Matt Miller, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, has written an interesting piece for the Atlantic Monthly in which he proposes an interesting solution for American public education: eliminate local control. At least he correctly identifies the philosophical basis of his argument.
In Massachusetts, [Horace] Mann’s vision of “common schools,” publicly funded and attended by all, represented an inspiring democratic advance over the state’s hodgepodge of privately funded and charity schools. Atlantic Monthly
I find it interesting that the centralization of education and th elimination of privately funded educational programs would be considered a “democratic advance.” But then, democracy and socialism intersect on many levels.
For much of the 150 or so years between Mann’s era and now, the system served us adequately: during that time, we extended more schooling to more people than any nation had before and rose to superpower status. But let’s look at what local control gives us today, in the “flat” world in which our students will have to compete. Ibid.
And here is where I believe Miller makes a rather large leap in logic. He effectively reduces America’s education “problem” to one of funding. We spend more and get less. The main difference between us and those spending less on education is local control. Thus local control must be the problem. No other issues are addressed. The fact that other systems require things of their children that American’s do not want is overlooked. The social problems inherent in our inner cities which do not exist to the same degree in other countries is overlooked. The fact that the American system does not segregate students by ability, meaning we are testing our average student while other countries are testing their top tier on some of these international measurements is overlooked.
In short, there is a lot more going into the cited statistics than money spent.
It’s as if after Pearl Harbor, FDR had suggested we prepare for war through the uncoordinated efforts of thousands of small factories; they’d know what kinds of planes and tanks were needed, right? Ibid.
If we wanted to produce a nation of “obedient subjects of the Kaiser,” the analogy might be adequate. But schools are not factories, children are not tanks and education is not a war. When we look at American schools, focusing on those which are high achieving and really study the differences between those who are attaining an excellent education, what we find is that funding is not the central problem.
In fact, the one factor which outweighs every other socioeconomic facto is not money, class size, teacher certification, curriculum nor even race not family income. It is family involvement. Even the National Education Association recognizes the many studies which have reached the same conclusion.
The family makes critical contributions to student achievement from preschool through high school. A home environment that encourages learning is more important to student achievement than income, education level or cultural background. NEA
But Miller does not want to address the real causes of America’s education system. And rather than seek out schools which are seeking out effective means of improving parental involvement in their children’s lives, he wants to completely federalize our education system. He ignores the fact that the increasing centralization could actually be part of the problem. And the fact that some of these havens of national education are maybe not quite so centralized as he claims. He even quotes Marc Tucker. Yes, that Marc Tucker, who was so excited at Clinton’s victory to the white house he wrote a letter about his vision for American education.
Miller does an effective job of discussing some of the problems of No Child Left Behind, but his solution is to give it more money and make the standards and testing national.
What is essential is that we create a seamless web of opportunities, to develop one’s skills that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone — young and old, poor and rich, worker and full-time student. Dear Hillary…
And this “seamless web” is to be brought about through national standards, a national curriculum and a national certification program all designed by a board which remains outside of voter control. It is something both Clinton and Bush have been working toward, and surely every homeschool will have to learn to navigate the system, provided they were allowed to continue at all. Otherwise, not every child will be in the same system and our graduating children will lack the certification they need to pass to higher levels of education.
Sherman Dorn raises an interesting counterpoint to the article.
To put it briefly, Miller falls into the standard “let’s fix the governance structure” fallacy of a certain chunk of education reform wannabes. I just don’t buy it. If school-board parochialism were the main problem, then we’d find Hawa’i’s schools outdoing the rest of the country because of its unitary system. Or we’d find Southern states outdoing the north because many of them have mostly county systems, in contrast to Northern and Western states with tiny, fragmentary districts. Or New York City’s system would be perfect today because of the elimination of the elected school boards through mayoral control. I’m sure that there are governance changes that would matter, but this one? It’s bold, provocative, simple, and not very helpful. Matt Miller’s Fallacy
Yes, let’s fix these perceived governance issues by creating more government, a higher level of bureaucracy and less power for the parents who are the only ones proven to have a real and measurable impact on student performance.
Principled Discovery is a place to stop and discuss news and information related to faith, family and particularly education. Pour yourself a cup of tea and join the conversation! 
Dana, where do you find these articles? Why would anyone be willing to give up their freedom, view education as an assembly line and dehumanize/deindividualize the children of America? Who thinks like that?
Lately, I have been wondering if these people really believe the things they say. And what on earth led them to these conclusions?
Julie, when I first read the title of the article, I thought it was just some fringe type of guy. After all, you can find someone to say just about anything. But he is right that this is a pretty long-standing movement stemming from Horace Mann. And forces desiring this are gaining ground. It began under Bush Sr., continued under Clinton and really took ground under the current administration. But the push is continuing, with amendments being proposed that every child has a “right” to a public education.
