| 摘要 | In January, education secretary Betsy DeVos spoke to an audience at the American Enterprise Institute during an event about the “Bush-Obama” era of education. In her critique of the previous 16 years of federal over-activity on schools, the secretary made a striking pitch, offering the outlines of a philosophical framework for future K–12 policymaking.
In some ways, it was standard fare (though with some verbal flair) for a conservative education reformer. In others, it was starkly un-conservative in its advocacy for upending some of the traditional features of public-education delivery.
DeVos is the first Republican education secretary since 1993 not duty-bound (because of service in the George W. Bush administration) to defend the aggressive No Child Left Behind Act. So, her remarks can be interpreted as not just a simple statement of the secretary’s or the administration’s position, but also an attempt to define the national GOP’s emerging take on schooling.
The question is whether Republicans can, or should, be convinced to adopt as party orthodoxy this emerging DeVos Doctrine of locally led educational revolutions.
The Conventional Conservative Approach Half of DeVos’s speech was built around the familiar conservative reformer’s template: Education results are disappointing, and grand interventions by Uncle Sam aren’t the answer. The secretary pointed to America’s underwhelming performance on a key international exam and our lack of adequate progress on the nation’s key reading test. Big federal initiatives from the last 15 years, DeVos argued, haven’t delivered. “Why,” she asked, “after all the good intentions, the worthwhile goals, the wealth of expertise mustered, and the billions and billions of dollars spent, are students still unprepared?”
Her answer was that centralization and technocracy will inevitably fail when it comes to schools. The Bush and the Obama “approaches had the same Washington ‘experts’ telling educators how to behave.” They operated under the same “false premise: that Washington knows what’s best for educators, parents, and students.” She added that “when it comes to education — and any other issue in public life — those closest to the problem are always better able to solve it.” “The lessons of history,” DeVos concluded, “should force us to admit that federal action has its limits.”
The beginning of the secretary’s solution was also de rigueur for the right: decentralized authority and parental choice. States should repossess power from the federal government and then push it down to those closest to the action. DeVos believes that should include empowering families with the right to decide which schooling options best fit the needs of their boys and girls.
A Revolutionary Response At this point, however, the secretary’s speech departed sharply from customary conservative thinking. Typically, when conservatives advocate for federalism, subsidiarity, and other means of limiting centralized authority, we do so because we trust longstanding, local institutions more than the federal government. We believe that traditional approaches to solving problems possess wisdom and serve as a bulwark against the grand plans of those currently in power. That’s why organic, evolutionary reform is typically superior to dramatic change. We trust experience over theory.
By contrast, DeVos believes the fundamental problem with reform is that past efforts didn’t go far enough. They were just “a new coat of paint on the same old wall.” Previous proposals amounted to a “constant battle to move the ball between the 40-yard lines of a football field”; “reform,” she said, “has not fundamentally changed ‘the system.’”
Though many on the right believe in relying on the lessons of our predecessors instead of starting from scratch, Devos calls for “a paradigm shift, a fundamental reorientation… a ‘rethink.’” That means “question[ing] everything to ensure nothing limits a student from pursuing his or her passion, and achieving his or her potential” (emphasis added).
In fairness, the traditional system of public education is rooted in an imperfect institution: the school district. It was designed as a geographic monopoly, and, as such, in some places it has been inefficient, susceptible to interest-group capture, and unable to meet the varied needs of families. But it is nevertheless a local, democratic institution with generations of experience. And, not incidentally, its core product — the neighborhood school — remains popular with American parents.
The secretary, however, would have us reconsider central features of this traditional model — from assigning students to schools based on where they live and grouping students in grades by age to starting school at the beginning of the day and having a summer break. Using “rights” talk more common on the Left, DeVos argued we should have “freedom from ‘the system.’” “Equal access to a quality education,” she affirmed, “should be a right for every American and every parent should have the right to choose how their child is educated.”
