Same-old, same-old on education 'reform'
Back to the Education: Big Government or Free Market Page
Every presidential contender for the 2000 election has adopted the generic issue of "improving education" as a cornerstone of his or her administration. But few of them have had the guts to say the obvious-that simply spending more money, be it federal or state money, cannot and will not solve America's education crisis. That's because few of them have had the guts to admit that the federal government cannot and will not improve education as long as Washington maintains control over local public schools. There is too much bureaucracy, too much waste and mismanagement, and way too much politics surrounding the issue of education (mostly leftist politics at that).
The formula originating from the left is simple: Ignorant people can be controlled; educated people, on the other hand, cannot be controlled because they can see through the lies and refuse to be manipulated.
However, under the guise of giving in to the leftist politico-education agenda, presidential politics continue to revolve around known failures espoused by the left-chiefly, that more money equals better education. It doesn't; it never has.
Let the facts speak for themselves:
In the past few decades per student spending has risen to a figure between $4,000 and $6,000 per annum in most states, with no appreciable rise in performance. In fact, in all of the basic categories of learning-reading, language arts/composition, mathematics, and science-American kids are behind those in most other industrialized nations, and the disparity between them is getting worse, not better.
Local taxes Americans must pay for "education" is nearly always the highest while most parochial and private schools-with better attendance, performance and safety statistics-continue to struggle just to survive. But public schools just get more dangerous, less effective, and less responsive to parental guidance.
A handful of leftists have successfully captured this country's most influential educational policy institutions and continue to work to subvert high educational standards in lieu of a dumbed-down, socialist "feel good" approach that doesn't include parents. And it's failing miserably because leftists aren't interested in educational excellence-they're using the public school system to forward a socialist political agenda, nothing more.
Good teachers, responsible parents and traditional education administrators are being fed mandates from Capitol Hill that put more emphasis on having cops, metal detectors and drug0-sniffing dogs in school rather than allowing measures that promote good discipline, order in the classroom and real punishment or expulsion for the worst troublemakers.
Repetitive studies have shown a distinct relationship between an appreciable rise in violence and a comparable decrease in reading and communication skills, yet leftist policy wonks and congressional and presidential candidates continue to scratch their heads trying to figure out "why there is so much violence in our schools."
In virtually all of these examples, "mainstream" presidential candidates and federal (and state) congressional office seekers on the right and left only advocate more of the same-one-size-fits-all federal education "standards" and mandates that have proven too expensive and ineffective to take seriously anymore. It's almost as if latter 20th century American political candidates are on autopilot when it comes to espousing their ideas on education.
But the "old standards," held in such contempt by today's leftist politico-education elite, are exactly what used to work-and work well-in this country. Classes that teach phonics rather than "whole word recognition," instruction in the fine literary classics instead of videos about condom use and pornography, and classes that require students to practice the written word and learn higher math and science skills are now in short supply-and it shows. Under the leftist agenda, kids are taught to be haughtily, self-centered, self-appreciative, and stupid because it's easier, less of a challenge, and more palatable to a kid to slither through school on easy street. And it makes these slouches appreciate those who gave them the free ride to begin with-the leftists who require nothing from them but a vote.
What the leftists don't tell these kids-and what few presidential candidates seem to mention-is that the "easy street" educational agenda, which gives them computers without teaching them how to effectively communicate, is a sure path to a ruinous, non-productive, subservient life as an adult.
As a practitioner of the written word, naturally my preferences in improving education lie in more hands-on instruction of communication skills. Children need to understand that if they cannot read, write and comprehend the written word, nothing else will come easy to them-not math, not science, not sports, not work.
All of these issues are what is really important to "ordinary" Americans, yet the current crop of leaders and would-be leaders don't see it. Instead, they think-arrogantly-that their money (which is really our money) will solve all of these problems, if they just get us to let them spend a little more on "education." It's a lie.
Education is not about bigger and better computers, enlarging administrative staff, simply building new classrooms, or your child's ability "to feel good about himself or herself." It's not about teaching kids how to have safersex outside of wedlock, or about allowing a child to express himself in any manner he chooses because "he has that right." It's not about lip-synching popular big money "pro-education" initiatives while permitting juvenile delinquents and gang members to terrorize schools, turn them into drug centers, and disrupt the often good efforts of real educators and their pupils.
And it's not about the federal government-535 members of Congress, plus a handful of executive branch and bureaucratic personnel-telling a couple hundred million Americans what their idea of better education is (more money). What works in Butte, Mt., may not work in New York City or Sacramento, California, or Russellville, Mo.
Leaders should abandon the mantra that better education is achieved only when more money is spent on it. It is laughable at this stage to even consider such a stupid and simplistic concept.
Emphasis should be placed on educational standards set at the local level by involved teachers, parents and school administrators. It should be about teaching our kids how to perform basic reading, language, writing and arithmetic skills before they can be introduced to the advanced aspects of these subjects.
In short, American education should be about teaching skills-not "showing" kids skills or "entertaining" them with irrelevant pap. It should be about their learning what they need to know to become functional adults because the very future of an industrialized nation depends on such bedrock principles of a good education.
Would-be presidents ought to endorse educational standards that our ancestors were taught-which, by the way, are what made the United States the great power she is today. It's not about stumping for more money to-do whatever. And it's not about "using the power and influence of the federal government" to force a leftist political agenda on generations of kids who will not be equipped to support, defend and protect this nation in the future against better educated and motivated enemies of the State. To do any less is to cheat the very students these leftists purport to be helping.
If the issue were education, I'd personally like to hear the presidential candidates talk more about how they're going to extract the federal government from this failed experiment of dumbing down our kids,not about new and creative ways to use failed "federal education programs and initiatives." They just don't work-that's obvious.
This article was written by Jon E. Dougherty who is a staff writer for WorldNetDaily. WND also published the article Friday October 8, 1999 and holds the copyright.