I wrote a post for the George W. Bush Institute’s blog to build on the debate I had last week with Checker Finn in the Wall Street Journal about national standards. Here is a taste of the blog post:
Last week Checker Finn and I debated the merits of national standards in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. Checker argued for requiring that all students meet the same, national standards, while I argued against. I oppose national standards because I don’t think all students should learn the same things in the same way, because I don’t trust a national authority to correctly identify what students should learn, and because I am convinced that progress in education, like in our economy, comes from choice and competition rather than from central planning.
But many good and smart people are nevertheless attracted to national standards. Why? I think the problem is a mixture of hubris, impatience, and naiveté….
As tempting as it is for people of good will who see the problems of our education system and think they know better ways of doing things, it is important to resist the impulse to impose a national solution. You may not know the better way for everyone; you need to work with parents and localities to gradually experiment with reforms; and you shouldn’t imagine that you will be the one in charge of the national solution. Avoid the dangers of hubris, impatience, and naiveté while pressing forward with the gradual experimentation of choice and competition.
Jay P. Greene's Blog 