Education reform continues to top the list of problems facing the nation today
Education reform continues to top the list of problems facing the nation today. Americans are better informed than ever about school performance and its implications for our future, and many feel the urgency to improve their children’s education. This urgency is causing a change in the approach of educational policy at all levels: federal, state and local. Many states and localities are enacting policies that put the needs of children and parents before systems, focusing on improving student achievement rather than on processes, procedures and policies that empower communities, school leaders and to entrepreneurial teachers.
A tide of freedom, innovation and responsibility is sweeping the educational landscape in our states. This has been reflected in the adoption of high academic standards with rigorous assessments to measure student performance, increasing educational options through charter schools, and reducing regulations that impede the progress of creative and entrepreneurial teachers and school leaders.
However, the federal government has not caught up with the changes occurring at the state and local level. Washington remains too focused on micromanaging through thousands of pages of regulations attached to hundreds of programs. Simply adhering to ever-increasing procedural controls, inputs, and processes has become an end in itself with little regard for results.
The federal government has a legitimate role to play in recognizing national priorities in education. But that does not mean that every priority expressed at the federal level must have a corresponding federal program. For example, a national priority to improve elementary school reading scores could yield myriad local strategies to achieve that goal. Prudence suggests that federal funds should go to the states and their local school districts so they can decide how best to spend those funds. Those closest to the children receiving services must decide how best to meet their needs.
We have a tremendous opportunity and responsibility to improve public education and allow federal education policy to deepen and sustain the energies of reform that abound in the states.
Title I emerged as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and remains the centerpiece of the federal role in public education. As part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society legislation, its intent was noble: to provide complementary services to improve the academic achievement of poor and disadvantaged children and to reduce the achievement gap between rich and poor.
It is well documented that the academic performance of disadvantaged students has not improved significantly and the achievement gap between rich and poor has not narrowed. This pattern of failures can be attributed to some major failures that were part of the original design of the program or that crept in through subsequent reauthorizations of the program.
First, among these flaws are financing formulas that elevate the needs of education systems above the needs of children. Because Title I dollars go to school systems rather than individual children, some eligible students currently receive no funding or services at all. Many others receive very little money and few services because they live in states with low expenditures per pupil. The Title I funding formulas also encourage the concentration of poor students in the same schools so that schools are eligible for funding.
Funding formulas must be changed to ensure that all disadvantaged children receive assistance. Rather than funding school systems, dollars should increase to the benefit of the student. Title I should be a right for disadvantaged children.
Title I also focuses on input, red tape, and paperwork rather than accountability for results. The program only requires that the money be spent on targeted categories and that the mandatory processes are properly followed. You do not need to demonstrate results to improve student achievement and there are no consequences for not doing so.
This must change. States and localities must free themselves from inflexible and burdensome regulations. A more effective approach is to set performance priorities and give state, local, and school leaders the freedom and flexibility to make decisions about how to achieve them. In exchange for this flexibility, state and local officials must be held accountable for improving children’s academic achievement.
Affected districts are also eligible to receive special implementation grants that can be used to purchase new educational materials and technology; establish after-school, summer, and weekend programs; develop curriculum; o provide professional development training for teachers. The goal is to give failing districts new tools, new resources, new ideas, and enough time to turn things around. But if schools continue to fail, the provisions of the law authorize the state to get more directly involved.
Finally, much of federal education policy fails to recognize the critical importance of involving and empowering parents. Educators know that parental involvement is vital to educational success, particularly among disadvantaged students. However, we have created a system that makes it difficult for parents to obtain reliable and understandable information about school performance. What is even more concerning is that when parents obtain useful information, they are often unable to act on behalf of their children.
For example, parents unhappy with the education a child is receiving cannot transfer the child to another school (traditional public, charter, or private) and expect federal dollars to follow. Parents are also prohibited from using funds generated by their children for other services such as tutoring from private providers.
Research and common sense tell us that the more educational authority is returned to parents, the more engaged they will become. Once the funds are earmarked for individual students, and state and local officials have the freedom and flexibility to design programs that address their needs, the dollars must follow them to the school or educational provider of their choice, within limits set by each individual state. If parents are happy with the school and a child’s progress, their Title I dollars remain. If not, they should be free to choose another public school, including a charter school. States may also offer options such as tutoring by approved providers.
For schools that are not up to par, there are consequences and assistance available for improvement. Listed below are the state funds allocated for that child’s education.
We put the needs of children above those of the system. But it’s important to remember that scholarships are only one part of a comprehensive liability package. Clear and measurable expectations, information that is understandable to parents on school performance, remediation and attendance at underperforming schools, and options for students in schools that do not improve are other components of the package.
Parents should be allowed to decide what kind of education their children receive. If states and local districts choose to use federal funds to train parents of selected children to attend charter schools, receive tutoring, or take advantage of the private school option, so be it. It is a logical extension of local control. In fact, it is the most authentic form of local control.
State education reforms begin with high standards and expectations. They identify clear indicators to measure progress towards desired results and are flexible in the means of achieving results.