Why Obama is not making schools a priority

Nicholas Kristof:

President-elect Barack Obama and his aides are sending signals that education may be on the back burner at the beginning of the new administration. He ranked it fifth among his priorities, and if it is being downplayed, that’s a mistake.

We can’t meaningfully address poverty or grow the economy as long as urban schools are failing. Mr. Obama talks boldly about starting new high-tech green industries, but where will the workers come from unless students reliably learn science and math?

The United States is the only country in the industrialized world where children are less likely to graduate from high school than their parents were, according to a new study by the Education Trust, an advocacy group based in Washington.

The most effective anti-poverty program we could devise for the long run would have less to do with income redistribution than with ensuring that poor kids get a first-rate education, from preschool on. One recent study found that if American students did as well as those in several Asian countries in math and science, our economy would grow 20 percent faster.

So let’s break for a quiz: Quick, what’s the source of America’s greatness?

Is it a tradition of market-friendly capitalism? The diligence of its people? The cornucopia of natural resources? Great presidents?

No, a fair amount of evidence suggests that the crucial factor is our school system — which, for most of our history, was the best in the world but has foundered over the last few decades. The message for Mr. Obama is that improving schools must be on the front burner.

One of the most important books of the year is “The Race Between Education and Technology,” by two Harvard economists, Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz. They argue that the distinguishing feature of America for most of our history has been our global lead in education.

By the mid-1800s, most American states provided a free grade-school education to the vast majority of white children. In contrast, only 2 percent of British 14-year-olds were enrolled in school in 1870.

At the beginning of the 1900s, Americans embraced high schools, and by the 1930s, a majority of American children attended high school. In contrast, as late as 1957, only 9 percent of British 17-year-olds were enrolled in school.

Then the United States — with help from President Franklin Roosevelt — pushed for mass education at the college level, and by 1970, half of American students were attending a university, at least briefly. We were far ahead of the rest of the world.

Professors Goldin and Katz crunch the data and conclude that America’s edge in mass education was the crucial competitive advantage that allowed the United States to build wealth while reducing income inequality. For most of the 20th century, America prospered at the same time that the gap between the rich and poor diminished.

...

Kristof never really answers the question I posed so I will. Liberalism and unions are the problem. Unions have done for the schools what they did for the auto industry. They have made them uncompetitive and backward.

Liberals have imposed an educational criteria that is not working and they have no answer beyond more money. The Unions have made it virtually impossible to get rid of incompetent teachers.

There is an embedded resistance to acountability. You can see that with the attempts to avoid the modest requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. You can also see it with the Demncorats whining about it being underfunded. That is just nuts. It should not take additional funding to be accountable.

Comeptition would also improve performance. But the unions and their Democrat allies oppose that while they keep the children of the poor locked in terrible schools that they would not send their own kids to. Obama is just the latest example of that hypocrisy. If he were really committed to improving education in the Washington DC schools he wouled send his daughters there and make sure they got a auality education.