Viewpoints:
From the Statehouse to the Classroom:
Governing America's Schools
Is Politics in Education Here to Stay?
by Rhetta L. Detrich with Paul Kimmelman
Introduction
Anthony Alvarado, urban superintendent and longtime education leader, was quoted during his 12-year tenure as superintendent of New York's District 2 as saying the educational enterprise should have a sole focus--student learning. It is hard to argue with the concept. And yet for many in the educational enterprise, that sole focus is muddied. Alvarado states, "A typical educational system is so top-heavy with details that learning can suffocate under the tonnage" (Price, 1999). From Alvarado's perspective, those systemic details are very real obstacles to his work of educating children. What are these "details"? In large part, they are the stuff of governance and bureaucracy--mandates, power struggles, the positioning of interests and agendas. In short, politics.
Education is no more devoid of politics or its implications than any other institution. The "details" that Alvarado sees as suffocating the work of schooling are not unique to local superintendents or education. They are the necessary by-products of organizational governance. As with all governance structures, there is general agreement that a system be created to best serve the constituents. Education has a very broad, but commonly agreed upon objective--to provide children with a good education. What is not agreed upon, however, is how to go about such a task. Within education governance, conflicts emerge over how to structure systems that best educate young minds and who will be responsible for making those decisions. The range of possibilities for how political advocacy might translate into actual policies is infinitely varied (Price, 1999). As conflicts arise over how and who, the positioning for power and voice emerges despite the common altruistic goal of serving students. Resolving these conflicts, as well as "deciding who will decide," is the function of politics that arises from a system of democratic governance (Plank & Boyd, 1994). Even within education, these same conflicts and decisions will emerge.
Mr. Alvarado is certainly not alone in his frustration over the suffocating details. A quick scan of recent education administrator publications reveals that Alvarado, along with countless other superintendents, sees the outputs of political wranglings as hurdles to be jumped before student learning can be placed at the heart of the educational enterprise. Recent topics read more like the chapters from a self-help book: fights for fair funding, struggles with boards of education, conflicts with teachers unions, the apathy of state policymakers, politics that invade and cripple. Superintendents often engage in a dance of tending to the "details" perceived as extraneous and superfluous before they are able to move on to the heart of their work as education leaders: supporting student learning.
Superintendents often engage in a dance of tending to the "details" perceived as extraneous and superfluous before they are able to move on to the heart of their work as educators.
Recent political trends indicate that dodging such "details" is becoming more difficult than ever and may prove to be a faulty strategy for local education leaders in the real work of educating students. The distance between Capitol Hill, the Statehouse, and the local district is closing rapidly. The tone and pace for education reform more than ever is being influenced by a wide array and large number of political players at the federal and state levels, most recently manifesting itself in high accountability measures with potentially stiff consequences for districts. Secretary of Education Roderick Paige outlined the Bush plan before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce by calling for a dramatic shift in culture from one of "compliance with rules and regulations" to one of direct "accountability for results" in the shape of annual testing and funding measures. The message is clear: Superintendents can no longer avoid addressing the politics of education head-on or continue to perceive the impact of politics as minimal. Placing student learning at the heart of the enterprise is something that must be done within the arena of politics, not despite it.
The question we will examine is not whether politics exists within education but what form does politics take as it pertains to education, what effect, if any, does it have on the actual work of student learning, and how can education leaders negotiate the growing presence of politics within local education systems.
