Education reform: compatible with federalism?

With the economy crisis many eyes are being set to restructuring the education system. It is well-known that a country’s development rest on a high quality education system. In fact, it has been one of the principal topics in the recent movie on education ‘Waiting for Superman’.

When school reform is debated in the U.S, one of the most polemical issues it arises lies within the Federal system of the country. In fact, it is argued whether education policies should come from the Federal government and be the same for all the States (centralized/local policies), or, if the policies should be decided individually by each State and be specific to each one of them (decentralized policies). Decentralized policies like the U.S States education policies tend to enhance inequalities between States. In fact, not only do richer States invest more in education but there is no national curriculum. Furthermore, according to the Center on Education Policy (CEP) the number of years children must attend school varies within States from 9 to 13 years. Does a student ‘A’ who went to school 4 extra years than student ‘B’, and whose school received 50% more funding than student ‘B’, have the same opportunities? Of course not! Student A is advantaged. The American Dream that claims that everyone has equal opportunities and that, if (s)/he works hard, will achieve is an illusion.

Matt Miller, author of the article 'First, Kill All the School Boards', resumes the negative consequences of the local control of education in several points. First of all, he claims there is no way to know how the students are progressing because there is no uniform evaluation for the pupils across the States. Then, local control reinforces teachers unions power which only care for their members advantages; also it limits investments in Research and Development; and finally it enhances the financial inequity (the Federal State contributes very poorly, only 9%).

The main problem of turning to centralized/nationalized education policies is that they question the federal system of the country which has long roots in the American history. In fact, even during the battle between Federalists and Anti-federalists the issue was never close to taking the power away from the States to favor a centralized State. What was in debate was the degree of power which would be attributed to the States. Additionally, any policy coming from the Federal government is not very much liked by the Americans because it is not in their culture. Anything close to nationalization sounds like a communist threat. Think about it: in the U.S, institutions where conceived in order to limit the government. In the Federalist Papers No. 51, Madison characterized federalism as a double security to the rights of the people. The urgency of creating a Union as a ‘safeguard against domestic faction and insurrection’ has resulted in the creation of an ineffective and impotent State.

In order to have a real education reform in the U.S it must come from the top and it must be the same for all the States. Of course it is essential to take into consideration the local aspects but to put the light only in the local is leaving the education system in the shade, that is to say, unchanged. If a school is improved it’s great but what good does it do to the country if only one school is improved? What good is it if one rich State puts into place an incredible education policy if the others don’t have it? Education policies must be thought as a whole that involves the country and not just one district. Education is a structural matter. Education policies come hand in hand with the countries socioeconomic policies. They are part of a vision of a country. For Matt Miller there are two ways in which the Federal government can make a difference in education: number one would be for the federal State to contribute more in funding the public schools. And, number two, setting standards in a course set of subjects like reading, science and math.

Is a successful school reform compatible in a country with such a strong culture of federalism? It is possible for the U.S to centralize/nationalize education? Well, with the emergence of the Tea Party, its growing influence, and its vision of the government as Evil, it seems unlikely that this will happen any time soon.

Teaching Too Soon?

On May 17, 1954 by a unanimous vote, the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Brown v. Board of Education declares that “separate but equal” education facilities are “inherently unequal” and that segregation is therefore unconstitutional. Yet, schools are still racially segregated, and in fact, the educational system has consistently failed poor people of color.

In August of this year a group of parents filed a law suit against the department of Education and the secretary of Education. Those involved in the lawsuit claimed that the department of Education gave a free pass to States like California by allowing them to hire intern teachers. They also claimed that schools serving minority students had a higher concentration of intern teachers than others. Those involved in the lawsuit argued that the Department of Education failed to enforce the requirements set forth by the No Child Left Behind Act, thus, leaving the most vulnerable child behind. The “No Child Left Behind Act” requires that teachers be highly qualified, which essentially means that they have a degree in the subject area in which they are teaching. Once again the government has failed to police and enforce the laws that would ensure an equal education for all. The government argued that teaching interns help to address the shortage of teachers in areas which serve minority students.

