You see , politics is everywhere and education isn't immune to it.

Any policy making task is

the responsibility of political representative who has legal authority to regulate the affairs of
the state. So be it Education, Health ,and etc., politics can affect every thing under it's
jurisdiction. From budgetary allocation for education to spending on it , everything is under
control of politics. Also from curriculum to marking system to quality education, all are the
result of politics.

Politics affect most every aspect of public life. Ludwig von Mises thought that governments
should stay out of education completely, and that sounds good in principle, but there are
many things to consider.

Whether the US Government should be in the education business is a question most worthy

of debate, but that it is in the education business is beyond question.

The government affects education with money, and its tentacles are so numerous and of
such a length that there are few areas left untouched.

Yes. Education can be viewed as a political bureaucracy based alone on the constant changes
in curriculum strategies. Also the common contention between teacher and student or
teaching and learning that reflects politicians who would rather its constituents do as they
say and not as they do. I said that to say when teaching is viewed as sharing knowledge
rather than leading a group of followers, learning is independent and not dependent on the
teacher. When learning is dependent the teacher has a tendency to be viewed as someone
demanding as much attention as the followers who can’t learn on their own and sharing
knowledge from one teacher to another in your learning process becomes stealing
information just to stay a teacher that’s trying to lead. That’s what bureaucracies do and
education has lost its way because it has become the same practice.

Politics has a deep impact on the working of the society, perception of people and 
development. Similarly education is directly linked to the three mentioned aspects of
society.
Politics influences education in the following manner in current situation.

Books: The text books are designed by NCERT which is a government undertaking. Thus
government so elected politically can have a major impact on what is taught,when and how
much.
 
Policy of Appeasement: In competition exams, reservation has been a major topic of debate
which has turned unreasonable due to political appeasement of some sections of society.
Employment: The expected outcome of any education is to turn the skills acquired into
monetary  benefits. Here too, politics in the form of unfair selections, corruption and
reservations again come into being.

Thus politics can have a major influence on society through education. But there are some
checks like involvement of bureaucracy with policy formation, involvement of experts in
education committees which try to keep the system in check.
Also Democracy with the option to change the government and policies is also a major check
to such influences.
Absolutely, the politics do influence education. Education has been regarded as the main
area of political socialization of the young. Education is the primary agent for the selection
and training of the future elites. Thus,

Politics in Education in the Philippines

                I should say that politics is rather a part of our life. Politics is everywhere. The
perfect paradigm of politics can be seen at home. A simple “siding-with” phenomenon
between siblings entails a political certainty, so to speak. What makes politics aberrant is
when it is used to create conflicts and mishaps that jeopardize certain circumstances that at
times ballooned to immeasurable animadversion.

            Education is no exemption in the ruthlessness of political reality. Politics within

teachers themselves, politics within students, and politics within the bureaucracy; all of
these created conflicts in the organization plus the influence of the outside world that
situate politics in the orb of governance.

            Since politics is always an intangible part of the school environment, we can take
advantage of the salient features of it by motivating each one of us to be pillars of our own
rights. We should avoid excessive aplombness in dealing with our peers that suspend them
to realize their own glint under our superiority. We should create an environment where the
minority will be given a chance to voice out their choices and defend their assertions in the
most autonomous way.

 
            As educators, we have to showcase compassion to our colleagues. We should avoid
too much emotional rendition that caters anger in the process. Why I am saying this?
Simply because students are keen observers. We can transfer our emotional gambit to them
and they will relate it in their ends making them politicized species themselves.

            As educators, we should unpoliticized every endeavor in our respective catchments.

We can do so by avoiding favoritism which is believed to be the main spice of the patisserie
of politicalization. We need to restructure our thoughts so that we can render decisions
based on objectivity and not on who we know.

