Political fixes are rarely accused of being rational, principled decisions. If anything, such compromises are chosen because they appeal to the widely held perceptions—the underlying social idea of what is right, if not to the reality of a given situation.

So I suppose I shouldn’t be too concerned by the education plan that the Senate is negotiating. This is to say, politics at work, the point and purpose of American democracy. The Senate plan of annual school testing and the eventual overhaul of consistently failing schools into charter schools is a political proposal which outwardly plays on the popular sentiment of “getting tough on schools,” yet really does no such thing.

School testing is meant to require accountability and results from schools. Testing, particularly mandated national annual tests, implies a severe lack of trust in the public institutions. School testing is, then, a very clear symptom of a lack of trust in public schools.

Privatized charter schools instill a market ethic, replacing flabby public schools with schools hardened by competition and run with businesslike efficiency—an idea similar, one may assume, to the rationale behind the Bush presidency. Rather than simply throwing more money at a school, the bloated school budget would be put in the hands of a private, often for-profit, company. Students and parents may be given a choice about where to attend school, forcing schools to compete for their students. Charging a private organization with the handling of a public school is the ultimate move to clean up a school, suggesting not only a severe lack of trust in the public system, but also a lack of trust so great that the school must be disposed of by being chartered.

Such, at least, is the outward appearance of school testing and privatized school plans. Yet in reality neither of these alternatives gets tough on schools—at least not in any effective way. In brief, school testing can signal that there is a problem in a school, but does very little to identify the problem or come up with useful, appropriate solutions. Annual school testing is micro-management without any given direction: Big Brother watching but not giving any useful advice.

Creating a charter school is no automatic solution. A recent New York Times article noted that charter schools do not, simply by nature of being charter schools, improve education. When subjected to the same testing as public schools, pass rates for fourth graders in Michigan on math and reading tests were lower in charter schools than in traditional public schools. Likewise, a lower percentage of Texas charter school students passed the statewide graduation tests. Indeed, Texas has called for a moratorium on new charter schools until more information about academic performance can be gathered.

Admittedly, some charter schools do have their success stories. Yet even the state which created the first charter schools, Minnesota, has called states to create an oversight institution. Results of such charter schools as an institution are uncertain. As Paul T. Hill, a professor at the University of Washington, told The Times, “Only if there’s a sexual harassment case do the states know something’s wrong, but as for are students doing worse or better, they haven’t got a clue.” Charter schools do not, then, operate in the same spirit of careful oversight required for public schools through annual tests. It would be an illusion to consider charter schools the perfect solution, capable of trimming the excesses of government-run public schools. Yet there is something telling about our readiness to push public schools through every test imaginable while allowing private corporations and market forces to function with little oversight. As Americans, we have a fundamental trust in the invisible hand, enlightened self-interest and Adam Smith to plan our society. Similarly, we have automatic distaste for perceived inefficiency and inefficacy in government-run programs.

When such perceptions are applied to make political proposals, they are inadequate. National education debate becomes stuck in rhetoric, arguments based only on perceptions about the market as good, government as bad. What is needed is a discussion of real schools, the real and varied problems facing different schools, and finally of multiple solutions, as well as the realization that some schools are inefficient. Government bureaucracy can be frustrating red tape. Likewise, some businesses are run well. Yet a large number of businesses go out of business every year, meaning a market strategy isn’t magic.

A national policy based only on perceptions is ultimately an abdication of responsibility, where Senators and representatives are unwilling to address the reality of problems in schools and are ultimately more comfortable with glittering generalities than honest evaluation of problems. Education in this country needs something more than such a political fix. For as convenient as a political fix may be, it is ultimately unlikely to fix anything.

Erin B. Ashwell ’02 is a government concentrator in Eliot House. Her column appears on alternate Mondays.