To see ahead, look back

If the history of education policy in America tells us anything, it’s that we need to learn from our past.

This month, I’m stepping back from the day-to-day hurly-burly of education policy in Washington to talk with Christopher Cross, a leading thinker in education policy for three decades. Cross’s newest book, Political Education: Setting the Course for State and Federal Policy (Teacher’s College Press, 2014), reflects on the nation’s triumphs and shortcomings in public education and looks ahead to a new and better course for state and federal education policy.

Kappan: Your new book, Political Education, describes itself as a primer on education policy making. Do you think most Americans understand just how “political” public education really is in this country?

Cross: The average citizen now believes that politics means extreme partisanship. That need not be the case. Politics must be the art of compromise, the ability to work together to craft solutions. Every issue has several sides, several ways in which a solution might be approached. The art of politics — and it is an art — is to find solutions to issues, solutions that work and solutions that will be supported. My book puts into context for the reader the forces and people who framed, shaped, and enacted education policy at the federal level. It is important to know what lies behind the policies that have been enacted so we can understand why various policies were enacted or failed enactment.

Kappan: Sometimes it seems like “the more things change, the more they stay the same” is especially true for the nation’s public education system.

States must step up and accept responsibility for taking tough steps and not just always blame actions on the feds.

Cross: I despair of our collective inability to build upon what we have learned and to put into place systems that translate that knowledge into persistent action. One of the clearest examples of that is the issue of the summer learning loss issue for low-income students, which magically we have rediscovered again. We lost at least two decades of children who would have benefited from the adoption of sustainable strategies and programs. Also, we have once again learned that teachers need mastery of the subjects they teach. We complain that few elementary teachers are comfortable teaching math. There are solutions, such as having math specialists teaching that subject in grades 1-8, and yet we have done almost nothing to implement that or any other solution.

Kappan: What are the most profound and impactful changes in American education in the past decade?

Cross: We have seen a profound shift of power from the legislative to the executive branch. This happened as a result of the Obama Administration, in an effort to prop up the economy (then in a major recession), releasing almost $800 billion into various sectors, education being one of the most prominent. The speed with which this was done meant that executive agencies were given great latitude in creating policies normally subject to the political process of creating authorizing legislation.

Kappan: What is the biggest lesson to be learned from the history of education policy?

Cross: There must be a true partnership between the federal government and states. States must step up and accept responsibility for taking tough steps and not just always blame actions on the feds. That also means that states must build state capacity in very significant ways. Conversely, the feds must accept the fact that actions on all sides must be preceded by dialogue and consultation. Improving outcomes for our children and for generations to come involves everyone. The feds are great on the research and data side, not so great on dissemination. Make investments there, and find ways that ease implementation. Also, schools, districts, and states need to stop saying that they cannot learn from the experience of others because “they are not like us.” Such excuses simply are no longer acceptable. No two people are alike, yet we all learn from others. Why can’t schools do the same?

Kappan: Why is it so hard for Americans to find the right balance between the federal and the state/local roles in education? Is it just the nature of federalism? Would the U.S. be better off with a more nationalized system of education?

Cross: This is perhaps the most significant obstacle to moving forward. I am just returning from several weeks in Australia, where, as in the U.S., education is a state responsibility. There are state chiefs (called ministers) as well as a federal minister. Like the U.S., there are also great concerns about the quality of education.

A major difference, however, is a council of ministers that includes state and federal leaders. All parties have to reach consensus to move policies forward. If we had that governing structure in the U.S., we might be in a far different place today as we consider academic standards, assessments, and accountability. Decisions would be ones that both the states and the federal government had agreed upon and accepted. And that would end the finger-pointing that we now experience.

Kappan: Does the current gridlock in Congress worry you? Do you see a light at the end of the dark tunnel we find ourselves in now?

Cross: The gridlock is of major concern. We see it every day in so many ways. We are just treading water, confusing educators, parents, and the public. We are robbing students of opportunities to achieve by shifting the focus from teaching and learning to complying and reporting. Valuable resources are spent on compliance rather than direct services.

Kappan: It has been said in recent years that there are no real champions for education in Congress anymore. Do you agree?

Cross: There are many Congressional leaders in both parties who are knowledgeable and deeply committed to education. They simply define the issues differently and thus see different approaches and solutions. We are an incredibly diverse nation and that means almost by definition that there will be disagreements. In Australia the level of civil discourse in their Parliament was stunning. It made debates in Washington seem tame by comparison. Despite that, they find ways to reach consensus and to move forward. There are always winners and losers, but it seems like the type of paralysis that we have seen is relatively rare in the education field in Australia. Yes, it is a much smaller nation in terms of population, but it is huge in land mass and very diverse. Somehow, the balance of power between the states and the national government has been more functional and effective.

Kappan: Your book provides a lot of historical context, but only one chapter about what lies ahead. Are you reminding policy makers that historical context matters?

Cross: The part about what lies ahead was in part the victim of space constraints, but it was also a way of helping the reader think about what they can learn from the people and events that shaped the past. As I watched those Australians debate, one of the leaders rose to say to his colleagues that it was important that they learn from history. I wanted to stand and cheer!

Kappan: Fast forward to January 2017. Where do we stand in terms of federal and state education policy? And the bonus question: Who is the new secretary of education?

Cross: I believe we will see a major reset in the balance between states and the federal government in 2017. I hope that it will grow out of a conversation about our commitment to education as a nation and the roles and capacities at the state and local level to support that new vision. The book tries to remind people that virtually every major federal education initiative was driven by factors other than education. Those factors ranged from national defense to civil rights to poverty to national competitiveness. I argue that we need to step back and find ways to create a national conversation about how we prioritize education and our vision for the children. I would like to see our nation talk about how we achieve those goals in ways that utilize the talents and the resources of all of the stakeholders. We must also break down the walls that exist between various programs and find ways that all community resources, no matter whose control they fall under, can be mobilized on behalf of children. Regarding the future secretary of education, my crystal ball is far too hazy to bring me a clear picture. But I do believe that it is quite likely to be a governor or ex-governor, or perhaps a mayor. Whoever it is, that person must have a track record of support for and commitment to public education.

CITATION: Ferguson, M. (2015). WASHINGTON VIEW: To see ahead, look back. Phi Delta Kappan, 96 (6), 74-75.