            In the macro perspective, politics in education assembles the bolster of a structured
boulevard in the realization of a competitive education that is wide-ranging and all-
engaging. It arranges educational goals, mission, and vision in extreme control leading to a
boxed upshot. Whether we appreciate politics or not it is always a part of our system and
our culture. It is up to us how we manage our own political aspirations for the benefit of the
learners and as we realize the challenges of K-12 Education and ASEAN 2015

Politics in education is an issue that presently pervades educational system in the country.
The

government, specifically the legislators, is inept in formulating laws that can address the
crisis in

the educational system. A sad reality that is happening right now is the formulation of
policies

with the main purpose of making our educational system at par with those in other
countries, but

there are no concrete guidelines as to how these are to be implemented. Most educational

experts are technocrats with no experience in the field. Yes, their programs are good, to say
the
Politics in education is an issue that presently pervades educational system in the country.
The

government, specifically the legislators, is inept in formulating laws that can address the
crisis in

the educational system. A sad reality that is happening right now is the formulation of
policies

with the main purpose of making our educational system at par with those in other
countries, but

there are no concrete guidelines as to how these are to be implemented. Most educational

experts are technocrats with no experience in the field. Yes, their programs are good, to say
the

Influences
Although the arrival of modernization in Japan was comparatively late due to its closed-door policy
from 1638 to 1854, Japan was able to quickly catch up to the Western powers because of the socio-
cultural conditions that encouraged the development of education, including its secular character,
linguistic uniformity, cultural maturity, and national unity. Significant changes were made in
education with the change in political power after the Meiji Restoration of 1868 and the defeat of the
war in 1945. However, despite the drastic changes in education, Japanese cultural values have
remained a stabilizing and tenacious force in helping the country adapt and grow.
Narrated Slideshow Version

Development of Education in Pre-WWII Japan

The modern education system of Japan can be said to be a mix of various educational models of
Western countries that the government took and adapted to develop into its own. However, at the
core foundation of Japanese education are the teachings and ideas of Confucianism. As
Confucianism spread throughout Japan during the Heian period (794-1185), the imperial capital of
Kyoto flourished as a center for higher learning through the establishment of Zen Buddhist
monasteries. Children were taught to respect differences in class, rank, age, and sex based on the
Confucian ideals of filial piety, loyalty to the state, submission to authority, and maintenance of
social order. These ideals were embodied in the educational reforms that guided Japanese education
until the end of WWII.

Despite the strong influence of Confucianism, education in Japan remained strongly secular. Many
samurai attended fief schools to memorize Confucian classics and study Chinese literature and
history. Some samurai also attended private academies (juku) alongside commoners to specialize in
foreign subjects such as Western medicine, military science, gunnery, and Dutch studies (rangaku).
Meanwhile, education for commoners was practically oriented, and concentrated on teaching
reading, writing, and arithmetic through calligraphy and use of the abacus (Library of Congress,
1994). In addition, private classes open to all, regardless of class were held in instructors’ homes
(terakoya), and in this way, an apprenticeship system developed among merchants.
These schools laid the foundation for education to become widespread during the Meiji period (1868-
1912). People became aware that equal educational opportunity could be used to form national unity.
Nonetheless, the lack of uniformity only led to discrepancy, and discrimination became a problem as
academic achievement came to determine social status and employment. Under the pressure to
modernize like the Western powers, the Meiji government set up the Ministery of Education in 1871
and in the following year, the Educational Ordinance was established, outlining a comprehensive
national school system for the first time (JICA-RI, 2004). The three levels of schooling and school
content were modeled after American schools, while the the centralized system of administration
independent of the Church was modeled after the French school system. The Educational Ordinance
was largely influenced by Yukichi Fukuzawa, spokesman of Japan’s Enlightenment who believed
that the Confucian civilization lacked two things possessed by Western civilization “science in the
material sphere and a sense of ‘independence’ in the spiritual sphere” (Anderson, 1975).

However, his plan was too ambitious and far removed for social customs of that time. By 1887, only
one out of the eight universities was established and the official enrollment rate lingered below 50%
because children were an important part of the labor force and those who failed often dropped out
(JICA-RI, 2004). As a result, the Meiji government abolished the Education Ordinance and enacted
the Education Order, introducing democratic education based on the American model. Boards of
Education elected by the local people were put in charge of schools and their curriculum. In addition,
the duration of school was greatly shortened from 8 years to at least 16 months (JICA-RI, 2004).
However, enrollment rates only worsened and after one year, the Education Order was revised so that
central control was again strengthened.

