A Democracy if You Can Teach It
A review of Dr. Ashley Berner's new book, "Educational Pluralism and Democracy"
If you are satisfied with the status quo in America’s K-12 education system or have a hard time keeping up with nuanced, research-based policy ideas, do not read Dr. Ashley Berner’s new book.
Educational Pluralism and Democracy is a thoughtful exploration of two critical levers in the pursuit of high-quality education outcomes for primary and secondary students: school choice and common content.
To be clear, Dr. Berner is not a school choice zealot, nor is she a know-it-all curriculum designer. Rather, as a former teacher and current historian and researcher, she advocates for embracing both choice and a measure of curriculum standardization to help American children regain a competitive foothold against their global peers.
Reinvigorating pluralism in American education
When Dr. Berner talks about what we call “school choice” or “educational freedom” she uses the term “pluralism.” Pluralism, as she defines it, is a way to structure the education system such that the government funds a wide variety of schools but holds them accountable for certain academic results. In my interview with her, she explained that in a system of education pluralism, common content creates a common conversation, but children can still be educated within a different ethos. For instance, a student might be enrolled in a secular school, but she would still learn about the world’s major faith traditions.
Lest this sound far-fetched, pluralism exists in 171 countries already. Countries as diverse as Belgium and Indonesia, Australia and Israel, fund schools with vastly different worldviews. In this area, the U.S. is an outlier. While all 50 states constitutionally enshrine government-funded schools, the more than 12,000 school districts in the country are the primary vehicle through which education is both funded and provided. It wasn’t always this way, and Dr. Berner explains that education pluralism used to exist in many cities in the United States. She notes that in the late 19th century, many “towns and cities supported Catholic education alongside of Baptist, Congregationalist, (in NYC) de-facto Jewish schools.” The rise of the anti-Catholic “Know-Nothing” movement signaled the end of viewpoint diversity in publicly funded schools, yet most of the country’s students were conscripted to the one-size-fits-all model that still lingers.
However, since the inception of Milwaukee’s voucher program in 1990, a growing number of families have gained access to publicly funded, privately operated educational options. This movement has gained tremendous momentum in recent years, with 14 states providing this opportunity to nearly all children within their borders.
Nevertheless, and despite the widespread embrace of educational freedom, Dr. Berner doesn’t think school choice alone is a sufficient answer to our education woes. This is because, after a career of touring schools, she is not convinced that market forces alone can guarantee high academic quality for all students.
Common conversation through curriculum
Making the case for higher academic standards is, unfortunately, the easy part of Dr. Berner’s argument. She rightly points to statistics from places like Baltimore City, where 87 percent of college-bound students were required to take remedial courses. Tragically, recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data show that only one in three students operate at the level of academic proficiency. Dr. Berner also points to the lack of rigor and inability to cultivate subject matter experts see in most colleges of education. These all seem to indicate the need for significant change in not just the delivery method of publicly funded education, but the content as well.
This, however, is where the rubber meets the road. There is deep skepticism, albeit from different sides, about any push to increase the academic rigor within classrooms, especially when the origins are centralized.
There are those on the right and left who might take issue with calls for rigorous uniformity. On the one hand, entrenched, mostly teacher union-backed interests on the ideological left push back against anything that might disrupt the status quo, even when the status quo harms students. To see just how far even progressive education reformers have come from the heady days of the No Child Left Behind Act, one can look at KIPP’s motto change from “Work hard. Be nice,” to the anodyne “Together, a future without limits.” On the other hand, many on the ideological right are wary of centralized decision-making, especially if the decision-makers have a social agenda that is at odds with local community values (see the myriad of recent examples in the Title IX context).
Given these pressures, the hope for a “common conversation” faces strong headwinds. At the same time, it is important to recognize that when Dr. Berner calls for an increasingly uniform set of educational content, she does not advocate for total infusion of nationally created content into all private schools.
She highlights examples like Indonesia, where students are entitled by law to a religious education that comports with their family’s beliefs, while schools are still required to teach a national curriculum. Likewise, private schools in Israel that receive full funding from the government are only required to teach 75 percent of the national curriculum. These examples show that it is possible to hold the goals of uniform content and diversity of thought in tandem.
Is there a path forward?
Dr. Berner’s dual prongs are attractive but pursuing them requires remarkable deftness. Realizing either idea (pluralism via educational choice or uniform curriculum) requires state level legislation, local buy-in and enactment, and federal coordination. That’s to say nothing of the issues of having different stakeholders.
Dr. Berner identifies some of the interested parties that are likely to push back against one or the other idea, but I think these assumptions need updating. On the “choice” side of the ledger, she worries about resistance from libertarians who prefer completely unfettered choice, irrespective of outcomes. The example of Iowa’s recently enacted choice program is instructive of what might be expected in other states. Iowa’s program, which came into effect for the 2023-24 school year, is now the fastest growing private school choice program in history. More than 35,000 students applied for the program in just the second year, and parents know that participating in the state assessment is a requirement of the program. Of course, this is not to say there aren’t some families who oppose participation precisely because of the testing mandate. But the fact that the program passed and is over-subscribed shows that uniformity (at least as measured by testing constraints on an education savings account program) is not fatal to a choice program.
Another example comes from the cryptocurrency sector. Once the exclusive affectation of anarcho-capitalists, the $2 trillion crypto market has embraced some level of standardization and regulation as a way to ensure consumer protection, increase stability and legitimacy, and limit bad actors. There’s no reason to think education choice advocates are less reasonable than crypto enthusiasts.
The larger, more inert constituency is composed of those who currently profit off the underwhelming, monopolistic public school system. These interests oppose the competitive pressures that come with choice AND they reject the notion that parents have the right to demand high quality academic outcomes from schools, teachers, and administrators. As hostile as public school districts are to efforts to expand options for students, they have not been able to thwart the will of parents and legislators determined to enact legislation. At the same time, this group, comprised of teachers’ unions, superintendents, and school board associations, has resisted meaningful reforms in the quality of content for decades. There are bright spots like Miami-Dade County, which has developed its own pluralistic approach to education, but such reform is the exception, not the rule.
Significant progress in the quality of what happens in thousands of classrooms across the U.S. will depend on reform at the local, state, and even federal levels. It’s not entirely clear that a state that undertakes meaningful and dynamic content reform could do so unencumbered by federal law. It invites the question: where do you start to enact systemwide curriculum reform?
This question presents the opportunity for next steps for those inclined to answer the charge given in Educational Pluralism and Democracy:
First, reformers must partner with local, state, and national groups to sketch out a roadmap oriented towards change on both sides of the choice and curriculum ledger. Additionally, they must identify existing legislative and regulatory roadblocks.
Next, groups must take stock of lessons learned from past reforms surrounding initiatives such as the No Child Left Behind Act and the Common Core debates.
Finally, reformers must tap into the growing group of educators who are so committed to high quality education that they are exiting the conventional public school system to start their own entrepreneurial ventures. This constituency has the expertise and conviction to affect real change where mere think-tankery falls short.
Dr. Ashley Berner’s book is available in bookstores and online.
This article was originally published in Philanthropy Daily on September 5, 2024.