This morning's New York Times education page (B10 in New York editions) includes a column exploring the effects of higher federal education standards. If the federal standards on matters such as curriculum and student testing inspire increased spending on education at the state level, then "President Clinton will have been a visionary who maneuvered states into equalizing education after embracing high standards," the Times column says. The alternative is that Mr. Clinton was "reckless," inspiring states "to raise standards without resources to reach them" and "leading to wider academic gaps between rich and poor."
But this false choice is based on the false assumption of a link between spending on schools and performance of students. As the Times itself has pointed out in other recent articles, there's no such connection. For example, Washington D.C.'s level of per-pupil spending is relatively high compared to the national average, yet its schools perform poorly. Many Catholic schools have students that outperform those in public schools while spending less per pupil than the public schools do. And massive sums can be added to the budgets of school districts without it having much effect on student performance. The results depend partly on what the money is spent on, which can vary widely from school district to school district, as a Times article several weeks ago on spending in New York City reported.
It's quite possible -- though the Times article doesn't even consider the possibility -- that raising standards could help improve student performance even without additional money being spent on schools. The Times column, though, seems to judge the success of the standards policy not by whether it helps students learn more, but by whether it inspires more government spending on schools.
On top of all this is the demand for "equalizing" education. This is code for enforced mediocrity. The Times would rather have all schools be equally bad than having any school be better than any other. Imagine if the Times were to throw its editorial muscle behind "equalizing" restaurant meals in New York so that all dinners were exactly as good as all others. Besides putting its restaurant critic out of work, the policy would immediately be seen as ridiculous and un-American. More important than "equalization" in education is excellence and a minimum standard. Every American child should have a right to a decent education. But it would be a mistake to respond to the fact that some public schools are better than others by attempting to grind the better ones down to the minimum level.
Turn Off That Phone: An editorial in this morning's Times contains the following paragraph:
"A few small American municipalities, most recently Marlboro, N.J., have banned the use of hand-held cell phones by drivers. While the matter may require more research, our instinct is that Marlboro and the other communities are on the right track. We would go so far as to recommend state legislation to guarantee uniformity."
Well, why stop there? Why not a FEDERAL ban on hand-held cell-phone conversations while driving? And while we're at it, why not a federal law to ban drivers from talking to passengers in their cars while driving? And also a federal ban on looking at maps while driving. And a federal law to ban smoking while driving, or smoking while not driving, or eating fatty foods while driving. And a federal law to ban auto manufacturers from installing ashtrays or cup-holders in vehicles, which might encourage smoking or coffee-drinking while driving, which might distract drivers' full attention from the road. The Times' "instinct" is probably to support all these laws that try to protect individuals from their own behavior but that take the fun out of life and expand the role of the government.