Educational 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 an urgency to improve their children’s education. This urgency is leading to a change in the focus 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 processes, procedures, and policies that empower communities, entrepreneurial school leaders, and 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 choice through strong, autonomous 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 levels. Washington remains too focused on micromanaging through thousands of pages of regulations attached to hundreds of programs. Simply complying with ever-increasing procedural, input, and process controls 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 is not to say that every federally expressed priority must have a corresponding federal program. For example, a national priority to improve elementary school reading scores could produce myriad local strategies to achieve that goal. Prudence suggests that federal funds should go to states and their local school districts so they can decide how best to spend those funds. Those closest to the children in care 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 reform energies that abound in the states.
Title I was created as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and remains the centerpiece of the federal role in public education. Part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society legislation, its intent was noble: to provide ancillary services to improve the academic achievement of poor and disadvantaged children and reduce the achievement gap between rich and poor.
It is well documented that the academic performance of disadvantaged students has not improved significantly and that the achievement gap between rich and poor has not narrowed. This pattern of failures can be attributed to some major flaws that were part of the original design of the program or that crept in through subsequent reauthorizations of the program.
First among these shortcomings are funding 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 spending per pupil. Title I funding formulas also encourage concentration of poor students in the same schools in order for schools to be eligible for funding.
Funding formulas must be changed to ensure that all disadvantaged children receive assistance. Instead of funding school systems, the dollars should be accruing to benefit the student. Title I should be a right for disadvantaged children.
Title I also focuses on inputs, bureaucratic process, and paperwork rather than accountability for results. The program requires only that money be spent in targeted categories and that established processes be followed correctly. There is no need to demonstrate results to improve student achievement and there are no consequences for not doing so.
This must change. States and localities must be free from inflexible and onerous 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 instructional 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 be flooded, 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 engaging 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 very difficult for parents to get reliable and understandable information about school performance. What is even more worrying is that when parents do get useful information, they are often unable to act on behalf of their children.
For example, parents who are dissatisfied with the education a child is receiving cannot transfer that child to another school (traditional public, charter, or private) and expect federal funding to follow. Parents are also prohibited from using funds generated by their child 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 be. Once the funds are directed to individual students, and state and local officials have the freedom and flexibility to design programs that address their needs, the dollars should follow them to the school or educational provider of their choice, within the limits established by each single state. If parents are happy with the school and a child’s progress, their Title I dollars stay. If they are not, they should be free to choose another public school, including a charter school. States may also offer options such as tutoring from approved providers.
For schools that do not measure up, there are consequences and assistance available to improve. State money allocated for that child’s education follows.
We put the needs of children before those of the system. But it’s important to remember that scholarships are only one part of a comprehensive accountability package. Clear and measurable expectations, understandable information for parents about school performance, remediation and assistance to low-performing schools, and options for students in schools that are not improving are other components of the package.
Parents should be able to decide what kind of education their children will receive. If states and local districts choose to use federal funds to empower parents of targeted children to attend charter schools, receive tutoring or take advantage of private school choice, 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 start with high standards and expectations. They identify clear indicators to measure progress towards desired results and are flexible about the means to achieve results.