While it hasn’t garnered much national attention, what with all of the other sexy stories out there, the President recently proposed going back to the drawing board on education issues and taking another look at No Child Left Behind. We could get into another long, drawn out debate here about unfunded mandates, propping up an entrenched and frequently failing public school system or how much control the teacher’s unions have over federal government policy, but none of that is likely to change any time soon. Some better questions and potential answers have been raised by William McKenzie at the Dallas Morning News.
1. Allow states to show progress with their students, even if not all are proficient. In short, let them distinguish between the improving ones and the terrible ones.
That’s called “differentiated consequences,” and it’s a concept that Bush Education Secretary Margaret Spellings used to let states show they are making some progress, just not enough progress. The idea allows schools to keep working with struggling students without being put on a black list.
2. Make sure the standards of each state prepare kids to graduate from high school with the skills for either a good trade job or college. Duncan talks about college/career readiness being a new goal, so pursue it, much like Texas did in adopting a new school accountability system in 2009.
But let’s be specific about what these terms mean and what we expect kids to do to earn that recognition. Fuzziness will not help them compete in a world where others are rushing to become the next global economic powers.
3. Give states more money to improve low-performing campuses. This is a no-brainer, as long as the concept is more money-and-strong standards. If it is more money and less accountability, then this reform will make no sense at all.
While I agree in general with some of Mr. McKenzie’s concepts as related above, the argument still misses the heart of the problem I think. Yes, the government has a certain level of responsibility for funding education and investing in the next generation. No, there should be no outpouring of cash without accountability for how it is spent. And no, we shouldn’t “give up” on schools.
But deep down, there is one driving factor in education which, frankly, the government is mostly helpless to affect. And that is motivation for both students and their families, along with fostering an environment where education is seen as a valuable goal and not a ready made baby sitter while parents are at work. While each school clearly needs to have the basic tools, equipment and resources needed to provide the desired education, no school – no matter how many microscopes they have in their science lab – will produce top flight students if the students themselves (and their families) are not interested in success.
That’s why the real answers to education issues are not going to be found through federal programs, intrusive regulations and massive outpouring of funds. The answers aren’t even going to turn up on the state level. This is a local issue, and school districts need to face up to the daunting task of bringing parents back into the process in an energized fashion, making sure that they are partners in their children’s education. Unfortunately, this isn’t a problem which lends itself to a legislative solution, since it it not the government’s place to stick its nose that far into the family dining room.
But this doesn’t mean that the government, feeding down from all levels, can not set good examples, promote role models and provide the basic infrastructure for success. Finding a few highly motivated parents and community leaders who are willing to lead the effort from a grassroots level and reach out to the rest of the parents could go a long way.
Also, while a college education is a desirable goal all the way around, the fact remains that not every student will choose to go to college. Some will head directly into a trade or even pursue a military career. Schools need to step back and recognize that their job is also to prepare students who follow those paths. Focusing on nothing but college prep and treating every student who doesn’t go on to a university as some sort of perceived “failure” unbalances the system and creates unrealistic levels of expectation.
I’m glad that the administration wants to take a fresh look at education, but they should be encouraged not to fall into the same old traps which have made American education such an expensive, moribund boondoggle today. Government isn’t the answer to everything, and sometimes the best it can do is help people to help themselves.