This requirement in the NCLB is key; teachers play a significant role in the education crisis and quality teachers are essential. We do not send a first year law student into the court room alone, so why send a first year teaching student into the classroom? Instead of offering these students an inherently unequal education, why not offer other incentives for teachers, such as an increase in pay? Teaching is one of the most underpaid and undervalued professions in America yet the most important. Brown v. Board of Education and the “No Child Left Behind Act” look great on paper but when it comes to the government executing these laws it becomes nothing more than a fairytale, a hopeful read.

The Education Catastrophe

America’s dropout Rate is an epidemic. The overall graduation rate in the United States is less than 70%. For Latino and Black students it is even worse, 50%. America’s Promise Alliance released a report last week which revealed chilling statistics on dropout rates in America’s top 50 largest cities. At the bottom of the list are districts like Detroit where the graduation rate is 24.9%, Indianapolis, Cleveland and Baltimore follow closely behind. Along with the report, America’s Promise Alliance also issued a 10-Point Plan for reducing Dropout Rate. At the top of the list is an inaccurate graduation and dropout statistics. These statistics have been difficult to calculate based on tracking the number of students who transfer to another district, as well as, inflated statistics by school districts, which are desperate to meet the guidelines set by one of the many requirements set forth by the 2002 No Child Left behind Act. As a result, the Bush Administration and secretary Margret Spellings announced that they will require all states to use one federal formula.

This is only the first of many steps that the government is and should be taking to address this issue. Getting the data is not even half of the battle. The dropout rate is a symptom of the cancer growing in the educational system, and everyone shares part of the blame. By allowing teachers who do not perform well, and  lost all concern and vitality to teach our children is a lightening bolt of a message to our students that we just do not care.

 Accountability, who is accountable to our children the future of our country? I believe that we all share in the failures of our schools, from the government to our school’s administration, to the voters and especially the parents.   Our schools are not the only problem but the government needs to hold parents responsible as well. Sanctions should be placed on parents Why not fine them or sentence them to community service when they do not ensure their child is in school? Barrack Obama has discussed the importance of parenting in a couple of his speeches at high schools across the country.  He seems to understand that this is not strictly a problem with the schools.  We need to be as serious about education and holding people accountable as the IRS is about collecting taxes or as serious as we are about homeland security. The future of this country lies in the hands of the youth and the youth are not being educated.  We are under attack by our failed schools, government and community.  We must protect ourselves and actively find a cure for the “CANCER” that lies within our current system. 

Empty Policies

As a direct result of the failure to execute the policy of Bush’s landmark No Child Left Behind in its entirety, and the overwhelming dislike for a centralized education system, this policy has become a feel good slogan which is vacant of any viable plan to ensure that no child is truly left behind. The overwhelming majority of children left behind are low income and/or minority students living in California, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania and New York. It is peculiar; to say the least, that the two remaining Democratic contenders represent two of these failing school districts, Illinois and New York. Also, these 5 states may well determine who will be the Democratic nominee to face John McCain in the general election. This fact should serve as a wake up call to remind those remaining believers that a slogan without any funding, and little or no consequences for our failing schools is doomed from the very beginning. We seem to have abandoned the ideals of the American Creed by neglecting to invest in our schools and thus ignoring our greatest asset by giving the present administration a free pass to administer a policy without any teeth and vacant of any realistic planning to combat our failing schools. This administration seems to be at their best when declaring war against failing schools in the same way that they neglected to give our military women and men the armor protection that they needed earlier in the Iraq war. The No Child Left Behind Act was intended to increase government involvement in the management of schools, increase funding for schools which serve low income students and set a deadline by 2014 which says that all students must be performing at grade-level and proficient in reading and math and in each category they have failed miserably.