All You Have to Do Is Let Go of the Monopoly
I don’t have to prove my bona fides when it comes to opposing top‐down, standards‐based education reforms. I’ve been highly critical of the No Child Left Behind Act; very aggressive in attacking the reckless drive for national curriculum standards; and have repeatedly noted the importance of educator autonomy. So when you read the following, keep in mind that it is definitely not coming from a command‐and‐control aficionado: The weakest position in today’s big education war is the one opposed to both standards‐based reforms and school choice. It’s the one enunciated yesterday by the Washington Post’ s Valerie Strauss, but which is most firmly staked out by historian Diane Ravitch. It’s the position that essentially boils down to “don’t touch my local, teacher‐dominated monopoly!”
Why is this so weak? Because it gives parents and taxpayers — the people who pay for public education and whom the system is supposed to serve — the fewest avenues to get what they want out of the schools.
Outraged over your neighborhood school because it is dangerous, the staff apathetic, and the building crumbling? Too bad — you get what you’re given and can’t even appeal to a higher level of government. And as we’ve seen in far too many places where the residents aren’t rich enough to exercise choice by buying expensive homes in better districts — the District of Columbia, Compton, Detroit, etc. — Ravitch’s utopian vision of school districts as places where “people congregate and mobilize to solve local problems, where individuals learn to speak up and debate and engage in democratic give‐and‐take with their neighbors” is just so much gauzy rhapsodizing. Reality is much harsher.
Of course, there are gigantic, fatal flaws with the standards‐and‐accountability movement, and people like Ravitch and Strauss have very compelling reasons for concern.
The standards movement, for one thing, is completely reliant on standardized testing. Indeed, it is heading for a single, national test, despite well‐established evidence that tests are highly constrained in what they can tell us about learning.
In addition, as Ravitch and others regularly lament, the standards movement seems to be dominated by present and former business leaders who have tended to treat education as just another uniform‐widget production problem. But children are not uniform; they are individual human beings with widely varied interests, rates of maturity, educational starting points, and life goals. But that never seems to enter into the standards equation, rendering it wrong from the start. Add to this that standards‐based reformers tend to treat the education system as a single entity to be engineered, rather than an industry in which schools are the firms and competition is essential for sustained innovation and improvement, and standards‐based reforms are as hopeless as teacher‐dominated mini monopolies.
Unfortunately, top‐down standardizers seem unlikely to join the fold of the one reform that includes both necessary educator autonomy and powerful accountability to parents: educational freedom. Yes, they often like school choice as long as government dictates what chosen schools teach, but they don’t embrace real freedom. Perhaps, though, the Ravitches and Strausses of the world can be brought on board. They won’t be able to keep the local monopolies they cherish, but they’ll be able to get most of what they want: much less stultifying uniformity; considerably more freedom for teachers; and the flourishing of communities, though communities based on shared norms and values, not mere physical proximity.
The flimsiest position in our great education debate is the one held by opponents of both top‐down accountability and educational freedom. But if they’ll remove the rose‐tinted glasses through which they see local public schooling, there is an option that should appeal to them, one that injects essential parent power and competition into education while giving educators the professional autonomy they crave. It is school choice — educational freedom — and it is the reform that wins the great education debate.