Christy, I hope they do. I sincerely believe that most of the people that come up with these ideas do think they are doing what is best for education. But they focus on government solutions which seek to centralize power and direct the economy, education and lives.
Although I do like the idea of a national curriculum and national standards I do think that both can be managed on local levels with parental oversight/direction and local boards. I do not think that more government or funding is the answer nor solution.
I do not like any aspect of NCLB, I do not care for universal preschool, but I do like the idea that all children have a “right” to public education. Having a right does not mean there aren’t other choices available if one chooses, imo; it simply means that if other choices aren’t available to you for whatever reason (usually socioeconomic) that there is some form of education and you will not be left out–as in the haves and the have nots.
Now liking the idea does not mean I like an amendment!
“Although I do like the idea of a national curriculum and national standards I do think that both can be managed on local levels with parental oversight/direction and local boards.”
Please ponder upon what you’ve said. Really think about it. Take a deep, deep look. Consider the two parts of your statement. Please! Please! Please!
Shawna, I think I see what you are saying. But to me, we have all those things. We have national standards. We almost have a national curriculum based on the text book adoption process. And children are not rejected from public schools. It is difficult to expel children, and then alternative education must be provided.
Recently, this is becoming an issue because of the pressure of NCLB. School districts are “pushing out” problem students and in some cases telling parents they need to homeschool them. That is just plain wrong, but an obvious problem with the insanity NCLB is creating.
The problem I have with a “right to a public education” is what this will end up doing to education. First, it will define the public education as the standard, requiring us to be measured by it and accountable to it. Second, it would be a funding nightmare. If someone graduates unable to read, will they be able to sue the state or the district for damages? Even if they haven’t attempted to do anything for their entire education?
I’ll have to look at it more, but several months ago I looked at a lot of arguments regarding education as a right and the problems that idea can bring about.
NCLB, that’s what happens when you elect a Democrat President to run the country. Obama/Clinton aside, if McCain wins and is elected, that would make 22 years of a Democrat President.
NCLB is the tip of the iceberg. That’s what happens to a nation that strays from God. What makes anyone believe that America would be any different?
I wouldn’t posted it if I hadn’t seriously understood what I was saying.
I do believe that national standards can be obtained/managed with local oversight.
I do not believe that it’s all or nothing. I believe in a balance of power… elected power, by the people… who have a voice, a choice.
I do not see government as all bad. I do see it needing control and balance and in desperate need of accountability… but that is where the people need to come in play.
I do believe in a basic standard of intelligence/knowledge. I do not trust that all parents are capable of delivering that via homeschooling, private schooling, charter schooling, etc. We all have differing resources available to us. I do think a national curriculum is a good skeleton to work with that local authorities can embellish, refine, augment… it is a foundation. And I do think we have a right to be educated… so if not all parents are capable of doing that then yes, I think that people have a “right” to a public education.
So yes, I have pondered my stance carefully. And the beauty of America is that we can have different beliefs, voice them, and continue forward.
As for NCLB… it was a Republican that brought that to light. So why hold Obama/Clinton/Democrats responsible for that one? You lost me there.
I’m not sure exactly what Peter is referring to and can’t speak for him, but a lot of people on the more conservative side of the Republican Party view Bush as being practically a Democrat. : ) But what he did with NCLB was only a continuation of what Clinton started with his education plan.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/19/clinton.education/
And Senator Clinton really just seems to want more funding for the same program, nothing radically different.
I agree that we have a “right” to an education, but we need to be careful about what we are saying with that. I need to look up the things I was thinking of so I don’t misquote anything.
I think local control is important, both out of respect for our federal system that our founding fathers wisely set up and because parents are generally more qualified than the state to determine what is best for their children.
Are there parents who are not? Of course. That is why we have some safeguards in place and why we continue to support a diversified education system which includes public schools, private schools and charters. But should we force a certain type of education on all children because we fear what may be happening in a few families? No. We should focus on where we know problems exist within the public system which is not always doing well with the job that has been entrusted to it.
If Bush is considered a Democrat I think I must just have to leave the party
You know, he really is pretty liberal. He let Ted Kennedy write his signature education package, has definitely increased the size of government and isn’t what I’d call a fiscal conservative. “Compassionate” conservative only meant he planned to spend money on everything rather than just what conservatives spend money on. : )
Interesting because most liberals I know would not consider Bush liberal. It seems nobody is willing to claim him
Back to the post/point, to me a “right” to an education does not imply a mandate/obligation, simply a guarantee that you will not be left without.
And yes, I agree that most parents tend to know what is best for their child… I just don’t think a national curriculum necessarily gets in the way of that. As long as there are still choices about where and ways in which parents wish to educate their children.
Anyways, hope that clarified my jumbled, sometimes contradictory thinking
And thanks for the clinton education link.