Can the feds fix education?

For two years I’ve struggled to understand the Obama administration’s thinking on education reform. The President and Ed Secretary Duncan appear to be smart guys with good intentions, but I continue to feel – like Madeline - that something’s not right. 

Obama has said that his greatest concern is for the highly dysfunctional schools that tend to be found in large urban areas. As he put it: “the lowest income schools with the kids who are two, three grade levels behind”. 

Good. I’m completely with him on this. If the immediate goal is to transform those schools, then let’s say so, and focus school reform efforts there.

But I have several concerns. First, there has been little conversation on what can be reasonably accomplished at the federal level. Well-intentioned or not, is what they’re attempting possible? Traditionally, education has been a responsibility of state and local governments.  Only recently has Washington had significant influence, and judging by the nearly universal criticism of NCLB, not particularly successfully.

Prior to NCLB, the federal responsibility was primarily financial: for special education (IDEA), and for “low SES” (Title I), the theory being that a child’s zip code shouldn’t be a predictor of educational opportunity. Should there be a greater federal role, either through direct funding, or by insisting that states do a better job of ensuring educational equity?  Perhaps.

But those who say that you can’t solve this problem by throwing money at it are correct. Here’s the reason: for many schools, the lack of resources are not just financial.  Effective schools are almost always the result of a collaboration between teachers, administrators, school board members(!), involved parents, local civic and business leaders, and community volunteers.  Many of our ‘underperforming’ schools lack the human capital needed to create an environment in which quality education can flourish. 

Plus, the issues that cause community dysfunction are precisely those that must be addressed in order to create quality schools. (This is why KIPP is successful – but not cheap!) Good schools are locally produced.

But it’s hard for single parents, or parents working multiple jobs to be involved parents. And while there was a time when teachers were required to live in the communities in which they taught, few teachers are willing to live and raise families in the these ‘communities’ now.. 

Further, most city schools are governed, and resources allocated by, a bureaucracy that is far removed from the local school. The members of a city school board don’t know you, your kids, or your teachers. They don’t live in your community, and their kids don’t go to your school. 

Back when Governor Rendell had the nutty idea of consolidating Pennsylvania’s five hundred districts, I commented that perhaps he should consider breaking up the large city districts, on the premise that districts with hundreds of schools and hundreds of thousands of students are far too large to manage effectively.  I now think I was more right about that than I realized.

A lot of what is required to produce quality schools is beyond the ability of the federal government to deliver.  If this is true – and I believe it is – then there is no quick fix. The sooner we accept that, the sooner we can get on with creating an educational system that works for everyone. (Note: for all the rhetoric, we’ve never tried to create a national education system before!)