In 1867, the original US Department of Education was created “to collect information on schools and teaching that would help the states establish effective school systems”.[1] I suggest that we go back to that time and embrace that support role as the central one for the Federal government.
Historically, in 1791, the 10thAmendment left jurisdiction over education to the states. In the 228 years since, in fits and starts, the Federal government has steadily, and now geometrically, increased influence and control over local and state education operations. With one set of exceptions, increased federal control and interference has not resulted in benefits for students that would merit the investment in time, energy and matching dollars now required.
The exceptions centered around advocacy for children who were disenfranchised by factors outside their control. Even then, when the advocacy took the form of prescriptive mandates for the operation of local programs, the Feds often erred greatly and for long periods of time. I agree that it is good to advocate for children whose families suffer poverty. It is certainly good to advocate for children with disabilities. I also agree that pushing to end segregation and to promote civil rights are worthwhile ends. But the prescriptive requirements in Title I and Special Education, while well intended, often lacked supportive research and appeared to be designed to operate mostly in urban districts. The same was true of some of the desegregation strategies promoted by the Department to bring about compliance with court orders. As a result, districts were often saddled with increased bureaucracy and instructional programs that produced mixed results.
With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, even when modified by the Every Child Succeeds Act of 2015, the federal government really came to inhabit the role of a national education police commissioner. By threatening districts and states with the loss of the 10% federal share of local funding, the federal government implemented a series of sticks and carrots that distracted practitioners from the business of student learning. At the very time that business in the private sector had embraced the concepts of continuous improvement with higher employee engagement working toward better solutions, the Federal government was pushing old fashioned, top-down sanctions and rewards. Deming would be greatly saddened, but probably not surprised.
The current lack of serious attention to Federal education may cause you to think the Federal role is greatly diminished today. It is true that neither the President nor any of the current 20 Democratic Presidential candidates ever say much about elementary and secondary education. (The current Secretary of Education probably shouldn’t either.) But the national pressure for an educated workforce will re-create pressure for more Federal intervention in education. Policy makers will assume that if we are faced with a national education problem, then it must require another National/Federal solution – probably a regulatory one. That is exactly backwards!
There is a very useful and legitimate Federal role in education. It means supporting, rather than trying to control,the operation of local and state education. It means trusting that the good people who care deeply about our youth will do the right thing when given the right kind of information, technology tools, and the appropriate suggested metrics they can use in reinforcing or re-directing their progress. 98% of local practitioners, school board members and state education staff are mission driven people who achieve satisfaction when young people succeed. You can count on them – if they get the support they need.
What if we chose to put incredible resources into a national effort for research and developmentof more effective teaching strategies, better understanding of how young children grow and develop, better technology tools, more effective ways to develop the strongest teachers, principals and even central office staff? What if we required that all developed solutions must fit together as a comprehensive whole with options for differing situations in districts or schools? No district or state would be forced to use any of the solutions. (No company or state is requiredto use Microsoft Office, but somehow, we do.). For more on the need for better research and development in education see the Reaearch and Development post – https://herdingglaciers.com/2019/03/08/dramatically-expand-research-and-development/.
What if education had its own version of the National Institutes for Health? It could be a place that would gather professional input to create a long-term, but dynamic research and developmentagenda and implement private-public partnerships to develop solutions for schools to access. (It has always been interesting to me that the National Institutes of Health produced the work that served to quiet the “reading wars” that plagued education.) It is extremely important that such an effort not be devoted only the evaluationof existing or emerging practice. Almost all of current education research is devoted only to evaluation, hoping that someone local will develop something promising. That is foolish. Medicine doesn’t wait for local practitioners to develop the pharmaceuticals, scanning devices and genetic cures needed, so why would we employ that approach to dramatically improve education?
The new federal role should be to learn what is needed and developing and delivering optional solutions that could support the greatest number of teachers, school districts and states.
If you have some reactions (and I think you might), please reply below.
[1]U.S. Department of Education Website as modified May 25, 2017
At a time when we have a president who wants to eliminate and/or roll back regulations it would seem this would be “low hanging fruit” to pick. State and federal departments of education have become regulators rather than helpers to educators. Educators on the front lines(in classrooms, buildings, and districts) do not need more threats or retaliation but assistance in meeting the diverse needs of students.