So close and yet so far, part II
Wednesday, July 23rd, 2008 By Mike MaurerSo the governor has finally begun his long-awaited approach to education reform.
The Buckeye Institute’s education policy director, Matt Carr, is a bit hopeful about the process: “Governor Strickland’s decision to focus on reforms before funding [is] somewhat reassuring.”
Ah, the hopefulness of youth.
Matt’s point is a valid one, indeed the same one the governor makes, ‘”You don’t say how much you’re going to pay for a house until you know what kind of house you’re going to build,” [the governor] told reporters afterward in response to questions about cost.’
This is true enough. But it’s also true enough, as Matt implicitly notes, that you don’t spend a lot of time designing a $2 million house when you can afford only a $350,000 house, and would be prudent to buy only a $200,000 house.
There are two highly troubling aspects of the approach, and certainly we can all hope the governor avoids one pitfall. (It’s too late to avoid the other.)
The first pitfall is that the governor is essentially saying the same thing the Bill Phillis, “Getting It Right for Ohio” folks were saying: We’ll tell you how much it costs, and your role is to pay the bill.
The governor has some street cred on budgeting, since he’s avoided tax increases and has a good record on spending increases. But it’s a coin flip whether keeping a tight budget was the result of a true political philosophy or a mere political strategy. It’s only wise for Democrats to show how they are good financial stewards, especially since the state and national Republicans showed they were such poor financial stewards for so long.
But when it comes to these forums, the things being discussed now are utterly uninteresting, because no one disagrees with them: “. . . tailored to meet individual student needs with greater opportunity for innovation . . . a more interdisciplinary approach, hands-on learning and small-group work . . . creating a more exciting learning environment . . . light a passion in children to get them excited about learning . . . ”
Along the same lines, I heard an Ohio Public Radio report this morning in which one of the participants called for integrating more arts into the general curriculum. Sounds like a great idea. I fully agree with it.
It reminds me of attending school board meetings as a reporter. One set of parents would get up and say, “Studies show that at K-4 configuration is the best for children’s development,” etc. The next set of parents would get up and swear that studies show K-6 is the way to go, or K-3, 4-6, 7, 8-12.
Guess what? They’re all good — for the right child, in the right circumstance. Only trouble is, you have to choose one of them, not all of them, and the only people who have any hope of getting that decision right is the parents. Worse news, even they are probably doing only two or three times as well as your average good baseball hitter. Which is to say, they’re not batting 1000.
What this implies is choice, and the governor has made his position on choice quite clear. He’ll kill it if he gets the chance. He’s the Henry Ford of the public sector. You can have any education you want, so long as it’s union-approved.
Education isn’t a public policy choice that a nice, smart, caring person, or government, can get right for you. It’s a lifetime of work, and you’ll never know if you’ve got it right. You’ll only know that you’re doing more or less than what you claim you want to do.
But for now we’re all playing Oprah:
CARING PROPONENT OF EDUCATION: “I think we should do this for the children.”
[Take modest bow. Don't step on the applause. Exit stage left.]
After the elections, the governor will work on telling us how much it costs.
