Stephen Dyer is a former legislator in Ohio who now works for a public policy organization called Innovation Ohio. In my book, I drew on some of his research.
In this post, he situates my work in a longstanding American tradition. I especially liked these lines:
“As I read the book, I couldn’t help but think of what Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in 1835 — that America’s commitment to education for all its citizens, not just landed gentry, was “the originality of American civilization.” The Land Ordinance of 1785, authored by Thomas Jefferson himself, set aside the heart of every community for “public” education — a true revolution coming from our founders who were mostly well-to-do landowners.
“The thought that every child in our country deserves the same opportunities as the most fortunate among us is a uniquely American gift to the world — our great legacy. Ravitch’s passion is rooted in this understanding. It is what gives her purpose so much strength. And it is what gives her latest work undeniable potency.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I think these lookbacks at the history of public ed in US can help morale in weathering this storm. It’s what I’m going to try, anyway. Yesterday at our school leadership team meeting one teacher expressed that there is low morale among the staff. I later told her I think she is feeling more the pulse of things at a national level, and I gave her a copy of Reign (also bought a copy for my principal).
Somehow those of us fighting, in our ways, for public education as a place where every child is welcome and where their needs are met in good faith effort need a framework for positive outlook in the midst of this struggle to maintain the integrity of our public schools.
LikeLike
Mr. Dyer brings up a point that I’ve often had to drive home to people who don’t like the idea of public education, especially on the right. They seem to think that because the Constitution doesn’t mention education specifically that the Federal government should have nothing to do with it. But pointing out that the Land Ordinance of 1785, written by Jefferson himself (a great hero to many of these same people), was also the first Federal public education legislation (and from our previous Federal government, no less) tends to give them pause. It may not make them entirely rethink their position but it does get rid of the concept that all Federal action on education is wrong and unconstitutional.
In our current situation, we all might be tempted to sympathize with the “keep your government hands off our public schools” attitude, given the corrosive effects of Federal action under the last two administrations. But it’s good to remember that the ultimate importance of our national commitment to public education has been greatly advanced over the years by many Federal actions. We just need to get back to productive Federal policies that actually serve those ends of opportunity and equity, rather than ends that Jefferson himself would have been shocked and saddened to see promoted by any government at any level.
LikeLike
good point.
I like that. And it offers the possibilty of contrast, in an historical sense, to what the last two administrations have offered.
Like instead of A, we can try to be more like B. Or something like that. Public education is such an overwhelming topic on a national level, so yes. . .we need positive examples of Fed govt. being involved. That said, any examples of positive involvement at that level would really need to be post Carter, because before that there was not a DOE as we know it today. So that difference will be important to remember when looking for positive examples from the past.
LikeLike
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t the Ordinance of 1785 merely reserve section 16 of each surveyed township for sale by the state town to support public education, and thus implies nothing at all about federal education policy? Support is one thing, and is still based on state and local taxes, but the Constitution does reserve to the States ALL educational policy decisions, specifically excluding the Federal government from any supervisory and curricular role in education. To imply that Jefferson supported a federal role in education because he supported local funding of it seems just barely this side of ingenuous to me.
That the last two administrations have used federal money as bribes to the states to try to SET education policy implies to me that neither party can be trusted to observe the spirit of the Constitutional prohibition against creating a national curriculum (as, for instance, France has). State and local public monies going to education is one thing. A federal role in perpetuating public education is another. Look to Tea Party policies on education for the right approach.
Thus I must reject your call for “productive Federal policies that actually serve those ends of opportunity and equity” still on the grounds that the Federal government has no legitimate interest in education policy at all. Your position is, thus, fundamentally statist, and to try to claim Jefferson’s support of such a policy is contrary to everything we know about Jeffersonian individualism.
The conservative, therefore, calls for the abolition of the Federal Department of Education. In my view there can be no Federal policy on education that is “productive.” I see “productive” as a very high abstraction really meaning “national, progressive (socialist), education policy.” That, of course, all conservatives reject, and really, I think, all Americans should reject. To rephrase a famous dictum in a slightly hyperbolic and sardonic way: “Money corrupts and Federal money corrupts absolutely.”
LikeLike
“The conservative, therefore, calls for the abolition of the Federal Department of Education.”
Nice. Hopefully some day I can say, I heard it here first.
LikeLike
You haven’t been paying attention, then. That goes back to Reagan.
LikeLike
You seem to have misread both the Land Ordinance and my own comment, Harlan. I’ll try to clarify both points.
In the Land Ordinance of 1785, the critical passage is a bit longer than and more directly connected to Federal control than your comment implies. Here is the critical paragraph:
So what we actually have here is not simply a provision for Federal funding, though this certainly qualifies as that. The land in question did not (at the time of the Ordinance) belong to any state, but to the newly-created public domain and thus the Federal government. You’ll notice that the entire passage refers to land being retained by the Federal government and this applies just as much to lot 16 as it does to the other four lots mentioned; the only difference being that the purpose to which lot 16 is to be put is specifically spelled out. This land was not to be sold (the key word that should clue you in to this point is “maintenance”, which was only used for an ongoing revenue source) and was specified for this purpose, along with the proceeds (and here sale is, in contrast, specifically mentioned) of the four types of mines that might be found within the township.
