Nationally Controlled Schools: Do We Need Saving?

In 2010, Davis Guggenheim released a controversial documentary about the current crises engulfing public education (Waiting for Superman). The documentary cites many sources of problems impacting the education of America’s children; the main question presented, however, is how a system of education can function effectively and efficiently when so many different governing bodies have dominating influences on such a system; today’s American public schools have to abide by complicated mandates from local, state, and national levels, and educators are overwhelmed with how often new initiatives are implemented that will “save” the system. Though more and more initiatives are employed from each level, few ever get taken out of the equation. Thus, the focus of education becomes appeasing the system of mandates, not the individual learner.

 Moving from a state governed system to a nationally based system of education in the United States would alleviate some educator and student stress because stakeholders would have just one set of standards to meet; schools could narrow their focuses on what the United States collectively value as important information and skills for America’s students, and teachers could spend more time identifying student needs and differentiating instruction. Although a nationally-based educational system would include standardized tests, the general public would finally understand the system and know who to hold accountable for the learning of students in the United States. While some argue that one set of national standards could not possibly “fit” every student in the American public education system, this view fails to realize that with only one set of standards and expectations to follow, educators would have more time, resources, and energy to strengthen their relationships with students and communities, and differentiate instruction to best fit learner needs.  What's worth more to us: clarity, or autonomy?