Education is local
I ramble on for far too long about education reform over at New Majority….
While I do level some shots at unions and tenure as problems, I probably don’t make clear enough that my critique is intended to point out that they are problems in some places – not everywhere. Really, to sum it all up, I believe that for the most part reform needs to begin and end locally and that the federal government is simply not the right institution for this. While bad teachers unions may be a problem in New York City, they may be completely harmless in other towns. While vouchers may work in some very bad school systems, in other systems they may do more harm than good. There is simply no reform that will work everywhere, and so education reforms need to be tried out as much as possible in as many places as possible so that people can keep imitating and improving those reforms. Federal involvement should be limited and should function more as a support role than anything.
I guess I have trouble with the notion that in an increasingly inter-connected world where a person’s boss may reside in an entirely different state (my situation) and companies increasingly rely on intercontinental networks, etc… not to mention cultural gaps that are narrowing by the nano-second, that it’s wise to continue to let education be controlled at the extreme local level.
Take a trip sometime to Corbin, KY. Ask the administrators there what attendance is like, what kind of priority is placed on education by local citizens, etc. Then ask yourself if it’s fair to take an innocent child, throw him into that school system and say, “Sorry you were born in a place where a 10th grade education is considered adequate, but hey, at least Uncle Sam isn’t in your business.”Report
And the federal government would improve this – how?Report
We’ve already discussed a national curriculum. That’s the most obvious place to start. And I think teachers’ unions can generally be dealt with on the national level.Report
How would a national curriculum help with poor schools? Is the failure at the school level one that is due to a shoddy curriculum? Or is it due to funding issues? Or is due to poverty? Or is it due to corruption? What would happen to the schools that were already performing very well? Are they supposed to accept a subpar national curriculum over the ones that they have developed?Report
A national curriculum opens up a lot of educational opportunities, but it isn’t meant to address the things that cause some poor schools to fail. That specific problem is best addressed with busing and socio-economic integration. In my experience curriculum is very rarely the reason kids fail. It’s almost exclusively based on their home life. Anything we can do to minimize the negative impact of these students’ private lives, the better. A unified national curriculum facilitates more inter-school collaboration which has the same effect as busing, albeit to a lesser degree.
Local school districts are best suited to address non-academic issues that connect to education. They can connect kids to social services, they underatand the geographic realities of their districts, they can dig into their attendance issues or voice concerns over their home life. But the nuts and bolts parts of education: what we teach, how we teach it, how teachers are compensated, how much influence unions should have…those are issues that are fairly generic across the board and can be addressed at the national level.Report
Then what exactly does the national curriculum achieve? Why should talented, creative teachers be bound by a generic, centrally-planned curriculum? Is the problem really that teachers and their schools can’t come up with a decent curriculum? And how would this national curriculum be implemented? Indeed, the great thing about charters is they decentralize education even further than the district level – often side-stepping unions as well.Report
I would direct you back to my guest post on the subject for the full details, but a national curriculum would actually provide more flexibility for teachers while I also augmenting their current work by providing expanded collaboration opportunities. And added benefit is that it would kill the spectre of Intelligent Design.
As for implementation i would say you just link it to federal education dollars.Report
Yes, a national curriculum might do that – or it might turn into a special-interest-ridden, creativity-killing ball and chain on teacher flexibility. And of course it might kill the spectre of ID – or it might nationalize it.
When you play with fire – that’s one thing. When you play with fire at a national level, that’s another.Report
I’m not sure how a more loosely-defined curriculum would limit teacher flexibility.
And there are just as many special interests at the local level than at the national level.Report
How do special interests currently influence curriculum?
On this note, though, I am not at all against a suggested national curriculum. It might very well be helpful for many schools. I just have to add the “suggested” part for it to sound palatable. It could be a very good resource if that were the case.Report
The three Rs! And AIDS awareness.Report
Well ID is the best example. That is a ‘local’ problem created by zealots in certain districts.Report
So would the national curriculum spell out all the things that could not be taught (like ID) or would it spell out all the things that must be taught?Report
I don’t think it’s practical to have it specifically forbid subjects, other than to say that nothing taught during the elective blocks can be in direct conflict with the required material.Report
“That specific problem is best addressed with busing and socio-economic integration. ”
So in rural areas… where do you bus people to? With whom do you integrate them?
Also, as for Corbin, KY, I guess I live in a place kind of like that. And to be honest, our kids would be WAY better off if we dispensed with many of the great, advanced classes we now offer due to mandates and instead offered a servicable vo-tech component. Because, um, that’s the kind of jobs we have here. I am not saying all classes should be shop class. But some should be. But as it stands, our administrators are stuck worrying about all kinds of special ed, AP and other bells and whistles. Those are great things, sure. But they cost an awful lot.Report
If you have a one-school rural area – then there’s not really a good way to diversify the school system…so I really don’t have an answer for you there.Report
I couldn’t agree more (though I think there’s more room for federal involvement in school reform/success) but the one thing I’d add is the idea that just as potential solutions don’t apply equally everywhere, neither do criticisms. The latter is something I know I struggle with when discussing school reform.
Where I see a potential problem is in the possibility of local control/solutions turning into relativistic success, which can impede the kind of action necessary to ensure that say kids in rural Mississippi or – for that matter – Stamford, Connecticut know how to read (good?).Report