If Only Men Were Angels, We Could Protect our Schools
If men were angels, no government would be necessary! But men are not angels so what do we do? Federalist 51: 1788 essay written by James Madison is one of the most famous essays in American political thought, largely because of one statement: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” An angel is simply defined as a spiritual being believed to act as an agent or messenger of God or a person who is exemplary, pure, holy, kind, divine, and conducts oneself in such a way that is pleasing to God. James Madison knew people in power are not angels, so the Constitution had to be designed with human nature in mind. The solution that he suggested was not to wish for better leaders, but to build a government where different parts of the system would keep each other in check–using ambition to counteract ambition so that liberty has a fighting chance.
The core problem discussed in the Federalist 51 essay is that people in power will seek more power, so the Constitution must anticipate ambition and self-interest. Madison suggested the separation of powers and checks and balances for the three branches of government–legislative, executive, and judicial. Madison assumed conflict is inevitable because people and groups pursue their own interests, so he designed institutions that oblige the government to control itself. He firmly argued that they should have “a will of its own” and be as little dependent as possible on the others in appointments and pay, precisely so one group of ambitious actors cannot dominate another.
Education policy today is shaped by all three branches and congress and state legislatures write laws and state funding formulas, executives implement them through education agencies, and courts hear lawsuits on school finance, desegregation, and students’ rights. Our public school system (K-12) operates under this arrangement where states hold the primary authority over standards, funding formulas, and teacher certification, while the federal government sets conditions on aid and enforces broad equity and civil-rights rules. Conflicts over things like federal mandates, civil rights enforcement, or agency rules are some examples of branches using checks and balances around schools.
In A Search for Common Ground, Hess and Noguera assume ideological conflict in K-12 policy is inevitable, so they suggested models such as listening, conceding valid points, seeking overlap that allow opponents to keep working together rather than treating each other as enemies. The school finance and accountability debates over inequitable funding, treatment of racial minorities, or protections for students with disabilities can benefit from some of the suggestions given by Hess and Noguera in order to prevent dominant groups or jurisdictions from taking advantage of others inside a shared system.
Comments
Post a Comment