Dear Commons Community,
Frank Bruni in his New York Times column yesterday reviewed the call by some Republican presidential nominees to abolish or severely curtail the U.S. Department of Education. He tried to provide a balanced evaluation by first citing the prevailing Republican view (and one held by some Democrats) that the Department is overstepping it authority and infringing on states rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. On the other hand, the Departments is considered by many as a needed monitor to correct the disparity in school systems that relegate too many student populations especially the poor and minorities to substandard conditions. Bruni cites Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican (Rep. – Tennessee):
Alexander supports that humbling [abolish or severely reduce] it even though he once ran the department, as the first President Bush’s secretary of education.
“I believe there’s a federal role in education,” he told me recently, saying that the federal government affords an important bully pulpit for higher standards and more spending on students from poor families, to name two priorities. “But you don’t need a department. You need a president who cares about education and a Treasury Department that cuts the checks.” Much of the rest is needless red tape.”
On the other side:
And there are as many reasons to fret over the department’s disappearance — or, more plausibly, its severe curtailing — as to root for it.
“When states are left on their own, low-income kids, kids with disabilities and minority kids always come last,” said Kati Haycock, the president of the Education Trust, an advocacy group in Washington. “Always. Federal resources help to counteract this tendency, but it’s more about federal leverage.”
There’s also plenty of evidence that when states are left to gauge the success of students, they may produce suspiciously upbeat results at odds with any nationwide measurement.
“Without federal involvement, states define their own standards of proficiency,” said Joel Klein, the former chancellor for New York City public schools. “Some states will do good stuff, but there will also be laggards and a lot of happy talk.”
I generally support the latter case that there is definitely a need for the U.S. Department of Education for the reason that it can act as a balance for states that neglect the education of poor and minority students. However, what was not said in the column is that the Department over the past fifteen years has catered to special interest groups that focus on testing obsession, teacher bashing, and the privatization of education. These do not benefit any children: rich, poor, black or white.
Tony
