Federal education role . . .

http://hpronline.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/education_full.jpg

The growing role of the federal government in education and the views of G.O.P. candidate's  is the focus of this analysis piece in today's New York Times.  It is certainly something that we must consider as we get closer to the presidential and congressional elections.  If the republican candidate were to be elected president and both the House and Senate were controlled by conservative republicans, we could see a very different Education Department emerge.  Although many would welcome this, the landscape would change and if Michele Bachmann got her way it would be dramatic.

“Over a three-year period,” she explained in August at a rally in South Carolina, “I’d take the money we send to schools and write to superintendents, ‘No more requirements you have to deal with, but over three years you won’t have any money.’ ”

I don't expect to see this extreme change in the time frame she identifies, but thinking about it raises concerns.  It would mean the loss of federal Title 1 money based on free and reduced lunch counts and federal support for special needs students.  These are the cornerstones on which the department was built, extra support for economically and disabled students.  Only later with NCLB in the Bush administration and then with RttT in the Obama administration did assessments, reporting, and incentives become a part of the work.  For many of the candidates, these additional requirements and the influence of the Tea Party are resulting in the anti-federal push.

Though the anti-federal role position resonates with many and is supportive of education being the responsibility of the state, I don't believe that it will result in elimination of the department even with changes in leadership.  I agree with Hess when he says:

“You can imagine,” said Frederick M. Hess, director of education policy at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, “the Republican candidate is saying, ‘Not only do I want to end the Education Department as a bureaucratic monster, but I want to defund programs for needy kids or special-needs kids,’ or ‘I want to let states spend those dollars on other kids.’ That’s a very difficult debate for the Republican candidate.”

Those that advocate for a continued federal role and some form of accountability like NCLB argue that absent this accountability the gains made in education of disadvantaged groups will be lost.

The question is whether states and local districts, without Washington’s various carrots and sticks, will continue to raise academic standards and give equal opportunity to traditionally ignored student populations.

I know how I answer this question and believe that it would be the stance of all in our school system.  We are not continuing to look for ways to support the achievement of all of our young people to qualify for federal dollars or to seek federal grants.  We do it because it is our purpose for being and because we want success for all of those we have the responsibility to support.  QUALITY LEARNING EVERYDAY IN EVERY CLASSROOM FOR EVERY CHILD, is not a saying, it is a belief that drives behavior.