I say no.
Too often in public education, decisions are made with the standard "what's best for the kids" tagline, when the reality is usually that what is eventually decided upon is chosen because of cost effectiveness and ease of administration.
And, as any ineffective teacher will tell you, it is simply easiest to demand the same thing from everyone rather than to differentiate based on individual needs. Hence, the blanket-approach of standardized testing and the data-driven sameness movement. (No, data is not inherently evil… but data can certainly be used improperly.) To me, when an entity such as the USDE is charged with something of such broad scope, it is no surprise that the result is a one-size-fits-all solution which ultimately fits no one well.
I think a good step in reforming public education is to do something you'll rarely hear a liberal like me suggesting we do: decrease government involvement. Specifically, if we need to make budget cuts at the federal level, cut the United States Department of Education and turn absolute power over to the states.
We know that the things which matter most in education are those which are closest to the student: the teachers who provide instruction, paraeducators who provide support, custodians who keep the buildings safe and clean, just to name a few of the front-line workers. Unless someone can explain to me what vital service is provided to my students by Arne Duncan and USDE bureaucrats, I think that it is simply logical that this is where outright cuts ought to take place.
But I am open to being educated about the Department of Education, so please, share your answer to that title question.
I say yes.
Here is why:
The Feds are in the position to establish National education standards. This would benefit our education system by doing the following:
-Answer the question about what all students should know and be able to do at each grade level. When it comes to comparisons between states over things like AYP this would allow us to all be talking about apples.
-National Standards, like NBPTS define effective teaching. They also create the opportunity to use student achievement data in an objective and equitable fashion (certainly far more so than under our current locally controlled definitions).
-Families who move often (think military or those with unstable housing) would no longer fear gaps in their children’s education.
Granted, I would want LOCAL control over HOW standards are achieved, but I think the establishment of National Standard could go a long way toward healing the ills of our current system (look what Finnland has been able to accomplish). Only the Feds are in the position to make that undertaking happen. Do they have the will to do it…That would be a topic for another post.
While I don’t agree with everything Arne Duncan is doing (maybe even a lot of what he’s doing), I have taught in Arkansas, Washington, been in Missisippi, Oregon, and Texas to work with fellow teachers. Turning the power over to the states was exactly what was wrong with NCLB. Mississippi’s test was no where near as rigourous as Washington state’s, but they were making AYP. If states are able to set the bar, some states will set the bar lower. State by state regulation, and in some cases district by district control sets standards all over the place. So, what would be the remedy for that?
It would probably take Time Travel. That ship sailed. In fact, just this week Lieberman announced plans to draft a bill to withhold Title One funds to districts who persist with with seniority-only layover.
That’s what I mean by me being open to being educated about the USDE. What would it take to get back to the original intent of Title One and its use for underserved populations–without so many strings attached?
Two words: Title One
Since 1965 the feds have provided money through ESEA. It’s supposed to only be used for certain activities: special ed., high-needs schools, etc. States are left to provide for “basic education.” Up until about nine years ago, there were relatively few strings attached to Title One money. That changed dramatically with NCLB, which was the reauthorization of ESEA. (When it’s reauthorized, Congress can make adjustments as it sees fit.)
Were the feds to abandon Title One/ESEA, states would be hammered. They would be forced to either abandon all the programs currently funded through Title One or pay for them with money they don’t have.
It kinda like an 18-year-old kid. Legally he can go off on his own, but in practical terms he’s usually financially dependent on his parents, who then use that dependence as leverage to make him do chores, stay in school, or drive safely.