What’s Next?

5 Replies to “What’s Next?”

1. Well stated. In this current economy, President-elect Obama’s most powerful tool is that of the bully pulpit. It will take time to refocus current funding streams and even more time to identify additional funding to boost the federal investment in education. Obama, and his education surrogates, must use the bully pulpit to effectively remind all of us of the importance of education improvement and the inextricable link between a strong education and a strong economy. Some may see it as pure PR, but such rhetoric provides the time to move great ideas into policy realities.

2. I read everything your shop puts out, and as opposed to the extreme supporters of accountability you guys of doing a great job of showing what “real accountability” is not. I still haven’t got a clue of what the accountability regime would be that we shouldn’t flinch from.

   But I’d like to point out a second inexpensive resource: conversation. To take one example, The Gift of Time. High poverty schoools that have done better under NCLB have often extended the school day. And that requires the reintroduction of the arts, music, and respect for the whole child. That’s not free, and under the status quo, it is not possible.

   But, if we talked things out, it has been argued we could get significant increases in the school day for as little as a 20% increase in spend. The reorganization of the school day, however, will not plan itself. We have to talk things out.

   The same applies for many communities in the schools ideas. Social service providers have to be housed somewhere, and they are already spending plenty on our students when they reach the ER, parole, foster care, etc. Relocating those services into the school mostly requires communication.

   We disagree on this. I doubt we will have those converstions as long as we have accountability systems that resemble NCLB. But disagreements also call for conversations.

3. Erin Dillon’s paper on NCLB’s school choice provisions raises a number of interesting issues, most of which will require significant political will and capital to address. While she suggests changes to the federal law that might affect district behavior, I wonder what role the states might play. Despite local control and funding, districts rely on state funding to some degree, which could allow the state to attach conditions related to choice. For example, in Massachusetts, while districts get to choose whether to accept students from other districts, districts cannot prevent students from attending other districts and must transfer up to $5000 to the other district to pay it for educating their students. Of course, having funds follow the student raises the objection that charter opponents love to make: that reducing funds in already struggling districts will harm them more.

4. NCLB should be left to the state. If one don’t like it, they can alway move to a state that don’t have it.

   Growing up neglected by many teachers (but had a very good speech therapist.. who was more like my english teacher) in public school because of my hearing loss, I support NCLB.. but just not the federal kind.

5. I noticed that some teachers complained about NCLB and different learning styles and such…. Well, that what charter schools are for. It allow parents to find a teacher/school that work for their child.

   My teachers only taught on what work for “hearing people” . My mother could pick a school that would work for me, while making sure I was oralist at the same time. That I was actually learning something. My point is, teachers had always did the one size fit all teaching. NCLB change that I hope.