The Education Triangle
There is a kind of education triangle, a three-way love affair we have had with the competing values we place on excellence, equity, and community (which more often parades around in disguise as its ugly sibling, “local control”).
We love excellence, the argument goes, because we want each to be the best that she or he can be, equity because we cherish justice and equal opportunity, and community because we fear putting power into remote authorities, and loath lock-step conformity.
These values compete in the sense that favoring one tends to compromise the others. Local control introduces a small-mindedness that discourages excellence. It also undermines equity because locales vary so much in their willingness and capacity to deliver educational services. For the same reason, the quest for equity can’t allow local control to limit opportunity, and it must sacrifice excellence in order to focus attention on those who find it most difficult to learn. For its part, excellence compromises equity because encouraging the academically gifted to run faster only accelerates the educational treadmill that must leave many others behind. And of course, excellence also abhors local control, because excellence must escape all parochial limitations.
When it comes to policy and politics, these tradeoffs result in coalitions of the mind, “deals” we make with ourselves according to our own hierarchy of values. People intuitively decide which of these competing values they are willing to accept as their second choice in order to advance their first choice furthest at the expense of the choice they favor least. In fact, that which we favor least often becomes the enemy of that which we favor most. Whole ideologies are built around the six combinations that rank these three values according to this love-hate triangle.
First choice is what a person values most and will not sacrifice under any circumstance. Second choice is what is least competitive with, and most compatible with, the first choice. Third choice is what most undermines the first choice, what can be (and maybe should be) sacrificed to advance the first choice.
Among those who place equity as the highest value, liberals generally favor community as their second strong value, because they fear centralized power as the enemy of a liberal education, and they are willing to sacrifice excellence if necessary. Utilitarians also put equity first, in a way. But unlike liberals, utilitarians move excellence to a strong second place, as long as it is excellence in matters that kids need to know and be able to do for the economy. Utilitarians regard local control as the enemy of both equity and excellence because they don’t believe the sweaty unwashed are competent to run good schools. The utilitarians think education is the engine of the global economy, and they want every child to be an interchangeable part in that engine.
Conservatives cherish local control because they despise big government and laud excellence because they admire individualism, but don’t care a wit for equity because it requires government intervention and puts the group above the individual. Their alienated cousins, the populists, believe in local control because they distrust power, and promote equity because (like their other cousins, the liberals) the only time centralized power is worthy is when the government turns it to the favor of the common citizen. But excellence invariably means elitism and privilege, which offends them deeply.
Excellence is favored most by less progressive professionals, who might call themselves pragmatists but probably deserve the less admirable label “traditionalist.” They also seem to favor equity because it spreads the possibility of excellence for all (the Lake Woebegone effect, where everyone ends up above average after properly taught); they shrug off local control as a pleasant but unworkable dream in a mass society. If they dislike “local control,” it’s the “control” they dislike more than the “local.” This group is least political, opting for more reserved and gentle discourse. They are pragmatic in the sense that that is how they see themselves, but not in the sense that they have much influence.
Finally, the exotic libertarians love excellence first, accept local control as better than any more centralized level of control (unless you can get away with having no control), and regard equity as illogical at best, and intrusive at worst. Education should be optional, anyway.
Following is a politically incorrect statement of the political mindscape of these competing ideologies:
Liberal: “Everyone gets the same deal, and good schooling is the same for all, and the common denominator is whatever you can accomplish in the toughest places, and that requires community engagement. If the rich want something more, let them get it somewhere other than public schools. “Excellence” is just another way of saying “privilege.” We need a solid curriculum that provides an adequate education that prepares kids for college and work.”
Populist: “Communities know best what they need and will take care of their own without leaving anyone behind. Education should be a local venture and we don’t want the bosses and bureaucrats telling us how to do things. We don’t want to be told by experts how to run schools. Education is too important to be left to educators.”
Conservative: “In education, like everything else, you get what you deserve. The best students will take advantage of every opportunity, and shouldn’t be held back by the others. You can’t make everything equal. And state bureaucracies just ruin it for everyone when they try to regulate force everyone into a standardized mold. Let communities run schools as best they can afford. Individual initiative will take care of everything else.”
Libertarian: “Every man for himself (women, too) and only local government is needed, and the less of that, the better. No compulsory education, no state testing, no state standards, no forced revenue sharing, no, no, no. Local communities should be free to run whatever schools they want, and parents should be able to choose if and when and where their kids go to school.”
Traditionalist: “Education properly is the province of professional educators and excellence is what matters most, and to have it in the poorest places, the state has to fund it liberally. You have to get rid of bothersome amateur school boards, and all the local small minded politicians and tightwad anti-tax voters that go with them. Get out of our way and let us run the school right. We’ll teach to every child’s ability, customizing learning and making sure the slowest can function and the sharpest can excel.”
Utilitarian: “Education is the engine of the economy and we need every child to be prepared to oil that engine. Everyone must have equal access to a functional curriculum as excellent as society can afford without excessive taxes. All other priorities stand aside, including community control which is mostly irrelevant, but can be evil, too, especially where backward attitudes, poverty and incompetence prevail. The state should mandate equal opportunity to excellent schools, set high standards, hold educators accountable, and push aside local yokels and bigots who stand in the way.”
The Rural Trust often finds itself in the position of arguing alone that it is possible to honor all three of these important values, recognizing that each is worthy in its own right, and like all fundamental values, must be balanced against other competing fundamental values. If you want excellence, create equity for all, but don’t expect to get either unless you have everyone engaged and committed to the struggle, and that requires that everyone buys in at the level of meaningful control and that the wealth of society is shared. Schools run by the communities they serve, accountable to state standards and equitably and adequately funded in wealthy and poor communities alike, have the best chance of achieving excellence for all.