For those inclined toward preserving the institutions and practices handed down to us and guarding against the siren call of planned progress, DeVos had a response:
“I’m well aware that change — the unknown — can be scary, that talk of fundamentally rethinking our approach to education seems impossible, insurmountable. But not changing is scarier. Stagnation creates risks of its own. The reality is … we should be horrified of not changing” (emphases in the original).
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the DeVos Doctrine is how its two components — upheaval and decentralization — are paired: uncomfortably. Seldom do die-hard advocates of a specific, dramatic fix aim to push decision-making down to a vast variety of communities. That’s because — given differences of opinion, local conditions, and centers of power — decentralization is a recipe for the delay, revision, or outright obstruction of the Plan. Indeed, revolutionaries generally prefer to capture high levels of government so implementation can be uniform and swift.
But DeVos is insistent that Washington not lead this charge. “What I propose is not another top-down, federal government policy that promises to be a silver bullet.” She wants “freedom from Washington mandates.” The U.S. Department of Education should not be the nation’s school board, she made clear, and she should not be the national superintendent.
Resolution What are conservatives to make of the secretary’s bold proposal? Three observations are in order.
First, this awkward coupling of principles may be the conservative reformer’s permanent albatross. Seeing a big problem revs the engines, while understanding the limitations of bold state action applies the brakes. DeVos expresses incredulity that our classrooms look the same as they did decades ago while other fields have changed dramatically. Worse, to her eyes, our schools are preparing kids to work on the assembly lines of old. “Sit down; don’t talk; eyes front. Wait for the bell. Walk to the next class. Repeat.” She believes this outdated, inefficient system is begging for disruption. But she also believes responding with federal action would be like unfastening ourselves from the mast and steering toward the rocks. This dissonance is not resolved.
Second, the DeVos Doctrine puts the secretary in a difficult position. She has articulated a national challenge, but she is emphatic that the powerful agency she leads should back off. It would seem, then, the main arrow in her quiver is advocacy. We might expect her tenure to be marked by imploring state and local leaders to step up and federal leaders to stand down. Given DeVos’s history as a philanthropist, state-level political player, and opponent of federal activism, that role might fit her like a glove.
Third, the fundamental challenge of simultaneously advocating for decentralization and a particular agenda is that those empowered by decentralization may oppose your agenda. Indeed, as the New York Times has reported, the decentralizing Every Student Succeeds Act, roundly supported by the Washington GOP, is being implemented by state-level education leaders in ways that are frustrating GOP governors. Similarly, in lots of places, parents and local leaders may very well decide that they like neighborhood schools, the traditional classroom, the normal school day, and other elements of the system Secretary DeVos deems antiquated. In other speeches, statements, and interviews, she has supported the right of families to choose their traditional public schools. But what if those schools use factory-era approaches?
This tension could prove to be the most important obstacle standing between members of the GOP and support for the DeVos Doctrine. Few leaders on the Right would quibble with her assessment of Uncle Sam’s shortcomings or with her support for more family empowerment. But her full-throated critique of our standard system of public education may raise eyebrows. Much of red America — parents, taxpayers, and elected officials alike — trust their local superintendents, adore their districts’ teachers, are accustomed to the system’s routines, and appreciate their schools’ traditions. It is essential to recognize that these are examples of conservative principles: respect for local leadership, the care and prudence of practitioners, the stability of time-tested conventions, and the wisdom of custom.
Yes, there is friction between these conservative principles and those now frequently touted by the secretary — the elevation of voluntary, differentiated civic associations, consumer choice, innovation. But this is the conservative reformer’s cross to bear. Continuity and change can be difficult to reconcile. But she would be wise to leaven her public arguments with regular acknowledgements of the virtues of both sets of principles and with the concession that sometimes we must choose between them.
To that end, the secretary might consider shortening the concept of locally led educational revolution to just locally led. That would make room for parents and state and community leaders to determine for themselves the right blend of tradition and reform. With that emendation, many conservatives could probably get behind the DeVos Doctrine. |