During this time, the political climate was complex and some schools were even burnt down by
people upset by their taxes being used for school buildings, foreign instructors, and study abroad.
Such opposers of Westernization demanded the revival of traditional ideologies of Confucian ethics,
and in 1880, the Education Order was revised to include moral education for a minimum of one hour
per week in elementary school education (Passin, 1965). After the Ito cabinet was formed in 1885,
the constitution was modeled after Prussia instead of Britain and France which the Freedom and
Popular Rights Movement saw as ideal democracies. The Imperial Rescript on Education of 1890
developed by Arinori Mori, the newly appointed Minister of Education also represented a revival of
traditional ideologies of Confucian ethics and Shinto statism (Shimahara, 1979). By sending the
Rescript to each school with a photograph of the Imperial Highnesses, education Minister Mori
aimed to harmonize the twin objectives of modernization and spiritual unity through national
morality.

Once primary level education became egalitarian under the Education School Order, elementary
school enrollment increased from 40-50% in the 1870s to more than 90% by 1900 (Library of
Congress, 1994). Nonetheless, women had relatively few opportunities to enter higher education
since national universities were highly selective and elitist. However, the rise in demand for human
resources during the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War and WWI led to the Professional College
Order in 1903. This allowed graduates of middle schools and girls’ high schools to receive
specialized training in subjects such as medicine, law, engineering, and commerce (JICA-RI, 2004).
Teaching was also considered a ‘sacred profession’ and girls who desired to become teachers could
attend a one-year training course at a Normal School. Specialized colleges, as well as universities
founded by Christian missionary schools greatly expanded educational opportunites for women.

During the Taisho era (1912-1936), educational methodology was influenced by the global
Progressive Education Movement, and child-centered and activity-oriented education of reformers
such as Dewey and Montessori was implemented in some elementary schools. However, the
economic recession following WWI spurred ultra-nationalist sentiment against the international
democratic trends. In 1925, military officers were assigned to middle and high schools to provide
military training, and student uniforms gave the schools the semblance of military academies
(Anderson, 1975). Academic content was controlled by nationally approved textbooks and it was said
that, “by the beginning of WWII, the only foreigners mentioned were Beethoven, Galileo, and
Edward Jenner; but by the middle of the war, even Beethoven and Galileo were dropped” (Passin,
1965).

During WWII, students were drafted to produce food or military supplies, teachers were drafted into
the armed forces, and young children were evacuated to rural areas to escape the aerial bomb attacks.
With defeat of the war in 1945, Japanese education underwent drastic transformation similar to the
one experienced in the early Meiji period. Under the control of the Allied Forces, the United States
Education Mission introduced a number of education reforms to democratize Japanese education
such as: the 6-3-3-4 track system (six years of elementary school, three years of junior high school,
three years of high school, and four years of university), as well as adoption of co-education,
extension of compulsory education to nine years, establishment of locally elected school boards,
abolition of Normal Schools, the establishment of teacher unions, and the introduction of Roman
characters. Furthermore, textbooks in morals, Japanese history, and geography were suspended
because of the belief that these subjects encouraged militarism. However, U.S. occupation policy
gradually changed its emphasis on democratization and freedom to anti-communism during the
Korean War, and in general, the later half of the 20th century was characterized by turbulence in
higher education in Japan (JICA-RI, 2004).

Despite the numerous educational changes that have occured in Japan since the Meiji Restoration of
1868, and especially since WWII, the education system continues to reflect long-standing cultural
and philosophical Japanese values rooted in Confucianism. In traditional Japan, “study was an
absolute duty of man. It was a religious mandate, a means of attaining virtue and repaying the
Emperor and parents. It was a social duty, a means of promoting a harmonious and stable society. It
was an individual’s duty to his superior, a means of preparing for service in the feudal government or
schools. It was a way to gain self-respect and self-fulfillment” (Anderson, 1975). The fact that
learning is still highly esteemed in Japan today, and moral and character development are still an
integral part of education (Library of Congress, 1994), shows the tenacity of Japanese culture
regardless of changing internal and external environments.

