Join the conversation

I'm hearing concerns that too much power over schools is passing into the hands of people who have not been elected by the public to serve the public interest. What a thorny issue.

An article in yesterday's Washington Post offers a case in point. A group of foundations warned that they might not keep the money flowing into Washington DC's school reform efforts if the district's leadership changes. In other words, the funds may dry up if a new mayor takes the reins. Not surprisingly, this warning has caused an outcry over the influence of foundations on the mayoral race.

A new commentary in Edweek raises similar concerns about the concentration of power. Russ Whitehurst, the founding director of IES, writes that Race to the Top (RTTT) was an end-run around Congress. "Based on the ARRA itself, he writes, "I don’t think Congress intended to give Secretary Duncan the carte blanche he took."

The legislative process is messy, but we are better served in the long term by allowing our elected representatives to decide on the education policies we are to pursue as a nation, rather than having them dictated to us by the executive branch under the guise of a grant program to reward reform and innovation.

Duncan and the foundations may well counter that they can't very well dole out money without strings attached. But growing suspicion of government and wealthy elites can derail even the best-laid plans for reform.

Alexander Russo believes Congress will won't give Duncan the same carte blanche when it comes to ESEA. "The big challenge for [the US Department of Education," he writes, "is to figure out how to back up the RTTT truck to get back to something that could make it through reauthorization without undercutting themselves and the states that have already moved forward on RTTT."

As the frenzy over big government grows, the people holding the purse strings may have to tread very lightly, indeed.