Smarick:Petrilli Too Timid

January 19, 2007 by dave

I found this edspresso.com posting to be very interesting. Recently, Mike Petrilli, a former US Department of Ed staffer who was previously a firm believer in NCLB. Mike wrote that he came to the conclusion that NCLB won't work and made two suggestions for fixing it. His suggestions were:

• Directing more funding to low performing schools and giving states more control over the funding.
• Giving states extra funding for voluntary adoption of national education standards.

In this story, Andy Smarick agrees with Mike but says he didn't go far enough. I agree with Andy that Mike's suggestions aren't going to have enough impact.

First, directing more funds to needy students is a just policy, but it's also a well-worn path. Title I, state legislatures, and state courts have been increasing aid to low-income kids for the last 40 years, and yet the achievement gap remains. Absent some other fundamental changes in state and district policies, it's hard to imagine how this new stream of money is going to solve the problem.

Second, while I agree that national standards and a national test would give us a reliable means of comparing schools across state lines and shine light on our educational problems, it's extremely difficult to make the case that the achievement gap would go away if only it were better known. Coleman told us about it in 1966, NAEP's been chronicling it since 1969, state tests confirmed it throughout the 1980s and 1990s, and NCLB has made it front page news since 2002.

In short, for the 40 years preceding NCLB, states and districts had an unblemished record of failure on the achievement gap; if we're going to re-empower them to address this issue, we at least have to put them in position to succeed.

Andy makes some suggestions of his own. I completely agree with his first suggestion.

While I don't have a grand solution that will fix all of our troubled schools, two small changes to NCLB can help bring about the fluid, self-improving school systems we need. First, do away with all "restructuring" options available to failing schools. If a school misses AYP for five years it must be closed (or the district loses its Title I funds).

I completely agree with this one. Unfortunately, for many schools, "restructuring" is just an excuse to continue the same old ineffective practices and delay actual consequences of low student achievement.

Second, turn the federal charter schools grant program into an engine of new school creation. Its budget should be expanded significantly and its funds should support the start-up of new schools in areas affected by these forced school closures.

In these new school systems, chronically low-performing schools will be regularly shuttered and replaced by new, highly accountable public schools. Students affected by closures will have the choice of attending a new school or a higher-performing existing school. Every year, the NCLB closure provision and charter contracts will close those schools continuously failing their students. The beefed-up charter schools program will ensure that new schools are always on deck, ready to enter the fray.

I'm not so enthused about this second suggestion. Of course, Andy as a Charter School association staffer is probably very pro-charter. Some charter schools are great and some are terrible, just like traditional public schools. I guess if these new charters have the same 5 year lifespan if they fail, in the long run schools would improve, but that's 5 years of students getting a substandard education. If the NCLB restructuring provisions were more closely monitored by the states, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

They key to reforming schools is actual reform. Far too often educators say they're committed to reform but nothing in the school or classroom actually changes.

Permalink