The Treasure Hunter

A blog by Joanne Yatvin

Federal Government VS Public Schools

on January 16, 2019

Today’s source,”It’s time to Redefine the Federal Role in K-12 Education”, published in The Phi Delta Kappen in August 2018, presents mixed views of the quality of American education. In the article the author, Jack Tidal Jennings, strongly criticizes the current actions of  public school leaders and then includes responses from a number of public school people. Reading the article  helped me to understand the views from both sides and  form my own opinion about  what  needs to be done to improve schools and by whom.

P.S. Writing this piece and checking for errors took me several days to do. That’s why you didn’t receive it earlier. Over the coming week I will relax with my sister in Florida and not write a word. I need a break!

——————————————————————————————————————————–

Last year Jack Jennings, the former president and CEO of the Center on Educational Policy from 1967 to 1994, decided to write a letter that questioned many of the actions of educational leaders in several states. In that letter it was clear that he disliked much of what was happening currently and what he saw in the the new ESSA law that diminished government control of schools and gave more power to the states instead. What he wants now are new additions to the law that would make certain school actions required and others forbidden.

To help readers understand Jennings’ concerns and desires I needed to quote him directly several times. However, it would have been too much to repeat all his fears and desires.  What I’ve tried to do instead is to quote only his most significant statements–in the same order that he put them– that he believes must be included–and enforced– in the  ESSA law.

Here they are:

States will vary greatly in their goals for student achievement, their indicators of success, and their approach holding educators accountable and assisting underperforming schools.

The fact remains that ESSA rests on the same faulty foundation as NCLB

States will vary greatly in their goals for student achievement, their indicators of success and their approaches, holding educators accountable and assisting under- performing schools

When local leaders are unable or unwilling to provide all children’s needs federal policy makers have an obligation to become involved.

The fact remains that ESSA rests on the same faulty foundation as NCLB: the assumption that pressuring teachers and administrators raise test scores will lead to better instruction and greater learning for all students.

ESSA was enacted only two and a half years ago, but it’s not too soon to begin drafting new law.

When local leaders are unable or unwilling to provide formal children’s needs, federal policy makers have an obligation to become involved.

As the National Conference put it in a recent report,”The U.S. workforce, widely acknowledged to be the best educated in the world half a century ago, is now among the least well-educated in the world.”

Certainly, it (the federal government) should stay out of decisions that are best left to governors, state legislators, school boards, superintendents, and teachers, but when local leaders are unable or unwilling to provide for all children’s needs, federal policy makers have an obligation to become involved.

There is both a strong precedent and an urgent need for the federal government to continue to play an active roll in K-12 education.

No state has yet come close to ensuring that all young children enter school with the early math, literacy, and other skills that will allow them to succeed.

An equally pressing problem, which states have shown little ability to solve on there own, has to do with raising the quality of the teaching force.

If we were serious about teacher recruitment, quality, and retention, would we pay our teachers such meager wages?

Nor have states made sufficient progress on another critical priority for the nations’ schools: ensuring that the K-12 curriculum prepares students well for college, careers, and a civic life.

The Federal government can and should (as it has done many times before) support curricular improvement in literacy, math, science, civics, language learning, and other subject areas.

Finally, the funding of public education needs to be overhauled.

In short, I argue that federal education policy has important contributions to make in at least four key areas: pre school education, teacher quality, curriculum, and school funding.

Further, I recommend that the government adopt a fair and straightforward process to award grants and monitor states progress.

The federal government does indeed have a vital role to play in K-12 education, providing resources and leadership, solving problems that states are unable or unwilling to solve on their own.

As I see it, Congress’ best option is to undertake difficult but crucial reforms in exchange for more and unrestricted federal aid. Specifically, I propose that the next iteration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provide grants to states.

First, to ensure the future prosperity and cohesion of our nation, we must help our students achieve at higher levels than in the past; second, our schools do not currently provide all students with equal opportunities to become well educated

We must get going, and fast!

