I admit, I have been a long and vocal advocate for charter schools, school choice in general and beleive that the more charter schools exist and fulfill their mission, the better it is for all schools. But at the same time, I have been a conservative, limited role for the federal government guy for an even longer time. That is why this post from Edspresso has me irritated.
Federal involvement in education has grown dramatically over the past 40 years, so much so that states have become almost utterly dependent upon federal money for education. There have been some positives as a result of this invovlement, namely more money in the system (not necessarily money that is wisely spent, but definitely more money). The federal government's mandate from NCLB for reporting on test results by racial/ethnic groups and other breakdowns has done much to spark debate among policymakers and parents about the quality of education. Other aspects of the law I think are a little too utopian (like how do you achive 100% proficiency among students) or too wishy-washy, like failing to actually enforce the law. But nonetheless, NCLB has sparked real debate about school achievement.
Having said that, and understanding that Congress often attaches some very significant strings to the money it provides, I am troubled by the report of Congressional Republicans seeking to expand voucher programs, to the tune of $100 million in new spending. First, vouchers are not a panacea to the ills of a failing school system. Can they be part of a solution? sure, but they are not in any way a total solution. Second, vouchers represent the easiest solution for just a small population. After all, there are only so many seats available in private schools so even if the government provided a massive voucher benefit, that does not mean that every child deserving of a voucher will get to exercise that voucher. Third, vouchers are a solution designed to be applied on a local, even sub-school district, level to address a specific set of problems. Vouchers, like any proposed solution to a complex problem, cannot be applied in the same manner in all situations.
Here is the crux of the situation, the voucher program as it is proposed is a massive expansion, yet again, of the federal role in education, and this is something to be feared and resisted. I like the fact that education is a state and local level issue. Each school district faces their own unique challenges and applying a one size fits all solution shortchanges local government, state government and most importantly the children in the schools.
Alexis de Tocqueville, in Democracy in America, feared the centralization of administration, the tendency to have the national government administer all programs in the same manner regardless of location. Tocqueville feared this centralization of administration as harmful to democracy--and it is. Already dependent on federal money, local school boards have little choice but to accept this new proposal, were it to become law, because Congress will certainly couch the receipt of federal funds on the creation of the voucher program at the local level. Congress can of course, do this, but that does not mean Congress should.
What Congress and its members can do is lead on the issue. Congress can encourage the use of multiple methods of school choice, vouchers, charter schools, public school magnet programs, development of more private schools, anything that increases the opportunity for parents to find an educational solution that best fits them and their child. Leadership does not mean legislation, leadership means the promulgation of ideas and this may be the one thing lacking on Capitol Hill. We have plenty of political decisions, but little leadership of ideas.
The federal government is already too big and consumes too much of our lives. When it comes to education, Congress should speak up and encourage school choice, but it should keep its legislative pen in its pocket.
No comments:
Post a Comment