National Education Standards--The Wrong Direction

I read an article this week in the NYT which expressed much relief at president Obama's call for national educational standards. Not to confuse the two, national standards differ from a national teaching curriculum where federal bureaus in DC decide which textbooks to use in classes. The proposed national standard has been vigorously researched to provide an overarching set of well-intentioned standards with the goal of preparing students for college and life thereafter. This picture may comfort people, but I it confuses me.

Before I get to the public school system, the core problem of a national standard is that it's a standard, a regulation. The arguable belief that the federal government fails at enforcing its own regulations and well-intentioned programs is a separate argument. I'm confused about how national standards on a macro level will motivate teachers to perform better on a micro level? How will standards motivate teachers to rethink their old habits and stale teaching methods? How will it encourage teachers to build better relationships with their students?

Albeit there are many dedicated, innovative and thoughtful teachers in public schools across the nation...but there could easily be far more. Especially in poorer cities and states. We as a nation should be able to assemble the resources needed to teach the future of our country. This WSJ article argues the charter system, which Obama has supported but sporadically now, will most likely help poor students by providing education with more quality and at a lower cost than traditional public schools. But how? Why?

The answer is simple: competition. Sure competition and the concept of creative destruction (also mentioned in the WSJ article) is harsh...it's not easy losing your job. But sometimes we need to fire bad teachers. And we should be worried about the powerful influence of teacher unions in both state and federal politics.

Now let's look inside the public, i.e. government controlled, education market (FYI Department of Education budget was $60 billion in 2009). How many students attend public vs. private schools? 81% of students attend public schools, 10% attend private, 4.0% attend Catholic and 2.3% attend charter schools (plus 2.5% homeschooled) according to the Education Digest's data.

With a presence of 80% in the education market, the public school system is a monopoly monopolies serve their own interests before their client's and customer's interests. Isn't this so true in the education market with respect to how much influence their unions have? How else can you explain tenure? And why is it so hard to fire bad teachers? (great Newsweek article)

Strong and stubborn teacher unions play a big part in the education debacle, but they aren't the whole story. Look at teacher efficiency. The same data from the Education Digest report shows 82.1% of all teachers teach in public schools and there is 1 teacher per 15.5 students. More data below:

• Private schools have 12.9% of teachers, or 1 teacher per 12.2 students--understandable because private schools cost a pretty penny and are built on a model of quality over quantity.
• Catholic schools have 3.9% of the teachers, or 1 per 16--understandable because the Catholic church provides much charitable education work in poor neighborhoods...Kaitlyn works at St. Patricks in a low-income neighborhood in Sacramento
  
• Charter schools have 1.1% of the teachers but teach 2.3% of the market, or 1 per 33.4. According to the studies in the WSJ article, charter students do much better compared to their public school counterparts! Not to mention their reputations are well-respected in poor communities. And charter teachers aren't unionized...I know it's shocking for unionized teachers to actually have to worry that their sub par work can get them fired
  

Competition is key, because demanders will always look for the best services for their dollar. There is much data pointing towards the benefits of more choices and freedom in the education system, but the real question is: how long can we afford to let the current system operate when it's the kids who are suffering? Cliche I will admit, but still it's for the kids.

I would campaign for more competition in the education system rather than legislating national school standards. Perhaps well intended, let's take a more rational approach first.