I've written several times now about Secretary Duncan's tumultuous relationship with federalism. My argument has been that he begins by saying that states and districts can get education right and that the feds should stop meddling, but then in instance after instance (RTT application, SIG documents, national standards, failing schools, Hawaii's furloughs, charter caps, etc) he contradicts himself by aggrandizing the federal role.
I have sympathy though because figuring out the right role for the federal government in education policy is no easy task. But I've been pointed and nagging because the Department needs to come up with a coherent position if it's to sell an NCLB reauthorization plan.
The secretary jumped into these waters again during his San Diego speech. I can't say it was a complete success, but important progress has been made.
First off, the underlying tension remains, and unfortunately it is as stark as ever. At one point, he explained that it is not the role of the federal government to ???direct or micromanage??? the work of states and districts. He recounted times during his tenure in Chicago when he had to battle the U.S. Department of Education when it went too far. But only paragraphs away he???the federal government's education leader???said, ???And today I am calling on state lawmakers to rethink and rewrite the hundreds of pages of state code.???
Obviously, these two views are acutely at odds. But later in the speech, he begins to adumbrate a vision of the federal government's role that may eventually resolve some of this dissonance and possibly even emerge as bedrock principles.
He said the feds has two roles. The first is helping under-served students (low-income, ELL, students with disabilities). Historically speaking, this is a completely sound interpretation given programs like Title I and laws like IDEA. Interestingly, however, he later takes an expansive view of what this means saying, ???Because the federal government has a special role in serving disadvantaged students, I am not going to stand by silently and perpetuate the status quo in chronically failing schools where low-income students fall further behind every year. The days when any of us???the federal government, states, and districts???can wink and nod at educational malfeasance are over.???
This is equivalent to the dominant interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Just as the federal government can regulate interstate commerce and just about anything that intersects with it, Secretary Duncan is saying that the federal government's interest in helping disadvantaged kids authorizes extensive federal activity.
If this is what he means, this is a fascinating approach and the best explication yet of his view. Of course, it will inevitably lead Secretary Duncan to do things that Chicago schools CEO Duncan found intrusive, but now we have a framework that can be discussed.
The second role, he said, is the fed's evaluation and identification of what works and the encouragement and promotion of innovation and progress. Historically, this is a much more problematic interpretation, for the U.S. Department of Education (with small exceptions) hasn't done much of this. In fact, he even noted in the speech, ???the department has traditionally been a compliance machine.??? So obviously he's envisioning a new definition.
He pointed to the i3 program and the Teacher Incentive Fund as examples of this broader strategy. ???I promise you that we are striving every day to transform our work. I want the department instead to become an engine of innovation that recognizes success and scales up best practices at the local level.???
He concluded his thoughts on these issues by repeating one of his favorite lines: that the federal government should be tight on goals and loose on means.
Pieced together, a slightly clearer picture starts to emerge. If I'm reading it right, it's something along the lines of ???The feds will embrace national standards and assessments; invest in new ideas and successful practices; and allow states and districts to control most decisions unless underserved kids are getting hurt.???
If this is a faithful rendering of the Secretary's view, the Department has a solid foundation on which to build. But huge questions remain: How far can the feds go with regard to disadvantaged students???How do you remain loose on means and still hold states accountable for billions of dollars? How does IDEA shift away from compliance? How does ED transition from a regulatory body to the NIH of education?
As I wrote above, developing a comprehensive, coherent philosophy on these matters is terribly hard, and we're watching ED go through the sausage-making phase. I give them credit.
Let's hope, when all's said and done, that we look back on this progress like the Beatles Anthology???which shows how impeccable final products typically evolve from messy drafts???and not like the making of Chinese Democracy???a long, agonizing wait that ultimately leaves you wishing for more.
-Andy Smarick