Education needs federal control

The Republican primary elections are rife with debate on the role of the U.S. federal government in ruling the nation. Arguments about whether the government should provide services to citizens, extend legal protections across state lines or keep decisions in the hands of state and local governments are all popular topics. I have found that people are often at polar opposite ends of the spectrum when dealing with these issues.

For one thing, the Republicans want to get rid of the Department of Education. Their argument is the department meddles in our education system and worsens American schools, due to the inherent inefficiency of the federal model. Indeed, opponents of federal interference in state decision-making say that the local school boards and states should decide everything concerning education policy.

These people need to think about Anoka, Minn. — part of former Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann's congressional district — home to a school district where the suicide rate among high-schoolers is much higher than average, with nine students' lives taken in two years. Civil rights groups attribute this statistic to a school board policy known as "No Homo Promo," which banned teaching about homosexuality as a potentially healthy lifestyle. Do Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum know or care about cases like Wisconsin Catholic school student Miranda Washinawatok, who was suspended from a basketball game for saying "I love you" in her Native American Menominee language?

Based on atrocities like these and the historical issues with state rights and education, I cannot support eliminating the Department of Education. I cannot fathom the damage that removing the oversight the federal government would have over education. Considering the fact that the Anoka-Hennepin school district can enact those policies, even with the Department of Education in place, signifies the federal government should have even more power in the creation of in-state education policy, not less.

Homogeneous and conservative schools and districts can have very weak and damaging policies toward racial and sexual minorities. Although Washinawatok received an apology from the school board after her mother filed a lawsuit, the actions of the school are inexcusable. This is, of course, not a universal trait of the American school system, but the fact that these incidents can go on without repercussions is disturbing. These issues are not derived from the federal government meddling in American education — they're derived from the federal government's inability to become involved.

Let's look at the track record for state governments and education policies in the past century. Segregation of public schools, "No Homo Promo," allowing the teaching of creationism in schools, etc. are all terrible, but very real. The federal government had to end state policies that enforced "Separate but Equal," and will have to be the one to end "No Homo Promo" and other oppressive policies.

Leaving these decisions in the hands of local and state governments means nothing will ever be fixed, or it will be superficially fixed without addressing the source of the issues. This is not to say that state and local governments are all terrible at protecting minorities and the disadvantaged — many are quite good. There are, however, enough that aren't to warrant federal control. As long as the bad ones exist, there needs to be a great deal of federal oversight, lest these issues crop up elsewhere. There are many problems with federal education policy — standardized testing and No Child Left Behind are at the top of the list. This does not make the system run by state and local education system superior, though. It allows states with poor records dealing with sexual and racial minorities to make their policies worse, and can make the education experience for many disadvantaged young people a miserable hell.

Tom Bradtke is a senior history major. He can be reached at bradtke@umdbk.com.