Public DomainIn response to my
piece criticizing Common Core standards for threatening
education choice by binding publicly funded schools to lock-step
pacing and goals, Michael Petrilli, Executive VP of the Thomas B.
Fordham Institute and editor of Education Next, concedes
the risk and suggests some schools should be able to opt out.
Let schools opposed to rigid standards prove their mettle some
other way, he says. Making Common Core standards voluntary down to
the grassroots is a great idea, I think. But why stop there? We
should be able to opt out of so many other government
programs.

In his response to me, Petrilli points to an
article in which he proposed that “there might be, say, 10
percent of the schools for whom the Common Core, or any state
standards, may not be a good fit.” Among those schools, he
suggests, are high-achievers and schools that are philosophically
at odds with standardized measures.

Which schools belong in this 10 percent? First, some schools of
choice (including charter schools and magnet schools)—particularly
those on the far progressive end of the spectrum—fundamentally
don’t believe in testing as a great measure of what kids need to
know and be able to do. Their educational approach that is not a
good fit with standards-based reform…

Another group of schools that should be eligible for the opt-out
are uniformly high-achieving schools—those where virtually all the
kids are high achieving and for whom the Common Core standards (or
any other state standards) are actually well below where they’re
already achieving. These are largely going to be schools in our
affluent suburbs or exam schools in our big cities.

Part of his argument is that many of these schools are really a
lousy fit with standardized measures—often intentionally so—and
need to be judged by different criteria. He also argues, though,
that “the limited use of an opt-out will release some steam from
the political backlash to standards and testing.” That’s because
people tend to stop objecting to programs when they’re not
dragooned into them.

But doesn’t that same logic apply to so many other government
schemes?

Lots of people complain that they don’t want
Obamacare, or
Social Security, or the
surveillance state, or the war on
drugs, or
Medicare… These programs “may not be a good fit” for people
who value privacy, self-sufficiency and personal freedom.

SheDreamsInRedAs for critics…
A CBS poll shows that nine in ten Americans are “unhappy” with
the federal government, with 43 percent flat-out angry. That
follows on a Gallup poll showing that
sixty percent of Americans think the federal government is too
damned powerful—and a separate George Washington University
poll that finds that many Americans want not just the government,
but federal workers themselves, to
get lost.

So…If letting people opt out of a program that is just a lousy
fit for them, and that excites their vocal opposition, is a good
idea, why should it stop at public school standards? Wouldn’t it
make sense, and settle some of the boiling political tensions in
this country, if more of the government’s growing menu of
intrusive, presumptuous and expensive programs were optional?

What if we could say, either at will, or during a limited
dis-enrollment period, “Umm, no, thanks. I’ll skip the
entire right side of the menu.” We would escape rules and taxes,
and open up new options—though we’d have to surrender the supposed
protections offered by state programs, and the state would have to
be serious about holding us to our choices.

Frankly, I’d go so far as too give up fire protection (you need
a gander at the local department to understand) if, in turn, I
wouldn’t be bound by stupid building regulations. I’d surrender
police protection if that would give me a pass on what I grow and
smoke in my backyard, or tuck into a holster.

Opting out of Obamacare, Social Security and Medicare are
no-brainers—I’ll check those boxes, now, thanks.

Opting out of the security state will probably be a tougher
sell, because of the rather nebulous, holistic protections the NSA
and company claim to offer. But it is a lousy fit for me, and I
insist, at least, on the right to encrypt the shit out of any data
they try to grab. Let them try to figure out what I’ve steganographied
into some photoshopped images of Joe Biden and James Clapper.

A good time will be had by all.

Letting critics of government programs opt out because they’re a
bad fit? Brilliant. That should be standard policy.