Local control of education has produced financial inequality in schools, inconsistent standards, no way of knowing how children are truly doing and an atmosphere dominated by unions, according to a new report yesterday that calls for national standards and a greater federal role in schools.
“It is only by transcending traditional local control, and by getting serious about a new national role in standards and finance, that we can at last create genuine autonomy for local schools,” Matt Miller, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, wrote in his report, “Nationalize The Schools ( … A Little).”
“We need to give schools one clear, national set of expectations, free educators and parents to collaborate locally in whatever ways work to get results, and get everything else out of the way, ” Mr. Miller said.
The report from the liberal think tank comes as lawmakers are still attempting to craft legislation this year to renew the much-debated No Child Left Behind law, which requires states to set standards and test students, but leaves the specifics up to each state. In his report, Mr. Miller complained that this “makes it impossible for us to know where kids stand,” and instead spurs many states to “lower the achievement bar to foster the illusion of progress.”
He also said school boards are political and dysfunctional and should largely be eliminated, especially in big cities, and that unions make it “extraordinarily difficult” for school leaders to make needed changes in staffing and other areas.
Local control of schools has resulted in stark financial inequality between states and districts, according to his study, as per-pupil spending in public elementary and high schools range from more than $17,250 in some counties to less than $7,500 in others.
Leading figures in both parties are beginning to see the need for an increased federal role in education, he said, and many are suggesting national standards and testing in grades 3 through 12 in core subjects of reading, math and science initially, with more added later.
Besides an increased federal investment in research and development to determine what actually works in schools, Mr. Miller suggested the federal government should contribute about 25 percent to 30 percent of national K-12 spending, as opposed to its current level of approximately 9 percent.
Neal McCluskey, education-policy analyst at the Center for Educational Freedom at the libertarian Cato Institute, said Mr. Miller’s report “gives absolutely no reason why we should trust the federal government more than state or local governments to champion the interests of children.” And under a federalized system, unions could have even more power than they do now, he said, suggesting that “the only solution” is to shift power by “putting parents in control of education funding and choices.”
But Roy Romer — former Democratic governor of Colorado and currently the chairman of Strong American Schools’ ED in ’08 campaign — said Mr. Miller’s paper raises important issues. Leaders, he said, are increasingly discussing the idea of a more nationalized education setup, in light of the “educational crisis” in America.
“More people are beginning to talk about this because they know we’ve got to get there, and we’re not getting there under our current policy,” he said.
Mr. Romer suggested that instead of mandatory national standards, the federal government could opt for a voluntary system where groups of states are rewarded for banding together to craft uniform high standards and tests.
Mr. Miller acknowledged his suggestions are “antithetical” to U.S. cultural traditions of local control, but noted that federal involvement in retirement security and health care was once unheard of, and people are used to both today.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.