Three Replies to Jennings

From Christopher Cross who is chairman of Four Point Education Partners, a distinguished senior fellow with the Education Commission of the States, and a consultant the Broad Foundation.

I agree with Jack that the federal government should make it a higher priority to support better research and data collection in K-112 education.

I disagree with the idea that the feds can or should get into the curriculum business.

Jack doesn’t address special education, but it is badly in need reform, and it should get more attention from federal policy makers. As Jack argues, K-12 education also has severe human capital issues that need attention.

The toughest issue is to rethink the ways in which we finance K-12 education.

Again, I don’t know that Washington should be involved in telling states and districts what to do, but this could be another place where it could be useful to create a federally sponsored commission to propose new funding models and issue a report to the nation.

From Daria Hall, Vice President for Partnerships and Engagement at The Education Trust.

Let’s not forget, the reason the federal government got involved in education was to serve as champion for the students being systematically overlooked and underserved by states and local communities.

The need for this role is no less urgent now than it was during the War on Poverty.  Every day in America, low-income children and children of color attend  schools where we spend less on their education, expect less of them, assign them to teachers who are ill-equipped to serve them, and fail to provide a supportive environment  for learning.

These inequities matter. They hinder mobility for individual students and families. And they erode the health of our collective economy, society, and democracy.

So any conversation about a revised federal role must start with attention to opportunity and achievement for low-income students and students of color. And it must be grounded in a commitment to action when any group of students is not getting the education they need and deserve.

Would more federal action on pre-school, teacher quality, curriculum, and funding be welcome? Absolutely.

But it must be grounded in a commitment to prioritizing the needs and interests of historically underserved students. Experience is clear that without a specific equity, even the best-intentioned policy advances can end up exacerbating disparities.

And it must come alongside meaningful accountability for the outcomes of all groups of students, and the expectation of meaningful action when schools or districts underserve any student group. Evidence from schools and systems that are making the most progress for all groups of students demonstrates that this progress happens when targeted resources and meaningful accountability go hand in hand.

We can do this all: Prioritize historically underserved students, maintain—and indeed improve—accountability for results, and expand opportunity for the students who most need it.  No federal law should do any less.

From Joanne Yatvin, a retired teacher and school principal who still reads and writes about American education.

You have certainly covered a wide range of the expectations of Congress for our public schools and their failure to meet them. From my view, as a long term educator and the parent of four children who are now successful adults, I disagree with most of your concerns.  In fact, I disagree almost totally with your beliefs about the weaknesses in American public education and your desire for certain changes. (The one place where I agree strongly with you is that teachers are under paid.)

Although I am aware of long-standing problems in many schools, I see them as the product of family poverty, insufficient school funding, continuing changes in school operations, unrealistic expectations for student learning, and the foolish belief that all schools should be alike. (I could name more problems, but I’m sure you can already see my views.)

What I think the Federal government should be doing–instead of making judgements based on students test scores–is get to know schools around the country and their needs, then help those schools that need success attain it.

A Final Word From Jack Jennings 

As noted by Theresa Alban, superintendent of Maryland’s Frederick County Public Schools, my purpose in writing this article was to stimulate a much-needed and long overdue discussion about Washington, DC’s role in school improvement. Because the major federal education reforms of the last three decades have not shown the progress we need, and because the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) provides little in the way of a course correction, it’s time to take hard looks at our fundamental principles to determine how best to proceed.

Kristin Amundson, from the National Association of State Boards of Education, believes that the states are moving ahead on their own under Essa and that there is no need for significant new federal action on K-12 education. I disagree. I suspect that in the coming years, most states will simply fine tune their accountability systems and mount no major efforts to improve their schools.

 

 

 

 

 


One response to “Federal Government VS Public Schools

  1. doctorsam7 says:

    Your response hit the nail right on the head. I will be talking about this through various social media and keying in on the message you gave. Thanks!!!!! Enjoy Florida- you’ve earned it! Sam from St. Louis

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: