Education reform Lofty rhetoric aside

Education reform
Lofty rhetoric aside, the implementation phase will tell the tale

Dec. 22, 2001

In early January, President Bush will sign a sweeping education bill as a signal that he is turning his attention to domestic priorities. Education, essential for the success of all programs both domestic and foreign, is a good place to start.

Bush began seeking support for his education plan shortly after his inauguration and was interrupted on Sept. 11. In a statement issued Tuesday after the Senate approved the bill 87-10 , the president said, "These historic reforms will improve our public schools by creating an environment where every child can learn through real accountability, unprecedented flexibility for states and school districts, greater local control, more options for parents, and more funding for what works."

Sounds good. Now we’ll see what happens.

Whether the bill actually provides those benefits remains to be seen. Concerns abound about how federally mandated programs can offer "greater local control," and the cost of improvements — including, in this case, tutoring for students at poorly performing schools — is always an issue.

Nationwide standardized testing, slated to begin in the 2005-2006 school year, is going to be controversial. Colorado has already discovered how difficult it is to design a testing instrument that accurately measures the educational achievements of students from diverse backgrounds. We’ll hear again all the familiar criticisms: the extra time spent in testing rather than teaching, the necessity of teaching to the test, etc. Those issues must be addressed, but they’re not convincing arguments against accountability.

Money must follow the mandate, and of course there’s not a lot of money to be had this year. A spokesperson for the American Federation for Teachers told the New York Times that the success of the plan rests on diligent monitoring not only of schools but of federal financing, and on money to reduce class sizes and improve teacher training.

"I don’t think people in education out in the field really have an appreciation for how sweeping this is," said David Griffith, director of public and governmental affairs at the National Association of State Boards of Education. In other words, the changes are going to be difficult to implement in a system that can’t afford a year off to retool.

We’ve heard a lot about "getting back to basics," which raises the question of what, exactly, is basic. Bush’s mention of flexibility is an acknowledgment that what works in one school, one region, or one socioeconomic group may not be successful in another. Successful programs must be protected and expanded, not sacrificed in the name of national consistency. National officials must also remember that not all students are headed for college and those statistically likely to work in coal mines may need different programs than those likely to work at ski resorts.

The purpose of education is to prepare students for the challenges they will face during their lifetimes, and even more importantly, to teach them how to learn, so that they can continue throughout their lives. The president is right in believing that we must find a way to do that for all students, across the lines of geography, economics, ethnicity. As always, a congressional mandate is a good start, but it’s the implementation phase that tells the tale.