The conventional wisdom among reformers today is that "we know what to do, but we don't have the political will to do it." I'd frame it differently: We increasingly have good policies in place, but we don't know how to turn them into reality. And because most policies aren't self-implementing, we have to solve the problem of "delivery" if reform is going to add up to a hill of beans.
Those of us at the Fordham Institute (and our partners at the Center for American Progress) have been making the case that the governance structures of U.S. public education impede our ability to do implementation right. Local school districts -- with their elected school boards, susceptibility to interest group capture, and lack of scale -- aren't always inclined or well suited to turn legislative reforms into real change on the ground. I've wondered out loud whether we should abolish school districts and run the whole kit and caboodle out of state departments of education.
That's still a tantalizing idea, but probably too radical for anyone to take seriously in the immediate future. So here's an alternative: How about creating a "virtual education ministry" that school districts would choose to associate with voluntarily? (Creating more than one of these entities would even better.) Think of it as a private-sector department of education, but run much more efficiently and with higher-quality staff than the government ever could.
Such a ministry would be akin to the comprehensive school reform organizations of the 1990s (such as Success for All, Modern Red Schoolhouse, Expeditionary Learning, etc.) or the charter management organizations of the 2000s (Aspire, Achievement First, Uncommon Schools, etc.), except that it would focus on "whole district reform" rather than "whole school reform." (This would also distinguish it from myriad other organizations that provide piecemeal consulting or solutions to school districts. The intent here is to be soup-to-nuts.)
Picture a non-profit organization governed by a prestigious board with a range of experience and expertise. Its mission would be to build the capacity of interested school districts in order to prepare their students for college and career readiness, as defined by the Common Core. It would be particularly attractive for small- to medium-sized districts that don't have the scale to develop their own curricula or engage in their own research and evaluation (in other words, most of the school districts in the nation).
This "ministry" would tackle the following responsibilities (as bona fide ministries of education do in most European and Asian countries):
When this "virtual education ministry" is built out, then, participating schools and school districts would be immersed in a coherent system that includes teacher selection and preparation; a common curriculum and related (and robust) instructional supports; detailed guidance on key instructional issues, such as those related to special education; and support for school leaders on essential management tasks, especially evaluating their teachers. And because the "ministry" wouldn't live in the governmental sector, it wouldn't face all the impediments that make it so hard for school districts or state departments of education to recruit and retain high-quality staff.
Imagine if the network grows to serve one-fifth of the nation's student population, or 10 million children. Tool-builders could petition the "ministry" to include their solutions in its instructional support system or standards operating procedures. If a product is approved -- because of its compelling evidence -- the ministry could encourage all of its participating school districts to purchase it -- perhaps at a discount rate through the ministry itself. This would facilitate the "scaling up" process dramatically.
Is it possible that such a "virtual education ministry" (or two or three such entities) could provide all the benefits of a national or state-driven education system, without the political risks and backlash? Let me know what you think.
Originally published on the Fordham Institute's Flypaper blog.
Follow Michael J. Petrilli on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MichaelPetrilli
Furthermore, a national or state-driven educational system is a terrible idea. In China, North Korea, and Cuba, students are only exposed to one point-of-view during their education--the point-of-view considered correct by the government. If we had a national educational system then children would only be exposed to one point of view. This would be very unhealthy for a democracy. Creativity and an open discussion of ideas is what our education system needs--not control by a central authority. The goal is not to produce mindless automatons. The goal is to produce citizens that have a wide variety of skills, think for themselves, and are creative.
If your ministry was allowed to sell ministry-approved products from the ministry itself, then the ministry would only approve the products that it could make the most money from--not what was best for the students.
If the ministry did its own research, then the researchers would not have the independence needed to be objective. Ministry researchers would likely support whatever methods the ministry wanted them to support. Research should be done by lots of people at lots of different intstitutions to insure a variety of different perspectives are heard.
So this ministry would control all research, teacher training, curriculum, products, everything? Kids are not Model T's that can be churned out on a standardized assembly line. Standardizing everything will reduce the chances that students' needs are met because every student needs something different. The more choices a student has, the more likely it is that he or she will be able to find something that meets his or her own needs.
Did you make this up as a practical joke? It sounds like some kind of Orwellian nightmare.