Let’s start by arguing that bullying politics from all sides cannot continue if we are trying to address the key issues of the 21st century. For too long, you’ve been branded with a full name, a little lost from the accepted narrative of either party. No one is confused from the prescriptions and risks to the risk of being branded as Reno, DUC or one of those magazines. God forbids everyone to be critical of anything done by the thoughts of their own side. After all, why is there a risk of pointing out when the error is created if it means you’ve been kicked out of the tent?
sorry. I disagree with this. I firmly believe you can become a loyal R or D and even tweak it here and there on better ways, better paths, or important policy issues. So. About me. When I think I’m guaranteed, I remain constructively critical and offer praise when I win. A suitable case is the proposed exclusion of the US Department of Education. Frankly, I am not opposed to reform, but I lament that I will actually do this missed opportunity.
I have been deeply involved in public policy issues for decades, so I am not truly surprised when DC declares about major policy changes and uses illogical arguments for advocacy. Looking at the proposed dismantling of the US Department of Education is a good example of politics instead of policy. Instead of advocating for bureaucracy and wise spending reductions, even the transfer of some activities suitable for other institutions, advocates of exclusion are trying to link federal government involvement that passes program funding to the horrifying performances revealed by student test scores in most cases. It may bite a good sound, but it has no logic. Isn’t it more logical to recognize that the push to “return control” to state and local school districts as a solution to poor comparisons on tests is at the local and state level where performance and learning are inadequate?
Do you think that reducing the bureaucratic appendages of DC will magically improve our scores? Yes, our educational outcomes are terribly problematic. Since the inception of the NAEP test, our country has shown a steady decline in the scores of all subjects tested. When USDOE was created, we weren’t testing it the way it is now. The links linking the USDOE do not look at why at least 30 Chicago schools have no students or a single student tested at the grade level or other disastrous measures of student academic achievement. But our federal government is spending time again shuffling bureaucracy rather than advocating for a national emergency in learning. Moonshot’s attitude is necessary, and all we get is rearranging the furniture. The consequences of poor performance are too long to list here, but certainly our national focus should be on a real emergency.
Many districts across the country are doing well, but many continue to suffer. Who is looking into what is going on in a good district, or even within a good school, but are other districts around it continuing to fail? Why is this not a national priority?
When students fail, drop out, or leave school with useless diplomas and have limited reading and mathematics skills, they are destined to a life filled with struggle, unemployment, crime, and punishment, and burden society. But our focus is on bureaucracy and structure. Thomas Sowell gets it. “For bureaucrats, you don’t understand bureaucrats until you realize that the process is everything and there are no consequences.”
If every state and every local district was working well, it probably makes sense to simply provide pre-K-12 block grants at the state level. On average, the federal government only funds 8% of school costs, while state and local governments provide 92% via property taxes. The state decides the curriculum. The state chooses textbooks. The state certifies teachers. Apart from a few high-performance outliers, many states fail, with the obstacles that are particularly common in larger, more urban school districts. My argument has nothing to do with the bureaucracy, primarily to think of these actions as making anything better. Have you seen suggestions focused on improving performance, or everyone on how much it has been spent over 40 years, Yada Yada. It is a typical government response to a major issue. “Well, this isn’t working, so let’s reposition the furniture.” As I said above, we need a Moonshot attitude. We probably won’t get it.
You can reposition the deck chairs of the sinking boat, but they still sink.
The provision of educational content is already driven by states and districts, and with the exception of some state outliers, they do a poor job. Who is focusing on how, or why?
