Ed Policy, part 3

The last decades’ rhetoric on standards has also allowed us to ignore the important impact that “equity” has on educational quality –conveniently giving politicians an excuse from having to make tough decisions. Politicians, after all, are responsible for how our resources are distributed.

(To his credit - on this issue - Governor Rendell has been an exception.)

But it is ridiculous to suggest that educational quality is unaffected by money. Upper-middle class suburban taxpayers don’t enjoy paying taxes more than anyone else, but they’re willing to do it because they believe good facilities and well-paid teachers give their children a competitive advantage.  And they’re right.

Children learn better – or more accurately, they have better opportunities to learn – in classrooms with adequate heat, good air ventilation, indirect lighting and good acoustics. On the other hand, money alone won’t fix anything. Well-paid teachers and great facilities won’t compensate for the lack of engaging, focused instruction and supportive parents.

Still others have suggested that the “solution” is to “pay for performance”. Well, maybe – but here’s the problem with that, as I see it. For teachers - particularly the good ones - it’s not about the money. Numerous teacher surveys – most recently by the Gates Foundation – have come the same conclusion: “supportive leadership” and “time to collaborate” are more important to teachers than “higher salaries”.

While teachers should be treated as professionals, and paid accordingly, the vast majority of teachers are motivated intrinsically – whose life did I change today? - not extrinsically.

Plus, to think that you could create an accountability system without input from teachers (i.e., NCLB) is just crazy. It’s not that teachers don’t want to be held “accountable”; they want to be accountable in ways that are meaningful.

Finally, I should mention the two ideas that have been the core of NCLB: “higher standards” and “highly qualified” teachers. First, the research has been clear: so-called higher standards hasn’t improved education for most students. As Darling-Hammond recently put it, “just telling schools that they (have to reach a certain standard) is not going to get them to do it better. We’re assuming they’re able to do better, but are unwilling.”

This is particularly problematic when the “standards” are unconnected to the skills and knowledge that students will actually need to be successful employees and citizens.

Unfortunately, “highly qualified” was all about teaching credentials, not teaching skills. Sure, it’s important for teachers to “know the material” - but being a Math major in college doesn’t prepare you to teach math to a group of fourth-graders of varying interests, abilities and learning styles.

And so, I’ve come to this sobering but somewhat obvious conclusion: providing every child with a quality education is a highly complex undertaking, one that defies easy and simplistic solutions.

Well, so what?