Frederick M. Hess is director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Linda Darling-Hammond is a professor of education at Stanford. They got together to consider what the federal role in public education should be. They wrote about their conclusions for the New York Times:
“ . . . We sorely need a smarter, more coherent vision of the federal role in K-12 education. Yet both parties find themselves hemmed in. Republicans are stuck debating whether, rather than how, the federal government ought to be involved in education, while Democrats are squeezed between superintendents, school boards and teachers’ unions that want money with no strings attached, and activists with little patience for concerns about federal overreach.
“ . . . We agree on what the federal government can do well. It should not micromanage schools, but should focus on the four functions it alone can perform.”
First, they wrote, was to encourage transparency by requiring schools to report how their students were performing. Without reliable, available achievement results, it is practically impossible for parents or the public in general to judge how well the schools are teaching children what they need to know.
Schools must also report how much they are spending on each student and on identified groups of students so that the public can be assured that all students are being given an opportunity to achieve.
The idea of transparency includes the requirement that each state must link its student achievement levels with national assessments so that the parents in one state can see how its students stack up against those in other states and against national achievement levels.
Second, only the federal government can ensure that basic constitutional protections are respected in the schools. Schools should not be allowed to discriminate against students on the basis of race, religion or economic circumstances.
“ . . . . Enforcing civil rights laws and ensuring that dollars intended for low-income students and students with disabilities are spent accordingly have been parts of the education department’s mandate since its creation in 1979,” they wrote, with the implication that only the federal government can provide that enforcement with an even hand throughout the 50 states.
Third, basic research in education should be done by the feds in education just as it does in medicine and the other sciences. Private organizations can do applied research that can be put to profitable use. Only government can devote the resources to research which doesn’t result in dollars being made to cover the cost.
“ . . . When it comes to brain science, language acquisition or the impact of computer-assisted tutoring, federal financing for reliable research is essential,” they agreed.
Finally, Hess and Darling-Hammond, wrote, “there is value in voluntary, competitive grants that support innovation while providing political cover for school boards, union leaders and others to throw off anachronistic routines.
BEYOND THESE FOUR areas, they agreed, “the federal government is simply not well situated to make schools and teachers improve — no matter how much ambitious reformers wish it were otherwise. Under our system, dictates from Congress turn into gobbledygook as they travel from the Education Department to state education agencies and then to local school districts. Educators end up caught in a morass of prescriptions and prohibitions, bled of the initiative and energy that characterize effective schools.
“ . . . Perhaps No Child Left Behind’s most enduring lesson is the value of humility — a virtue that must be taken to heart in crafting a smarter, more coherent federal role in schooling.”
— Emerson Lynn, jr.