Influences
Although the arrival of modernization in Japan was comparatively late due to its closed-door policy
from 1638 to 1854, Japan was able to quickly catch up to the Western powers because of the socio-
cultural conditions that encouraged the development of education, including its secular character,
linguistic uniformity, cultural maturity, and national unity. Significant changes were made in
education with the change in political power after the Meiji Restoration of 1868 and the defeat of the
war in 1945. However, despite the drastic changes in education, Japanese cultural values have
remained a stabilizing and tenacious force in helping the country adapt and grow.
Narrated Slideshow Version

Development of Education in Pre-WWII Japan

The modern education system of Japan can be said to be a mix of various educational models of
Western countries that the government took and adapted to develop into its own. However, at the
core foundation of Japanese education are the teachings and ideas of Confucianism. As
Confucianism spread throughout Japan during the Heian period (794-1185), the imperial capital of
Kyoto flourished as a center for higher learning through the establishment of Zen Buddhist
monasteries. Children were taught to respect differences in class, rank, age, and sex based on the
Confucian ideals of filial piety, loyalty to the state, submission to authority, and maintenance of
social order. These ideals were embodied in the educational reforms that guided Japanese education
until the end of WWII.

Despite the strong influence of Confucianism, education in Japan remained strongly secular. Many
samurai attended fief schools to memorize Confucian classics and study Chinese literature and
history. Some samurai also attended private academies (juku) alongside commoners to specialize in
foreign subjects such as Western medicine, military science, gunnery, and Dutch studies (rangaku).
Meanwhile, education for commoners was practically oriented, and concentrated on teaching
reading, writing, and arithmetic through calligraphy and use of the abacus (Library of Congress,
1994). In addition, private classes open to all, regardless of class were held in instructors’ homes
(terakoya), and in this way, an apprenticeship system developed among merchants.
These schools laid the foundation for education to become widespread during the Meiji period (1868-
1912). People became aware that equal educational opportunity could be used to form national unity.
Nonetheless, the lack of uniformity only led to discrepancy, and discrimination became a problem as
academic achievement came to determine social status and employment. Under the pressure to
modernize like the Western powers, the Meiji government set up the Ministery of Education in 1871
and in the following year, the Educational Ordinance was established, outlining a comprehensive
national school system for the first time (JICA-RI, 2004). The three levels of schooling and school
content were modeled after American schools, while the the centralized system of administration
independent of the Church was modeled after the French school system. The Educational Ordinance
was largely influenced by Yukichi Fukuzawa, spokesman of Japan’s Enlightenment who believed
that the Confucian civilization lacked two things possessed by Western civilization “science in the
material sphere and a sense of ‘independence’ in the spiritual sphere” (Anderson, 1975).

However, his plan was too ambitious and far removed for social customs of that time. By 1887, only
one out of the eight universities was established and the official enrollment rate lingered below 50%
because children were an important part of the labor force and those who failed often dropped out
(JICA-RI, 2004). As a result, the Meiji government abolished the Education Ordinance and enacted
the Education Order, introducing democratic education based on the American model. Boards of
Education elected by the local people were put in charge of schools and their curriculum. In addition,
the duration of school was greatly shortened from 8 years to at least 16 months (JICA-RI, 2004).
However, enrollment rates only worsened and after one year, the Education Order was revised so that
central control was again strengthened.

During this time, the political climate was complex and some schools were even burnt down by
people upset by their taxes being used for school buildings, foreign instructors, and study abroad.
Such opposers of Westernization demanded the revival of traditional ideologies of Confucian ethics,
and in 1880, the Education Order was revised to include moral education for a minimum of one hour
per week in elementary school education (Passin, 1965). After the Ito cabinet was formed in 1885,
the constitution was modeled after Prussia instead of Britain and France which the Freedom and
Popular Rights Movement saw as ideal democracies. The Imperial Rescript on Education of 1890
developed by Arinori Mori, the newly appointed Minister of Education also represented a revival of
traditional ideologies of Confucian ethics and Shinto statism (Shimahara, 1979). By sending the
Rescript to each school with a photograph of the Imperial Highnesses, education Minister Mori
aimed to harmonize the twin objectives of modernization and spiritual unity through national
morality.

