Well, I agree to a point. But I have problems with that notion, too, since we all know that teachers and principals are not perfect!
Its better to fail small than fail big.
I do think there should be some attempt to get basic minimum standards in place on some sort of larger scale. (Though I'm absolutely open to discussion about what "larger scale" constitutes.) The problems as I see with making this work (off the top of my head) are:
1) What standards?
2) Who should meet the standards?
3) How do we determine if the standards are being met?
4) What happens if the standards are not met?
5) Who oversees the process and has authority?
These are just the start, but they're the heart of the matter.
So I guess I'm not clear: are you arguing against all national/state standards, Austin? Should every school be answerable only to itself? Or are you suggesting there is some other body besides elected officials to whom schools should be answerable?
We already have accreditation bodies for different levels of schooling. These are overseen by experts, as determined by their peers, in education, just like any other field.
Teachers' colleges, schools, and curriculum are all vetted at some level and were vetted long before we had national involvement.
We have SAT, AP, ACT, and IB all without some Federal statute.
As for accountability, the local school boards are accountable to the local voters and levy and spend tax money accordingly. This makes them flexible and responsive and the politics stays out of most decision making.
Between the accreditors, test standing, and voters - that is how we know if the school is doing their job.
Where can the Feds help?
By requiring important information to be transparent across all schools - testing done at the same time in the same way with the results and supporting demographic data archived publicly - that way schools can be measured. I am not saying its perfect, but until you can measure, you won't know anything.
