It seems to me there is a moral question to all of this as well, which Dr. Keyes, and perhaps many here don't care to recognize, and it is this:
If you recognize that there will be a public school system for, let's say, at least another 10 years. Can we all agree that that is a 99% liklihood? Then, the moral question becomes what to do about the kids who are going to those schools? It is no exaggeration to say that the rest of their lives will be greatly influenced by the quality of education they receive in K-12.
So, do we leave them for dead? Do we say, in effect, my way or the highway to the Democrats, and to the millions and millions of Americans who support public schools, and who support Federal involvement? If we do that, what happens to the kids who have to go to those schools? Whether or not you like the idea, I believe a case can be made that there is a moral imperative for making the education system that the kids will be using as good as possible. Long term? Go ahead and work to change the paradigm. But short term, there are kids with their fannies in the chairs who need an education. Who will advocate for them?
In that regard, we have two separate debates. One short term debate is how do we make the current system better. Dr. Keyes chooses to opt out of that discussion, arguing pessimistically that improvement is impossible. Then there is the long term debate of how to move the country to a new attitude about how education is delivered. Dr. Keyes chooses to hector his friends, rather than attempt to sway people who disagree, or are uninformed. In my opinion, it is a fine waste of his skills as an orator ( one who talks for a living).
Getting back to the short term debate, I believe the President is on the right track when he says that the system should serve the kids, not the institutions. This was what we called "person-centered services" in social services. It means programs should be individualized, should include choice, and should measure results. The President wants greater accountability. Who can disagree with that?
Will this plan improve education? I hope so. Is there a better way? Probably? Is it feasible in the next 10 years? No. It isn't. So what do we do? Offer nothing to make the current system better? Or choose our battles, and make a moral choice to provide the best possible service to our youngsters?
This plan has nothing to do with education. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. Every time the feds increase their involvment in areas like medicine, retirement, and now education, the problems get worse, not better. Yes there is a better way, which the republicans once touted. It was called eliminating the Dept of Education.
I will guarantee you one thing though. By every measure, the federal education bureaucrats will "prove" that with their involvement, education will improve according to their standards. They will demonstrate test score improvement across the board when it suits them, by fudging the test scores, or dumbing down the questions, or whatever it takes.
Bad scores will come out only when the feds want to force a school district to bend to the will of the feducrats. Get ready for mandatory federal "diversity" modules, federal "Constitution" modules teaching what feducrats Bill of Rights and Second Amendment means (Yes, Virginia, the Second Amendment is about duck hunting.), etc.
This isn't a federal education bill. Rather, this bill should be known for what it is.
The Republican Nationalization of Education and Indoctrination Act of 2001
I think this a bit unfair to Dr. Keyes. He has spoken and written much on this issue, and you are responding to just one column.
Here is a link to an old piece of Keyes on the issue.
Cheers
Richard F.