Washington versus school reform

Public Interest, Fall, 1998 by Chester E. Finn, Jr., Michael J. Petrilli

But policy promiscuity is not indulged by Clinton and the Democrats alone. Roving-eyed Republicans in Congress have proposed, inter alia, slashing class size, ending social promotion, legalizing school prayer, replacing textbooks with laptops, funding environmental education, paying for school metal detectors, and creating a new literacy program.

Root causes

As education has ascended the list of issues that trouble voters, politicians of every stripe have predictably lunged for it. This has led Washington officials to shoulder problems and embrace initiatives that once were deemed the proper province of states and communities (or individual schools and families). The arena of federal education policy resembles a vast flea market, where practically any program idea can be displayed and offered for purchase without regard to its soundness or effectiveness.

As at a flea market, there's plenty of old stuff hanging around, too. Once created, education programs seldom disappear, no matter how poorly they accomplish their stated purposes and no matter what harm they may do along the way. It's not that their authorizers and appropriators are ignorant. The major programs have been evaluated time and again. Countless studies have shown that most of them, for all their laudable ambitions and fine-sounding titles, do little or no good. What then accounts for this reckless behavior?

To begin with, there is the ceaseless clamor for someone to do something. Education is clearly a problem that voters want solved. The simplest way to give at least the appearance of action is to propose another program. Of course, this impulse isn't confined to Washington. Many governors, legislators, mayors, and aldermen have spent their way into citizens' hearts with pricey education programs. As the 1998 election draws closer, reports the Washington Post, local, state, and national candidates of both parties are stumbling over one another with promises to shrink third-grade classes, build new classrooms, launch after-school programs, etc.

Another contributing factor is the political class's devotion to focus groups and polls. The public is not sure how to reform education and rather naive about the real problems. The easiest, surest way to appeal to such voters is to offer instant solutions, like shrinking classes or refurbishing buildings, which won't actually solve any real problems. But one does thereby avoid being called "anti-education" - a label slapped on those who would overhaul or scrap some dysfunctional program or disrupt an established interest.

Then there is the problem of policy gridlock. One serious reform strategy focuses on standards and accountability; the other on school choice and diversification. It's not hard to design a shrewd blend, combining national standards with radical decentralization and merging tough accountability measures with school choice. But politicians with an eye on their "base" - or an upcoming primary - won't yield an inch on their pet schemes and aversions. Unable to reach agreement on genuine reforms, they reach instead for crowd-pleasers.

Finally, because Washington plays, in the end, such a marginal role in education, it feels free to do as it pleases. Washington furnishes just 7 percent of the K-12 education budget. Federal officials know very well that nothing they do will have great impact. Since they're not ultimately responsible for what happens in the schools, heedlessness comes easy to them. They rarely behave quite so immaturely in policy areas where Uncle Sam plays the lead role, such as national defense, Social Security, and international trade.

How we got here

Because the Constitution assigns Washington no responsibility whatsoever for education, the federal role is guided by no general principles. It just grew. Though some early federal involvement can be found as far back as the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and the creation of land-grant colleges in 1862, the federal role in education is essentially a late twentieth-century design. Indeed, save for vocational education, the G.I. bill, the post-Sputnik "national defense education act," and, of course, the judiciary's deep involvement in school desegregation, the federal role in education is a creation of the mid 1960s, of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.

The major legislation of the day included Head Start (1964), the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965), the Higher Education Act (1965), the Bilingual Education Act (1968), and, soon after, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975). All these programs sought to expand access to education for needy or impoverished segments of the population - and to disguise general aid to schools as help for the disadvantaged. The dozens of programs created by these five statutes (and their subsequent re-authorizations) script the federal role in education today.

That role will soon be up for review. The 106th Congress will reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (E.S.E.A.) and its $11 billion worth of programs, accounting for fully one-third of the Education Department's budget. Out of 69 K-12 programs currently administered by that agency, 47 are authorized by E.S.E.A. Title I, the largest of them at nearly $8 billion, is included, as are bilingual education, safe and drug-free schools, the Eisenhower professional development program, and scores more.