Left, right and libertarian critics are dissing the 25-year-old Nation at Risk report, writes Education Gadfly.
(Richard) Rothstein . . . who expends much time asserting that fundamental social change (e.g., income redistribution, universal health care, etc.) must precede any serious education gains, was airing his latest denials via the ultra-libertarian Cato Institute. Strange company, perhaps. Yet it echoes the odd left-right alliances that have emerged to clobber some of the more obvious reforms (e.g., national tests) that flow logically from ANAR. Overstated, the right so mistrusts government that it would rather retain weak schools than risk new interventions, especially from Washington, whilst the left is protective of interests (minority kids, teacher unions, etc.) that it judges would be harmed by higher standards, greater accountability, and such.
Left and right sometimes agree that “so much of the variation in education achievement is caused by forces beyond the reach of schools that reforming them is pretty nearly futile,” Gadfly writes. That is, low achievers are too disadvantaged (left) or they’re not smart enough (right).
Complacency is dangerous, writes Jeanne Allen of Center for Education Reform in an Edspresso column.
(Nation at Risk critics) represent a perspective that says “we are doing everything we can do help kids, whose problems start somewhere before we get them and continue throughout school despite our best efforts. So applaud this great democratic institution that succeeds with at least 50% and in some cases 80% or more, rather than criticize us, because after all, we’re just like the cobbler who when fixing the broken shoes can only do so much.”
But good schools make a difference for disadvantaged students, Allen writes. We won’t get more good schools if we don’t examine what is and isn’t effective.
. . . despite progress, we still send vast numbers of students to college in need of remedial education, and those that never make it to college, much less graduate high school, represent an untenable deficiency in the way we do education - which we must solve. To do that, we must continue to uncover what works and what does not, and issue reports and commentaries to amplify the problems.
George Will reviews left-behind education lessons.
Two words: Direct Instruction.
“… airing his latest denials via the ultra-libertarian Cato Institute. Strange company, perhaps.”
Perhaps. However, that journal is designed to offer contrasting views and a debate among authors. They gave space to three essays to criticize him, from Michael Strong, Sol Stern, and Frederick Hess, and a continuing conversation among all four authors. Usually the lead essay agrees with CATO institutional views, but not always.
The government and schools can only do so much. As long as society favors individuals who continue to pop out offspring at a fast rate, the population of students who have no desire to learn will grow.
Why don’t they feel like they need to learn? Because they don’t have to… they’ll reach sexual maturity and have children themselves before extreme (life threatening) poverty hits them.
Students in my 7th grade home and careers class wondered why they had to budget money for food when the government would provide food stamps for them… and one boy said his goal was to have three children by three different mothers by the time he was 25. Perhaps they were exaggerating, but its depressing that they would even be joking about it.
In any society (human or otherwise) that remains prosperous and stable over numerous generations, certain subpopulations will adopt strategies that take advantage of others.
“. . . . .the right so mistrusts government that it would rather retain weak schools than risk new interventions”
This statement from the Gadfly article fundamentally differs from my perspective, and so I wonder if it might not differ from the perspective of many others. I consider myself somewhat a conservative and very much a libertarian, and I do believe that government intrusion, from any level, is something we should be very careful about. But to me it is definitely not a matter of choosing between intervention and weak schools. That is not the choice we are faced with, in my humble opinion. It’s not even close.
My view, and it is a strongly held view, is that we should not assume that a federal role in education is automatically beneficial. We should not assume that passing a law to make schools better will necessarily have any effect. We should not assume that good intentions, from any source, are neccessarily beneficial. And we should certainly not assume that the law of unintended consequences has somehow been repealed. We shouldn’t think of better schools as a trade off for government intervention in education, until we have some reason to think better schools would actually result. I do not think we are anywhere near that point.
Here is a parallel that comes to mind. When I am on the highway and see a police or highway patrol car I am quite aware of a bit of negativity on my part. Maybe I was inadvertently speeding. Maybe I’ll get a ticket, though in general I am a prudent and safe driver. The presence of law enforcement on the road is indeed a government intrusion, and I don’t like it. But then I remind myself that that intrusion is there for good and sufficient reason. As much as I dislike our system of traffic enforcement and penalties, I cannot find any alternative system that I can seriously advocate. We must make trade offs. We don’t want to be at the mercy of those who would endanger us on the road. Government intrusion on the roads is worth the cost. We make a choice. We make trade offs.