Once primary level education became egalitarian under the Education School Order, elementary
school enrollment increased from 40-50% in the 1870s to more than 90% by 1900 (Library of
Congress, 1994). Nonetheless, women had relatively few opportunities to enter higher education
since national universities were highly selective and elitist. However, the rise in demand for human
resources during the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War and WWI led to the Professional College
Order in 1903. This allowed graduates of middle schools and girls’ high schools to receive
specialized training in subjects such as medicine, law, engineering, and commerce (JICA-RI, 2004).
Teaching was also considered a ‘sacred profession’ and girls who desired to become teachers could
attend a one-year training course at a Normal School. Specialized colleges, as well as universities
founded by Christian missionary schools greatly expanded educational opportunites for women.

During the Taisho era (1912-1936), educational methodology was influenced by the global
Progressive Education Movement, and child-centered and activity-oriented education of reformers
such as Dewey and Montessori was implemented in some elementary schools. However, the
economic recession following WWI spurred ultra-nationalist sentiment against the international
democratic trends. In 1925, military officers were assigned to middle and high schools to provide
military training, and student uniforms gave the schools the semblance of military academies
(Anderson, 1975). Academic content was controlled by nationally approved textbooks and it was said
that, “by the beginning of WWII, the only foreigners mentioned were Beethoven, Galileo, and
Edward Jenner; but by the middle of the war, even Beethoven and Galileo were dropped” (Passin,
1965).

During WWII, students were drafted to produce food or military supplies, teachers were drafted into
the armed forces, and young children were evacuated to rural areas to escape the aerial bomb attacks.
With defeat of the war in 1945, Japanese education underwent drastic transformation similar to the
one experienced in the early Meiji period. Under the control of the Allied Forces, the United States
Education Mission introduced a number of education reforms to democratize Japanese education
such as: the 6-3-3-4 track system (six years of elementary school, three years of junior high school,
three years of high school, and four years of university), as well as adoption of co-education,
extension of compulsory education to nine years, establishment of locally elected school boards,
abolition of Normal Schools, the establishment of teacher unions, and the introduction of Roman
characters. Furthermore, textbooks in morals, Japanese history, and geography were suspended
because of the belief that these subjects encouraged militarism. However, U.S. occupation policy
gradually changed its emphasis on democratization and freedom to anti-communism during the
Korean War, and in general, the later half of the 20th century was characterized by turbulence in
higher education in Japan (JICA-RI, 2004).

Despite the numerous educational changes that have occured in Japan since the Meiji Restoration of
1868, and especially since WWII, the education system continues to reflect long-standing cultural
and philosophical Japanese values rooted in Confucianism. In traditional Japan, “study was an
absolute duty of man. It was a religious mandate, a means of attaining virtue and repaying the
Emperor and parents. It was a social duty, a means of promoting a harmonious and stable society. It
was an individual’s duty to his superior, a means of preparing for service in the feudal government or
schools. It was a way to gain self-respect and self-fulfillment” (Anderson, 1975). The fact that
learning is still highly esteemed in Japan today, and moral and character development are still an
integral part of education (Library of Congress, 1994), shows the tenacity of Japanese culture
regardless of changing internal and external environments.

Education and Politics in Japan

 
Prime Minister Abe supported 
reforms to make Japanese 
education more patriotic Patriotism laws passed in 2004, require teachers stand and face the Japanese
flag and sing the Kimigayo. Those that refuse are required to take a two-hour “training course” and
write a self examination essay, a ritual that sounds like something done at re-education camp in
Communist China. The movement to get the laws passed was led by the right wing Tokyo governor
Shintaro ishihara. Among those who opposed some of the measures was Emperor Akihito. Some
teachers filed a criminal complaint against Ishihara for making them sing the anthem
 The Fundamental law of Education was enacted in 1947 to prevent a revival of nationalism, prohibit
militaristic education and promote democratic values.

