By Jesse Burns
Learning (individual, group and organizational!) Fellow
Is there hope for federal K-12 education reform?
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA, currently authorized as No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) is coming up for reauthorization. Both President Obama and Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan are presenting the reauthorization of ESEA as an opportunity to help provide greater transparency in the accountability system, harness the power of incentives and rewards within the education system, and focus upon turning around under-performing schools.
Given the polarizing debate that has ensued since the authorization of No Child Left Behind, I wonder how the current administration is poised to address a real divide between parties that, until recently, focused upon arguing about the existence of the Department of Education. 
As recently as George W. Bush’s tenure as president, Republicans assumed a position that the Department of Education, and thus federal involvement in education reform, should be abolished, as outlined by this Cato Institute piece. Interestingly, the Cato Institute piece demonstrates that Republican perspectives about abolishing the Department may be shifting.
Conversely, Democrats are most commonly aligned with increasing the funding of the Department of Education, assuming that its presence and status are given, as exemplified by perspectives put forth by the Center for American Progress.
While the current administration in Washington D.C. is supportive of federal involvement in education reform, I wonder if there is enough political will and support for a significant overhaul of the NCLB. Consider what Arne Duncan has identified as ways in which the federal government will create a common definition of success:
- Raising standards for all students,
- Rewarding success in schools,
- Supporting and rewarding effective teachers and leaders,
- Turning around low performing schools, and
- Helping schools develop a well rounded education.
I would imagine that most people, regardless of political affiliation, could support these ideas. However, the role of the federal government in bringing forth these ideas raises two fundamental questions: How involved should the federal government be in the US education system? What is the end goal that the federal government is aligning the education system? Is it to
…produce economically successful individuals, as researcher Richard Murnane proposes?
…ensure that each child simply has access to education?
While this question could serve as a basis for multiple Ph.D.’s, conferences, and summits, one take home point stands out: the educational system is moving forward at full speed without a consensus as to where it should be headed. In the interim the heading is focused upon using education as tool for promoting economic growth. Who is willing to argue with the proposition that better education will position individuals and the US for future economic growth? If I had kids, I would definitely be considering the financial implications of my kids educational opportunities and growth.
However, without developing some agreement on why we educate, we may be reliving history. Consider this quote from Patricia Graham:
“Public purposes for education change as the society perceives its needs and priorities differently. Currently our old educational shiboleths have been rejected but new ones have not yet been accepted. The critique of contemporary educational processes is intense, but there is little articulate reformulation of either educational goals or of means to achieve them.”1
26 years ago these words were scribbed, and it seems that we may well be articulating means to achieve something, without first deciding upon what we are to achieve.
Is there hope for your school?
Can we afford not to have the federal government involved in this debate? With state budgets crashing, federal stabilization funds from American Recovery and Reinvestment Act are playing an important role in maintaining adequate funding for schools. Furthermore, the next budget put forth by the Obama administration proposes to raise the Department of Education’s discretionary spending budget by 7.5%, the largest increase ever proposed.
Without having fully analyzed the Obama administration’s budget and plan for education, I’m initially impressed with the focus upon utilizing data for making decisions. Any attempt to increase the availability, rigor, and applicability within the education system seems very worthwhile, especially considering the historical lack of using data to drive decisions within the education sector. It would be even better if the administration clarified the need to use data in a formative manner (to improve teaching), which is no small task given that data has been utilized mostly as an outcome metric over the last 10 years.
I’m hopeful that federal involvement will accomplish a couple things:
- Provide a temporary bridge in funding for cash strapped states, and that states effectively deal with a precipitous drop in funding that is on the horizon once the ARRA funds are gone.
- Elevate education reform within the public agenda
- I don’t care if takes federal intervention or complete state autonomy. Our system has room for improvement and we need to apply all the currently available resources to improve it.
- Engage communicates in education reform beyond local levies and limited campaigns to bridge federal education reform with local education reform
- To do so will require some sort of organizing body to align all of these efforts. In Cincinnati an effort coordinate by Strive aligns over 300 organizations, in total over $7 billion dollars in resources, to move kids from birth to their career through an aligned system.
Here in Washington State, we have the opportunity to influence the future of this state’s education system—there happens to be a landmark bill (ESHB 2261) passed in by Washington’s Legislature in 2009 that will:
- increase instructional hours,
- enhance high school diploma requirements,
- create a new transportation funding formula,
- add all-day kindergarten to basic education, and
- provide new finance structure for transparency.
Maybe Washington State has the opportunity to create a cohesive strategy for aligning federal, state, and local policies to bring about lasting education reform?
How might you want to contribute to this process locally–as a parent, teacher, administrator, or person on the street—what is your stake in education reform?