke, mirrors and redirection, Corbett states that the $900 million reduction in state aid to schools was not the cause of the close to 3,000 teacher furloughs — rather, he dryly says, "districts should have budgeted more conservatively."

The new budget redirected monies to school districts. One would think that every district should feel the equal pain of fewer dollars. But, in an even "curiouser" move, the administration decided to take more aid away from the poorest districts than from the richest ones. "Poor" and "rich" are measured by the number of children who qualify for subsidized school lunches.

An analysis by The Associated Press concluded that "the poorest 150 school districts, or 30 percent of the state's total, lost $537.5 million" (about $581 per student) while "the wealthiest 150 school districts lost $123 million" (about $214 per student). This means that poor districts receive about $11,000 less per classroom than do rich districts. This is the Legislature's 2011 version of "the poor deserve to get poorer and the rich, richer."

Only in a world where a Cheshire cat reigns would these events make sense. Cutting funds that eliminate first-line teachers; indicating by action that administrators' experience is of little value; abandoning pressure and expectations that all schools are required to help all students — all are very curious ways to provide quality learning opportunities for children building skills to live in a hyperglobally challenging world.

To paraphrase what the Wonderland feline recognized, if you don't care where you end up, taking any road will get you there.

Jacques Gibble, a retired instructor from Penn State's York campus, is a leadership consultant. He is also a correspondent for Lancaster Newspapers Inc. Email him at sunnews@lnpnews.com.