When it comes to education reform, there (still) seems to be a clear pecking order.
In the early 1800s Horace Mann, considered to be the “founder” of public schools in the U.S., faced a serious challenge to his vision of free and universal public education in Massachusetts. Mann, who was motivated by a view that education fundamentally transformed the human condition, had been trying to convince local leaders to share this vision:
But, four years after being appointed the first Secretary of Education in MA, “it became increasingly apparent that many of the towns in the Commonwealth simply were not interested in better schools” and Mann’s “appeals to their moral principles had little effect” (Vinovskis, 1970). Part of the problem was that – in Mann’s words – when it comes to education, “the effects are widely separated from the causes. They happen so long afterwards that the reason of the community loses sight of the connection between them.” (Mann and Fowle, 1839).
In other words, the communities then were controlled by people who failed to appreciate the long-term transformative powers of education. And understandably so – with growing class tensions fed by rapid industrialization and immigration, local leaders had more pressing near-term concerns (Reese, 2011). In any case, the failure to appreciate the long-term transformative potential of education had practical implications – despite early success establishing common schools, support for the Board of Education was far from guaranteed, and citizens remained unconvinced that the state should continue to spend money on education.
After four years of failing to appeal to people’s moral principles, Mann decided to appeal to their economic interests. In his fifth annual report of the Board of Education, covering the year 1841, Mann argued that education “is not only a moral renovator, and a multiplier of intellectual power, but…also the most prolific parent of material riches.” In the report, he went on to write that education “not only be included in the grand inventory of a nation’s resources, but to be placed at the very head of the inventory.” To support his rhetoric, Mann illustrated the economic benefit of education using stark differences in output between educated workers in the Commonwealth and their uneducated counterparts in Southern states.
The appeal of a passionate economic case for education backed by sound reasoning and data appears to have been as irresistible to the policymakers of 200 years ago as it is today. Thousands of copies of the report were printed across the country within months. And, within 2 years of publication, support for public schools and the Board of Education in the Commonwealth solidified. With public support behind education, Mann and others were able to turn their focus to improving schools – through “longer school terms, better attendance, school consolidation, the professional training of teachers, and a host of other improvements” – marking the start of a long tradition of education reform that has attempted to reconcile economic interests with competing interests such as the development of civic virtue and a more general focus on human development.
Fast forward to the 1980s – to a nation once again confronting social tensions fueled by inequality, immigration, technological change, and global competition. Like the early 1800s, education reform was not the most political pressing issue, and when education did draw attention, it was to the public expenditures on it. It was the desire to cut funding for education that led President Reagan to commission a comprehensive report on this topic. Ironically, instead of making a case for cutting funding the report (“A Nation at Risk”), published in 1984, turned out to be a catalyst for education reform that increased federal (and state) funding and involvement in education that continues today.
Figure source: https://ourworldindata.org/financing-education
Like Mann’s Fifth Annual Report more than 200 years ago, “A Nation at Risk” appears to have catapulted education to the top of legislators’ minds by making an economic case for reforming education using strong rhetoric (“the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people.”) backed by clear and compelling statistics (“Average achievement of high school students on most standardized tests is now lower than 26 years ago when Sputnik was launched.”) (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Indeed, both reports made compelling cases that the only way to remain competitive was by investing in education.
The parallels between the two reports do not end in the similarity of their content – like Mann’s report, “A Nation at Risk” is also attributed with launching an educational reform movement that has dramatically changed school funding, curriculum, and assessment, among other factors (Mehta, 2013).
In Massachusetts, the education reform movement that was unleashed in the 1980s culminated in the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993. Often viewed as a “grand bargain” trading increased state control over education for increased state funding, this broad law introduced (click for source):
- Expanded curricular framework standards, or “state common core standards”,
- Statewide achievement tests, or MCATs,
- Standardized teacher certification tests, or MTELs,
- Increased state funding to offset local funding disparities,
- Increased time in School, and
- School “report cards,” and state authority to take over “failing” schools.
Initially praised for improving student achievement and reducing disparities in funding, in recent years stagnating improvements in achievement, persistent achievement gaps, and a narrowing of the curriculum have led to growing calls for change (Larkin and Jung, 2018).
In response to calls for change, Governor Baker signed “The Student Opportunity Act” into law in 2019. Like the “grand bargain” of 1993, this law increases state funding for education (by $1.5 billion/year) in exchange for more state control over schooling. This time, districts are required to develop plans to close achievement gaps using “evidence-based” programs (e.g. expanded class time, professional development, and expanded pre-k).
While some educators and parents might applaud the renewed emphasis on reducing inequality, recent reforms have done little to transform the purpose of schools. The fact that the state has chosen to use employment and college data (rather than measures such as health, or participation in civic life) to measure the impact of education shows that, as in the 1800s, economics continues to drive the debate on education reform. While many educators might enter the profession believing in the transformative power of education like Mann did 200 years ago (its ability to enlighten), the reality is that increased public support for investing in education today, like in Mann’s time, depends on making an economic case based on “hard facts.”
References
Brennan, R., Kim, J., Wenz-Gross, M., & Siperstein, G. (2001). The relative equitability of high-stakes testing versus teacher-assigned grades: An analysis of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS). Harvard educational review, 71(2), 173-217.
Jaggia, S., Vachharajani, V., & McCarthy, J. M. (2004). Money for Nothing: The Failures of Education Reform in Massachusetts.
McDermott, K. A. (2006). Incentives, capacity, and implementation: Evidence from Massachusetts education reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 45-65.
Mann, H., & Fowle, W. B. (1839). Common school journal (Vol. 1). Marsh, Capen, Lyon, and Webb.
Mehta, J. (2013). How paradigms create politics: The transformation of American educational policy, 1980–2001. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 285-324.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. The Elementary School Journal, 84(2), 113-130.
Reese, W. J. (2011). America’s public schools: From the common school to” No Child Left Behind”. JHU Press.
Vinovskis, M. A. (1970). Horace Mann on the economic productivity of education. New England Quarterly, 550-571.)
www.wbur.org/edify/2018/06/18/education-reform-act-25-years-later