This alone makes your point very shaky. What this passage amounts to is a clear Federal mandate on the funding of public schools. The township is provided with both potential funds (from the mine sales) and granted a lot of Federal land that must be used for school support. That is hardly autonomy or local control when it comes to the purse-strings, since this doesn’t depend on taxes, but on leasing the land and using the lease payments themselves as the source of funding; indeed, it makes it less likely that these townships would need to raise local taxes to support a school. It is Federal policy being managed in order to promote the very idea of public schools at a time when such institutions were still relatively rare and even unknown in many states. The Federal government was specifically seeking to promote the very concept of public education in the Ordinance, something we should hardly be surprised at from Jefferson with his advocacy of an educated populace of small landholders. So much for this not being education policy.
As far as the idea that the Constitution bars the Federal government from pursuing education or even curriculum policy, you’re dead wrong. The Constitution has no such specific restriction on the power of the Federal government. No doubt you’re using a rather strained interpretation of the 10th Amendment to try and argue that it does, but that will fly no more than it does for most Federal policy actions that are not specifically laid out in the Constitution but have been ruled constitutional by numerous Supreme Court decisions. What you are trying to refer to is a prohibition contained in the Department of Education Authorization Act of 1979 that converted the Department from it’s old status (where it had been a department, then bureau, then office under other departments) into a Cabinet-level department of its own. The origin of the DoE actually goes all the way back to 1867 and one of its original purposes was to promote the improvement of schools and teaching, going so far as to note the direct connection between the Federal effort and the people of the United States, but with no mention of the states. So the DoE does in fact have a long history of promoting policy, one that was restricted to its current form only in 1979.
I can only suppose that you missed by own dislike for the policies of the last two administrations, so I’ll make it clear: they have been misguided and harmful, regardless of their intent. But the use of Federal funds, dangled in front of states and localities, to promote policy of many kinds is hardly new or reserved only to education and it too has been ruled constitutional time and time again. So while I may not like the policies, the method that they have been promoted by is perfectly within both the Constitution and current law.
As for the rest of your post, it’s utter right-wing nonsense. Jefferson specifically authored legislation that has as one of its clear purposes the promotion of an educational policy: the establishment of public schools and dedicated funding for them provided from Federal resources. The very method he uses is the dangling of Federal money and ongoing revenue in front of each township created by the Land Ordinance, money and revenue that can be used for no other purpose. Thus he was using the same methods that you find so dangerous and unconstitutional when used by the current administration. Nor is the idea of progressive policy in any way “socialist”. I suspect that you do not actually know the meaning of the word, given how you use it, but that hardly surprises me when it comes to anyone from the right.
One final point: if your dictum is too be believed, then what of the vast sums of private money being used to promote and change public education? Money that does not come from local communities and is immune to any control or oversight by them or any other set of citizens at any level? Money that is used by a wealthy few to get their way outside of any process of democratic government at any level? Is that not also corruption and corrupting of our local communities by the use of money? You need to pull your head out of the ideological blinders you’ve shoved it into and discover that what you’ve been fed on this (and no doubt on a host of other constitutional issues) is not in tune with any reasonable reading of either the Constitution or history.
LikeLike
Leaving aside your contempt for those of us on the right, thank you for this extensive reanalysis of the constitutional issues surrounding Federal involvement in education funding and policy. It does give me pause. I still think the abuses of current federal education policy implemented through the state public education systems may require extirpation of the Federal DOE, and perhaps the public systems as well. Some are doing well; others are apparently hopeless. Any organization that accepts the statistical impossibility of NCLB doesn’t deserve to survive. When the shepherd is driving the sheep and their lambs off the cliff, they need a new shepherd.
Which word do you suspect I don’t know the meaning of, progressivism or socialism? Probably the latter.
I’m not sure I fully take your point about private money. Are you saying it is illegally, or immorally being used?
LikeLike
But Harlan, don’t you think Reagan just said that to sound good? Like prayer in school? (talking about getting rid of Fed. Dept of Ed).
LikeLike
You mean the President who said “NO” to Gorbachev? He meant it and I mean it. After all, he was/is a Republican, not a Democrat.
LikeLike
Good point. What is the basic free education that every American child should be given to enable them to be a citizen and succeed in life? That is the gold standard.
What the best way to get there and how much it costs comes next. Public, free market, vouchers, education plus, might all be fine, if the basic education for all is properly funded by the states.
LikeLike
Every state constitution that I have seen–and I have not seen them all–guarantees all children a free public education, or a thorough and efficient public education, or something along those lines.
LikeLike
Exactly so. But the guarantee is not a Federal guarantee, and should not be.
LikeLike
then why did the Feds get involved in integration of the schools? Or was that part of de-segregation and the schools just hosted it, but really it had nothing to do with education. Do you think, Harlan (just curious, not attacking you or being flippant) that they should not have gotten involved in integrating schools?
LikeLike
That WAS a civil rights issue, not a Federal education issue. It is controlled by the amendment that requires equal protection. Same as voting rights. The Southern Democrats delayed for a century the consequences of the Civil War. In the north educational non-segregation had been in place for decades in schools. There was defacto segregation based on real estate, but no separate but equal.
LikeLike