But I cannot take a parallel attitude about a federal role in education. I can’t say that federal intervention in education is worth the cost. I don’t think there is any benefit in federal intervention.
Before NCLB I just assumed that local control is best, and by that I mean educationally best, best for students, best for society in general in the long run. I do remember my attitude when NCLB was enacted. I thought that if the idea had come from the left we would kill it and dance on its grave. I thought George Bush was primarily being a politician in promoting it. But I also definitely decided to keep an open mind. Maybe a formal system of standards, with some mechanism of enforcement, would be a good thing. ANAR was not prominent in my mind at that time, but I think the general idea of laxness in education has been a concern to me all my life, whether as a student, a teacher, a parent, a taxpayer, or just a conscientious citizen. I agree there’s a lot of room for improvement in most schools. Maybe national standards in education could do some good. Maybe ten years down the road, I thought, I would accept a federal role in education just as I accept a role for law enforcement on the road, as a trade off worth making.
It has been only in recent months that my thinking has reverted to what it used to be. I do not think any substantial federal role in education can be beneficial. So there is nothing in my thinking about poor schools being a trade off for local control. It is quite the opposite. My perspective is that local control is best. There is no magic in local control, to be sure. No one can promise wonderful schools if we will just keep the feds out. But I do believe local control is more conducive to good schools than not.
“Overstated, the right so mistrusts government that it would rather retain weak schools than risk new interventions, especially from Washington…”
Yes, because once Washington gets involved it is very hard to unwind this intervention. Even if it isn’t working.
I would much rather have 50 states each trying to make things work in their own fashion. The odds that *one* of them will be more to my liking than a single federally mandated set of rules is very high.
When I think of more federal control of education, I just imagine that the 1989 NTCM document was official government policy rather than a document put out by a non-government organization.
-Mark Roulo
Our poor schools are a product of our culture. It may be true that Americans want a good education for our children and are willing to pay for it, but are they willing to demand increased effort from their own children? Are they willing to change how they live to recreate the family and child friendly environment of the fifties? Parents who are willing and able to do this are achieving good results in spite of a culture that works against them.
Educational reform is a matter of identifying the independent variables. There are people who think we should spend more money. Others think that the right approach to curriculum is the answer. Or hiring super-teachers. Still others look to reducing the power of unions in the public schools. We have complex, centrally-driven bureaucratic schemes like NCLB. None of these approaches are workable. They are either ineffective (NCLB) or the levers cannot be found to make them happen.
We should concentrate on simple changes that will remove the obstacles for parents who want to raise their children well and are willing to make the non-financial sacrifices this requires. A combination of tax deductions, credits and vouchers for elementary and secondary education will make a huge difference for these people. There may be more people like this than we think.
Perhpas the place to start is with some blunt talk, ruffled feathers be damned.
For starters:
As George Will points out in the link, the money devoted to schools and to education in general has increased enormously in terms of constant dollars. But things have gotten worse.
The teacher’s unions have grown inordinately strong, as has the education establishment. Both have, and continue, to realize their dream of smaller classes and better pay. But results — the scores and knowledge levels of the kids thsey teach — continue to get worse. And the union/education establishment’s response never changes: trust us, and give us more money.
As SuperSub and others here have noted, the current culture is such that for many, achievement is not even an option to be considered. Once, there was a stigma to being on relief, and no one wanted to be there long. Now, it’s a multi-generational way of life. But where are the voices bluntly telling those so involved that they are wrong? Yes, wrong. I for one do not much believe in moral equivalency.
When’s the last time we told those people that they are their own worst enemies, and that they, and only they, are responsbile for their poverty — not that there’s all that much real poverty these days.
When’s the last time the education establishment — including the bogus “education departments” in our colleges and universities — was told that they are responsible for much of the problem with teachers, and at some level, curriculum (through the ideas they continue to foster. Multiculturalism is better than simply teaching real history or the western canon of knowledge, for instance.)
For that matter, for all the talk of the need for qualified, excellent teachers, when’s the last time anyone who follows this blog really heard of some time-server who was canned for outright incompetence? Every teacher I’ve ever met has taught with these people — the incompetent — on the faculty, but somehow none of them ever get canned. They only get passed from school to school
Ah, well. This concerned citizen rambles…
Bill
(Rant off. Picks up soapbox. Leaves.)