Rep. Michele Bachmann says she will turn out the lights at the Department of Education if elected president. Even Mitt Romney, who ran for president in 2008 as a strong supporter of “No Child Left Behind,” has joined the chorus: We need to get the federal government out of education, he said the other day.
None of the Republican candidates for the nomination favor an increased role for the federal government in the nation’s schools. Almost all of them pledge to cut the Department of Education’s budget.
These demands will grow louder as the nomination campaigns continue. But when a candidate is crowned and the focus shifts to the national campaign questions will arise.
The federal education budget is about $68 billion. That money pays for classroom enhancement for low-income students, for local aid for students with disabilities (special ed) and funds the Pell grant program that allows students from low-income families go to college.
Turning out those lights and stopping that funding will toss the ball to the states.
Somebody call Gov. Sam Brownback tomorrow and ask him if he is ready to raise taxes in Kansas enough to take over those functions.
Another alternative is to turn back the clock 50 years or so and simply stop taking care of those who can’t take care otf themselves. Do kids really need a hot lunch? What good is vocational agriculture anyway?
There is, of course, a third way. And that is for Congress to ignore the campaign talk and keep funding the programs.
But to keep politics as honest as we can, it would be better to have some in-depth debates over what the national role of the federal government should be in education.
The aim of No Child Left Behind is to see that kids learn more. Students are being required to accomplish more in math and English. Teachers are being required to achieve higher levels of student performance. The level of federal aid is both carrot and stick. The program has been declared a success, overall. Academic levels have risen.
Academics are now demanding that the unreasonable stipulation that every single child test at a proficient level be modified. But no responsible educator is suggesting that the goal of higher learning levels be dropped. Very few in the education business have denounced federal funding; all that noise comes from the political peanut gallery.
Setting national academic standards is defended with two primary arguments: (1) In today’s global economy, a well-educated work force is necessary for economic success at both the personal and the national level; (2) the ability and the political determination to create and pay for excellence in the public schools differs radically from state to state and from community to community within the states. Without mandatory national standards, which prevail in most of the nations with which this nation competes, the U.S. will not be able to maintain its standing as a world scientific and technological leader.
These arguments are backed by our state’s historical experience. It wasn’t until 1992 that Kansas moved to state funding of its public schools and adopted as a goal the provision of an equal education to all, regardless of the wealth of their community. Prior to that, the quality of education varied widely from district to district, roughly dependent upon the wealth of the district.
FOR THE SAME reasons that Kansas and most other states have sought to provide all of their students with a good education through statewide funding and the establishment of statewide standards, many educators have welcomed, and worked for, federal funding and the establishment of nationwide academic standards.
With this history in view, turning out the lights in the Federal Department of Education likely would usher in a new dark age in America’s public schools.
