-
Recent Posts
- Kamala’s brother-in-law fleeced taxpayers for billions to give to left-wing groups and lawyers | New York Post | 8.24. 24
- Coming: Global Political Recalibration
- Clark Judge: FDR, Reagan, and European Nationalism | NatCon Rome 2020
- Lady Gaga Tells All
- Trial Lawyers Use COVID-19 to Prey on America’s Corporations | Real Clear Policy | 12.1.20
Categories
- Book Reviews (12)
- Communication Strategy (23)
- Constitution and Law (14)
- Economic Policy: General (33)
- Economic Policy: Health Care (30)
- Economic Policy: The Great Financial Crisis (15)
- Economic Policy: US Debt Crisis (32)
- Education Policy (1)
- Global Issues (57)
- Political Commentary: Campaign 2008 (18)
- Political Commentary: Campaign 2012 (43)
- Political Commentary: Campaign 2020 (5)
- Political Commentary: General (122)
- Politics & Policy (6)
- Ronald Reagan and the Reagan Administration (11)
- Speeches/Lectures (9)
- Uncategorized (6)
Archives
- September 2024
- March 2023
- July 2022
- April 2022
- December 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- November 2019
- December 2018
- September 2017
- April 2017
- January 2017
- October 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- June 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- January 2008
- June 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- June 2006
- October 2005
- August 2005
- March 2005
- November 2004
- August 2004
- June 2004
- December 2003
- October 2003
- August 2003
- April 2003
- July 2002
- December 2001
- November 2001
- May 2001
- December 2000
- June 2000
- January 1995
- August 1994
- August 1992
- June 1991
- July 1990
- September 1989
- July 1989
- March 1989
Tags
2012 2012 election Benghazi campaign constitution debt debt crisis Democrats economy election 2012 Energy Financial Times fiscal cliff foreign policy Gingrich Global Warming GOP Hoover Digest hughhewitt HughHewitt.com Immigration IRS National Review New York Post New York Times Obama Obamacare Republicans Ricochet Ricochet.com Romney Russia Scandal Senate SOTU speech Supreme Court Syria Tea Party Trump U.S. News Ukraine Wall Street Journal war Washington Times
Education Reform in America is Just Getting Started | HughHewitt.com | 08.08.13
Yesterday, former Florida governor Jeb Bush made news zinging actor/director Matt Damon with a tweet: “Matt Damon Refuses to Enroll Kids in Los Angeles Public Schools. Choice ok for Damon, why not everyone else?”
The cafeteria food fight that is the U.S. education debate is on again. After two decades it has come down to one core point of contention: accountability. It may be accountability through hierarchy and standards (No Child Left Behind) or accountability through the market (school choice, either through publicly chartered or private schools or both). To one degree or another the teachers unions oppose both approaches.
But are choice and standards our only options?
We all know why this fight continues. It began in the 1980s, when the Reagan Education Department published a study of American schools, concluding that performance was so bad that if a foreign power were to impose such schools on us, we would consider it an “act of war” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Nation_at_Risk).
While there is occasional dissent, usually from teachers union quarters, that judgment has been confirmed again and again over the years. For example, in 2007, the Pacific Research Institute published a study of California schools titled Not as Good as You Think (http://tinyurl.com/kv7jwed) and a follow up in 2009, Still Note as Good as You Think (http://tinyurl.com/koh9ak4). PRI produced a movie based on the first study. The film has run more than one-hundred times on public television in Southern California. The New York Times posted a segment on its website as a video op ed (http://tinyurl.com/mff6kz8).
Both studies found that performance shortfalls in California public schools were not confined to low-income school districts, as was the popular myth. PRI’s Lance Izumi, a star in national education policy, examined student scores in reading and math around the state. Schools in middle income and even very wealthy communities fell unacceptably short. Forty percent of students failed to perform at proficiency in at least on grade level.
Yet as I discovered when I assembled a group of education experts from around the country several years ago (the purpose was to advise a political party in another highly developed country on the effectiveness of education reform in the United States), there is a great deal of doubt among American reformers about the effectiveness of all reforms to date.
As one expert noted, for market solutions to work, schools must be able to lose market share and go out of business. Institutional punishment is as critical to market dynamics as institutional reward. For obvious political reasons, charter schools are rarely allowed to close. Subsidies just keep coming in.
Meanwhile, based on test scores, No Child Left Behind was succeeding at closing the gap among ethnic groups, with the scores of African-American and Hispanic students moving up significantly faster than those of already high-scoring white and Asian students. But the Obama administration made critical modifications to the program when it came into office and progress stopped.
In other words, political opponents have, to one degree or another, frustrated both strategies.
All this brings me to a story about a Korean super teacher. Last Saturday the Wall Street Journal reported on a teacher who earns $ 4 million a year (http://tinyurl.com/pbhsdvb). Though not an American, Kim Ki-hoon surely represents the next stage of the education debate in the United States.
He teaches English. His classes are on video. When not producing more videos and writing more textbooks to go with them, he is online, answering student questions and giving tutorials. Today 75 percent of Korean students participate in the private market. By one means or another and often online, they receive private instruction in parallel to their public school education.
The results? According to the Journal article, 47 percent of 8th graders score as advanced in basic skills. In the United States only 7 percent do.
Last week, I wrote about a morning I spent with a serial entrepreneur in the California tech sector. I reported on what he told me about the death of “liquidity event” IPOs. But we also talked about education policy. Like those experts I assembled several years ago, he doubted that school choice as currently conceived was a sufficiently robust answer to our national education problems.
“School choice is a demand-side strategy,” he said. “But if everyone received vouchers and rushed to pull their children out of public schools, the private schools couldn’t handle them. We need a supply-side strategy. How do we lower the barriers to starting a school?”
Again, the Korean example may point to an answer: Go online; go entirely private; do not wait for government-funded schools to catch up. In this country we have seen the emergence of the Khan Academy (https://www.khanacademy.org/), which follows this model but is free. At the university level, we have the University of Phoenix, Strayer University and other for profit and highly innovative institutions. There are also increasingly sophisticated efforts from traditional schools, whether for degree programs or not. On a number of levels (in production values and formats as well as content), the most impressive examples I have found are from Hillsdale College. To see what I mean, listen to the Hillsdale Dialogues between Hugh Hewitt and college president Larry Arnn (http://tinyurl.com/mnmjyd4). (Yes, this article appears on the Hewitt website and yes, I have known Dr. Arnn for year, but what I say here is nevertheless true).
But on the K-12 level, the teachers unions and government rules remain obstacles to the emerging model. As another study by PRI’s Izumi found (http://tinyurl.com/lqssygg), California in particular has thrown obstacle after obstacle in the way of wider use of online education. For example, if you enroll in an online virtual school, the school must be physically located in your county or an adjoining one and the teacher-student ratio must not exceed 25:1. By contrast, Kim Ki-hoon’s students number 150,000.
The American education reform movement was launched in the 1980s – but looked at the way I have been here, it is just getting started.