 Conservatives have advocated revising the Fundamental law of Education to cultivate “a sense of
public duty” and correct “distortions” cased by some postwar education policies. There is a strong
public support for such a move. In some polls it is supported by two third of respondents. The
biggest objections comes from teachers and liberal educators.
 Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe wanted to revise the Fundamental Law of Education so that the
school curriculum emphasized patriotism, morality, public mindedness and respect for the nation's
traditions and culture. The wording of the revision is very vague. Concerns have been raised over
not so much what the revision says but what could be done under its vague wording, Support for the
law was reportedly garnered by paying people to ask leading questions and make supportive
statements at town meetings held across the country.

 A law to revise the Fundamental Law of Education was passed in the lower and upper houses in
parliament in November and December 2006. Abe has insisted the law be worded so Japanese
“love their country." There were concerns among educators that students would be evaluate by how
much obedience and how much they loved their country.

 A basic education five-year plan approved in 2008 calls for more emphasis on moral education but
failed to set numerical targets for budgets or teachers. Quake-proofing work deemed needed at
2,800 schools was postponed by the Hatoyama government in December 2009 to free up funds to
make high school education effectively free.

 Patriotism laws passed in 2004, require teachers stand and face the Japanese flag and sing the
Kimigayo. Those that refuse are required to take a two-hour “training course” and write a self
examination essay, a ritual that sounds like something done at re-education camp in Communist
China. The movement to get the laws passed was led by the right wing Tokyo governor Shintaro
ishihara. Among those who opposed some of the measures was Emperor Akihito. Some teachers
filed a criminal complaint against Ishihara for making them sing the anthem

 The Fundamental law of Education was enacted in 1947 to prevent a revival of nationalism, prohibit
militaristic education and promote democratic values.

 Conservatives have advocated revising the Fundamental law of Education to cultivate “a sense of
public duty” and correct “distortions” cased by some postwar education policies. There is a strong
public support for such a move. In some polls it is supported by two third of respondents. The
biggest objections comes from teachers and liberal educators.

 Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe wanted to revise the Fundamental Law of Education so that the
school curriculum emphasized patriotism, morality, public mindedness and respect for the nation's
traditions and culture. The wording of the revision is very vague. Concerns have been raised over
not so much what the revision says but what could be done under its vague wording, Support for the
law was reportedly garnered by paying people to ask leading questions and make supportive
statements at town meetings held across the country.

 A law to revise the Fundamental Law of Education was passed in the lower and upper houses in
parliament in November and December 2006. Abe has insisted the law be worded so Japanese
“love their country." There were concerns among educators that students would be evaluate by how
much obedience and how much they loved their country.

 A basic education five-year plan approved in 2008 calls for more emphasis on moral education but
failed to set numerical targets for budgets or teachers. Quake-proofing work deemed needed at
2,800 schools was postponed by the Hatoyama government in December 2009 to free up funds to
make high school education effectively free.

A central flaw of corporate paradigms, as is often noted in popular culture, is the mind-numbing
and dehumanizing effect of bureaucracy. Sometimes we are horrified and sometimes we laugh,
but arguments for or against the free market may be misguided if we fail to address bureaucracy's
corrosive role in the business model.

Current claims about private, public, or charter schools in the education reform movement,
which has its roots in the mid-nineteenth century, may also be masking a much more important
call to confront and even dismantle the bureaucracy that currently cripples universal public
education in the U.S. "Successful teaching and good school cultures don't have a
formula," arguedlegal reformer Philip K. Howard earlier in this series, "but they have a necessary
condition: teachers and principals must feel free to act on their best instincts....This is why we
must bulldoze school bureaucracy."

Bureaucracy, however, remains an abstraction and serves as little more than a convenient and
popular target for ridicule -- unless we unpack what actions within bureaucracy are the sources
for many of the persistent failures we associate erroneously with public education as an
institution. Bureaucracy fails, in part, because it honors leadership as a primary quality
over expertise, commits to ideological solutions without identifying and clarifying problems
first, and repeats the same reforms over and over while expecting different results: our
standards/testing model is more than a century old.

