school choice may not be enough. The author, a believer in school choice (especially vouchers) who it must be pointed out needs to understand that the private or privatized market does not have nor wants to build the capacity to TEACH ALL CHILDREN, nonetheless writes honestly about notable shortfalls of the market approach being taken in New York City's public schools. He finishes his piece with this-------------------
"One wonders why so many in the school reform movement and in the business community celebrate New York City's recent record on education. Is it merely because they hear the words "choice," "markets" and "competition" and think that all is well? If so, they're mistaken. The primal scene of all education reform is the classroom. If the teacher isn't doing the right thing, all the cash incentives in the world won't make a difference.
Those in the school reform movement seeking a case of truly spectacular academic improvement should look to Massachusetts, where something close to an education miracle has occurred. In the past several years, Massachusetts has improved more than almost every other state on the NAEP tests. In 2007, it scored first in the nation in fourth- and eighth-grade math and reading. The state's average scale scores on all four tests have also improved at far higher rates than most other states have seen over the past 15 years.----personal note----Since the author states that it is the CLASSROOM that is most important, he should have pointed out that it is the support, dedication and day-to-day work of public school administrators, teachers, local school boards of education, students and parents that make tangible, sustained improvements possible in Massachusetts or anywhere. Policies are important, of course. As a former policy maker, I concur that without them improvements are impossible. But, it is only through their implementation, over time and with fidelity, that they are proven meaningful and transformational.
The improvement had nothing to do with market incentives. Massachusetts has no vouchers, no tuition tax credits, very few charter schools, and no market incentives for principals and teachers. The state owes its amazing improvement in student performance to a few key former education leaders, including state education board chairman John Silber, assistant commissioner Sandra Stotsky, and board member (and Manhattan Institute fellow) Abigail Thernstrom.
Starting a decade ago, these instructionists pushed the state's board of education to mandate a rigorous curriculum for all grades, created demanding tests linked to the curriculum standards, and insisted that all high school graduates pass a comprehensive exit exam. In its English Language Arts curriculum framework, the board even dared to say that reading instruction in the early grades should include systematic and explicit phonics. Now a professor of education reform at the University of Arkansas, Ms. Stotsky sums up: 'The lesson from Massachusetts is that a strong content-based curriculum, together with upgraded certification regulations and teacher licensure tests that require teacher preparation programs to address that content, can be the best recipe for improving students' academic achievement.'"
Although his first phrase doesn't really make sense after he stated the opposite, he does conclude with much of what many, myself included, are increasingly saying------------
"The Massachusetts miracle doesn't prove that a standard curriculum and a focus on effective instruction will always produce academic progress. Nor does the flawed New York City experiment in competition mean that we should cast aside all market incentives in education. But what has transpired in these two places provides an important lesson: education reformers ought to resist unreflective support for elegant-sounding theories, derived from the study of economic activity, that don't produce verifiable results in the classroom. After all, children's lives are at stake."
0 comments:
Post a Comment