Curiouser and Curiouser #1

Curiouser and Curiouser   #1

One of the pillars of conservative political philosophy is the tenant that government  should be kept to a minimum.  In pursuit of that belief, conservative politicians and analysts constantly seek to reduce the imprint of government at all levels.

At the same time, federal law prohibits the federal government from mandating certain education policies be adopted by the states.  That would seem to be a concept that would appeal to conservatives, as it limits the imprint of the federal government on state and local education policy.  In pursuit of this limited government policy, conservatives have championed the elimination of the Dept. of Education, along with many other federal agencies.

And yet, on Monday, Jan. 20, 2014, the Senate Education Committee, led by conservative chairperson Sen. Steve Litzow, will vote on one or more of three bills that will acquiesce to federal demands that Washington state change its law about educators’ evaluation protocols to “require” inclusion of student test score data.  There are a wealth of reasons why this is bad policy, but we’re concerned here with only one.  Why would conservatives quote an intrusive federal mandate as justification for passing otherwise unproven legislative mandates on educator evaluations. 

It would seem logical that, given conservative political philosophy, Washington’s conservatives would tell the federal government to take a hike!  That they are not only not doing that, but are loudly pointing to the federal mandate as justification, is stunningly inconsistent.  Unless, of course, there’s some “other reason” for pursuing this philosophy that remains unstated?

A reasonable person might wonder what that “other reason” might be.