Public education is by necessity an extension of our political system, resulting in schools being
reduced to vehicles for implementing political mandates. For example, during the past thirty
years, education has become federalized through dynamics both indirect ("A Nation at Risk"
spurring state-based accountability systems) and direct (No Child Left Behind and Race to the
Top).

Solving the nation's most entrenched problems See full coverage

As government policy and practice, bureaucracy is unavoidable, of course. But the central flaw
in the need for structure and hierarchy is that politics prefers leadership characteristics above
expertise. No politician can possibly have the expertise and experience needed in all the many
areas a leader must address (notably in roles such as governor and president). But during the
"accountability era" in education of the past three decades, the direct role of governors and
presidents as related to education has increased dramatically--often with education as a central
plank in their campaigns.

One distinct flaw in that development has been a trickle-down effect reaching from presidents
and governors to state superintendents of education and school board chairs and members:
people who have no or very little experience or expertise as educators or scholars attain
leadership positions responsible for forming and implementing education policy.

The faces and voices currently leading the education reform movement in the U.S. are appointees
and self-proclaimed reformers who, while often well-meaning, lack significant expertise or
experience in education: Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, billionaire Bill Gates, Michelle
Rhee (whose entrance to education includes the alternative route of Teach for America and only
a few years in the classroom), and Sal Khan, for example.

Bureaucracy bestows authority and a hierarchy on education that allows and perpetuates
leadership without expertise or experience. The consequences include the two most vivid
examples of why education reform has failed and will continue to fail: (1) Inexpert leadership is
ideologically committed to solutions and thus implements solutions without identifying and
clarifying the problems first, and (2) inexpert leadership that is in constant flux, with the
perpetual changes in administrations, is apt to implement the same solutions over and over with
different outcomes expected.

Inexpert political leaders believe in and act upon a faith in the effectiveness of their cult of
personality. They say by their actions, "I can do this where others have not" -- triggering the
American cultural faith in rugged individualism.

Universal public education needs a new wall, paralleling the wall of separation between church
and state: a wall between education and government and corporate America. Power over funding
and broad performance benchmarks can remain vested in political leaders. But granular
operational details should be left to educators and local administrators, the people best suited to
achieve these goals in their schools and classrooms. Education should be treated no differently
than a civil engineering project: government provides funding and ensures the goals of the civil
function, and then expert builders and engineers fill in the details, taking into account realities on
the ground and utilizing a wealth of experience and training that is completely unavailable to
most elected officials. Governors and presidents are no better suited to run schools than they are
to run construction sites, and it's time our education system reflected that fact.

Once we have that wall, education reform needs to be driven by educators and researchers who
have lived, practiced, and considered carefully what the goals of education should be for a free
people, what the hurdles are for improving educational outcomes for all children (hurdles that are
powerfully influenced by the lives of children beyond the walls of school), and how to foster a
culture that supports and embraces that system.

Instead of calls for new standards and tests, greater competition through school choice and
charter schools, and contradictory claims that teachers are both complete failures and the most
important element in student outcomes -- all solutions that do not match identified problems --
education reform must start with the dominant burden on our children and schools, as Stephen
Krashen, researcher and educator, explains:

Poverty is, in fact, the issue. While American students' scores on international tests are not as bad
as critics say they are, they are even better when we control for the effects of poverty: Middle-
class students in well-funded schools, in fact, score at or near the top of world. Our average
scores are respectable but unspectacular because...we have such a high percentage of children
living in poverty, the highest of all industrialized countries. Only four percent of children in
high-scoring Finland, for example, live in poverty. Our rate of poverty is over 21 perecent.

Bureaucracy is failing education reform because it doesn't acknowledge or address two central
realities: the U.S. remains corrosively inequitable, especially in terms of race, class, and gender;
and education tends to perpetuate those inequities through commitments to tracking, testing, and
ranking.

"Bureaucracy can't teach," as Howard notes. But educators and researchers can lead schools if
we will commit ourselves to genuine social reform that addresses poverty, and to education
reform that allows teachers to do that which they know how to do