Did students benefit from the “heavy-handed government schemes” endorsed by the technocratic leftists who pose as education reformers? This critical question is addressed by Frederick Hess and Michael McShane in their essay within the new book, Getting Education Right. The answer, given the current state of K-12 education, is a resounding no. It is imperative for conservatives to acknowledge the repercussions of past “faux” bipartisanship and take decisive action moving forward.
The state of our schools is dire. With historically low state, national, and international test scores, significant learning setbacks during prolonged COVID-era school closures, and alarmingly high chronic absenteeism rates, the education system is in crisis. While education technocrats may have briefly claimed success in narrowing achievement gaps during the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) era, these improvements merely masked the underlying issues of a fundamentally flawed system.
From the ashes of failed reforms emerges the burgeoning education freedom movement. Presently, the majority of states provide either state-funded scholarships or education savings accounts (ESA) programs, with ten states now offering universal education freedom. Instead of getting entangled in crafting lengthy “fix-it” agendas, conservatives should recognize the potential of school choice in empowering parents who seek alternatives to underperforming schools that promote ideologies conflicting with widely accepted values.
The concept of school choice should have been prioritized since the publication of the 1983 report A Nation at Risk, which lamented the “rising tide of mediocrity” in our education system. However, education reformers at the time only sporadically broached the topic of expanding educational options. The notion that families should have the fundamental right to choose a school that aligns with their child’s needs and values was considered radical and divisive during the NCLB era, as noted by Hess and McShane.
While this view may have prevailed in the national policy arena, state leaders like Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels and Florida Governor Jeb Bush embraced this radical perspective. Governor Bush’s 1999 A+ Plan for Education included innovative solutions for students trapped in failing schools, such as scholarships for students with special needs and the promotion of charter schools. His advocacy for choice set a precedent for other governors to follow.
Hess and McShane emphasize that, “While choice proposals generally garnered support from conservative lawmakers, they did not resonate significantly with many conservative voters, suburban families, or middle-class parents.” The failure to communicate the benefits of school choice to these families hindered the formation of a broad coalition. Despite the pressing need for school choice among vulnerable families seeking better educational environments, the advocacy burden primarily fell on parents desperate to secure their children’s academic success.
The shortcomings of education reform might have been averted if conservatives had not been overly eager for validation from the education policy elite. These self-proclaimed reformers, often more acquainted with graduate school than K-12 education, promised a revolutionized teaching force, administrative reform, and venture capitalist-funded schools. However, true education reform necessitates engaging and empowering parents, rather than solely relying on top-down policy changes at the federal and state levels.
McShane and Hess highlight that the decade following NCLB witnessed notable national improvements in reading and math scores. However, these gains were transient due to the education system’s tendency to chase after fleeting trends. Sustainable academic progress requires a steadfast commitment to proven methodologies. Despite federal attempts to establish a standardized curriculum, the allure of trendy teaching methods and subjects remained strong.
Moreover, parents grew increasingly disillusioned as schools prioritized standardized test preparation over actual instruction, leading to concerns about overmedication and academic neglect. The resistance to accountability from bureaucrats undermined the NCLB initiative, ultimately leading to its downfall fueled by parental outrage.
The Common Core initiative faced similar backlash from parents who felt marginalized and unheard by education reformers. Despite attempts to dismiss skeptics as conspiracy theorists, the mainstream media, along with Secretary Arne Duncan, faced formidable opposition. This resistance culminated in many states withdrawing from the Common Core program and the subsequent passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015, which rolled back NCLB requirements.
While parents achieved victories on the legislative front, they encountered setbacks in bureaucratic battles. The transformation of technocratic reform into left-leaning policies became evident during the COVID era. With parents directly confronting the deficiencies in the education system due to widespread school closures, the flaws in the system became glaringly apparent. This led to a surge in public school enrollment as parents sought alternative educational options that prioritized academic excellence over activism and aligned with their family values.
As a result, school choice and education freedom initiatives have garnered increased support from families and state legislators in recent years. The authors aptly note that by the onset of the Biden administration, educational choice evolved from being a lifeboat for urban families to a solution for families grappling with school closures, ideological conflicts, and bureaucratic inefficiencies. To prevent another generation of educational failures, conservatives must unite behind robust choice policies that prioritize students, empower parents, and ensure academic success.