Monday, February 01, Policy Education Public Schools Many American critics believe that the major problem with public education today is a lack of focus on results. This is a valid argument as far as it goes.
Detailed Summary Highlights The US Department of Education has failed to reach nearly every meaningful goal its advocates had promised in when the agency was created.
It has failed to improve academic performance. It has failed to provide better management of federal education programs. And it has failed to allow state and local governments to chart their own course.
The department has, however, lived up to one promise: Despite huge increases in federal involvement in education, student performance in the United States has remained stuck at average levels since the late s and early s.
Bitter disputes between the federal government and the states are unavoidable so long as the feds are involved in education. Those who opposed the creation of a federal Department of Education turned out to be prophetic.
A key remedy for improving school performance is one that many in the educational establishment staunchly oppose: International comparisons reveal that schools that compete for students outperform schools that do not. Even the most ardent early supporters of isolated federal involvement in education, including Presidents Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, insisted that absent a constitutional amendment, neither they nor Congress had any authority over education whatsoever.
What caused this dramatic transformation? Has it improved student performance? Education reform expert Vicki E. Alger takes up these questions in Failure: Prior to the mids federal involvement in education was marked by restraint.
But two profound shifts would help untie the federal government from its constitutional moorings. One shift occurred at the national level, as proponents of a larger federal role began to emphasize its expediency, regardless of its constitutionality; here the Morrill Land Grant Act, signed into law by President Lincoln inset a precedent.
Another shift took place at the state level, as advocates for disadvantaged children began to campaign for compulsory schooling for all; public education activist Horace Mann was pivotal.
In a new stage began with the creation of the US Education Department. Although it was soon defunded and its rank in the federal pecking order would change over the decades, the agency slowly grew.
Momentum increased during the Progressive Era, as John Dewey and other intellectuals called for educational reform to promote their vision of social progress. From toCongress considered more than bills proposing the creation of a new department of education.
President Carter made this wish come true by establishing the US Department of Education as the thirteenth Cabinet agency in the federal government.
Subsequent administrations talked about education reform, but none ever considered scaling back the Department of Education.
InPresident George H. Congress defeated the bill, however, with Republicans opposing its national standards and Democrats objecting to vouchers. Despite the legislative impasse, federal education funding grew significantly under Bush.
In spite of the longstanding prohibition against federal control of schools' or states' educational curricula and assessments, President Clinton revived and renamed America as Goals Republicans and Democrats in Congress now vied with one another over who supported the most generous increases in federal education spending.
Despite its demanding testing, reporting, and choice requirements, studies found that it had not appreciably improved reading or math performance.
The results are sobering. On nearly every count the department has fallen short: Wasteful spending is rampant. Strings attached to federal funding have caused a political tug-of-war with the states.
And American students have made little or no progress in reading, math, and science; compared to their peers in other countries, their academic performance is still average. Two traits they share are a high degree of decentralization and a high level of competition among schools for students.
Returning the Federal Government to Its Constitutional Role In Part III, Alger spells out a plan for decentralizing education, refunding tax revenue to the taxpayers, and returning the federal government to its constitutional role.
She begins by articulating the core principle to guide such efforts: Abolition is essential because, Alger explains, a dysfunctional relationship between the feds and the states is virtually guaranteed in a system that was never designed to accommodate federal involvement in education. How should abolition proceed?
Alger would start with the immediate elimination of 19 non-program offices and divisions within the US Department of Education.
Also, taxpayers would determine which, if any, programs would be preserved at the state level, resulting in a more constructive approach to education policy.Since the end of the industrial age, Americans have worried about improving their education system.
But the country has never been able to make much progress. Other nations do it better, and the United States must learn from their examples if it hopes to catch up.
Feb 15, · Three learning enthusiasts share their blueprints for rebuilding the U.S.
education system. In the 2nd century A.D., Roman Emperor Marcus . American education is at a crossroads. The federal government’s role in education has grown significantly over the past half-century, infringing on our long-held principle of federalism in.
Finally, perhaps the most important boosters of America’s new public education system were what we might today call “cultural conservatives.” The turn of the century, after all, was a .
“In Failure, Vicki Alger traces the history of the growth in the federal role in education in America, a role that can be seen today in the regulatory reach of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) into the entire K school system and much of post-secondary education. The heart of her excellent book is a description of the major programs it.
The education "business" has been the victim of a hostile takeover from the corporate reform of education movement, funded by billions of dollars from agencies and foundations headed by some of our nation's wealthiest and most successful business persons--Bill and Melinda Gates, Eli Broad, the Walton family (i.e., WalMart), etc.