Since the time of Mann, however, our vision of the purpose of education has changed to a view with strictly economic ends. With an economy increasingly reliant on technological advancement, “basic skills” are required of every would-be worker in the country. This view is in dire need of re-examination. Schools already are responsible for the teaching of everything from cooking to automobile operation, not to mention academics. Nevertheless, more than any reform law before it, the newest changes to schools will require that they ensure and maintain a labor supply with at least minimum competency in reading and mathematics, as evidenced by tests. This change came not at the request of parents or teachers, who already feel over-tested in many cases, but largely from corporate lobbyists promoting the use of standardized tests as a way to ensure future labor. Testing and text book companies have agreed, adding their support to the testing lobby. New tests require new curricula, and new curricula require new books. Never mind promises of local control, President Bush’s mandate of “scientifically based teaching methods” might end up translating to “use this book from this company.” Let the profits roll in.

Many educators and activists have fought for improved access to education, desegregation, better teachers and resources, and funding increases for years. Few individuals would have thought that the most significant federal changes to public schooling would come in this form. It is sad that calls for renewed attention to public education by teachers, parents and academics could not awaken a response in our public officials the way the financial muscle of the corporate voice did. Beware: the education of America’s children is not safe from the American corporate-political machine.

Most troubling of all is the façade of equity accompanying the new education laws. The philosophy is this: if you introduce evaluation and accountability into the system, everyone who has been too lazy thus far to care will be forced to. This free-market principle is a bad rule to use when making education policy. But our newest education laws are informed more by businessmen than by sociologists, economists, or even cognitive psychologists. As a result, these laws are flawed in their understanding of schools, the needs of teachers, and the way children learn. Worst of all, nothing in the new legislation, or in other recent federal policies, addresses larger social problems. Child poverty has long been held the greatest determinant of school success and failure, yet policy-makers continually ignore its violence on youth. Changing the operations of schools is important, but what about Head Start, free day care for all, and universal child health care and nutrition?

Our understanding of education’s purpose is missing the point, leading us into bad policymaking. Schools can fight social inequality, but as long as larger social problems are unaddressed, the status quo of school success and failure will remain. A new approach to education is needed. We should value the beauty of youth and creativity of children, and learn to see children as talented and creative individuals, not pawns of the corporate world. In a democratic society, education should serve the needs of the individual, helping her to maximize her potential and develop her creative, artistic, and aesthetic capabilities. Education ought not simply prepare the student to become a worker. It must help the student train himself to think, to be resourceful, and to love learning. We ought to teach students how to live in a changing world, how to adapt to it, and most importantly, how to change it. The focus of all education ought to be critical thought and civic participation.

Ending the economically-driven vision of education reform ought to be a priority among progressives. We must realize that we cannot have excellence in our schools until we have equity. As long as some schools are completely under-funded and under-resourced while others schools are wealthy, the condition of all public education is unacceptable. If we hope to create school success, we must empower the marginalized by improving their lives, not by giving them a test.

Adam Johnson is a graduate student at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

###