They say, just run schools like businesses. Oh, really?

I just read an insightful article in Stateline Weekly this morning. While teachers and parents grow increasingly concerned about falling revenues for public schools, many legislatures and governors, of both political stripes, are seizing the moment to shift toward business-inspired, performance-based models and "outsourcing" the traditional classroom to privately managed, publicly funded charter schools and on-line instruction. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and state chambers are advocating for this shift and getting their talking points from education-reform theorists, or ideologues depending on your perspective, like Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute.

The theory goes that schools will be better if they are run like businesses. First off, in areas of public education such as school management, organizational structure, finance, construction, maintenance, etc. (non-classroom functions) good business practices have undeniably benefited the whole enterprise. They improve efficiency to maximize investment in the classroom. But, the business model is now directly entering the classroom.

One- This new breed of run-schools-like-businesses believes that the only way to improve instruction is to reward high-performing teachers and cull out the low-performing ones. In business, performance is measured in many ways, both tangible and intangible. And no business defines it in the same way. However, performance-based measurement of teaching is being simplified to focus primarily on math and reading test-score data and high-school graduation rates. Since the business voices are typically not educators, they look to such data-based tangibles because they're the easiest to understand and put into spreadsheets and talking points. The intangibles, not so much. So while they're given lip service, they're mainly avoided. That means fundamental elements in a comprehensive, rich education, i.e. the arts and humanities (including geography and history), science and physics, civics, world languages, hands-on, project, multi-disciplinary and outside-the-classroom learning are diminishing in value and priority in our public classrooms, both in traditional public schools and public charter schools. It also means that the tangibles are increasingly driving teacher education and professional development. Is this what they want for the future of education? If not, where are their ideas for counteracting the predictable consequences?

Two- They believe that significant innovation can only arise from outside the system, not within it. But, with performance revolving primarily around test-score data, both traditional public schools and public charter schools are at great risk of being narrowed into boxes instead of growing into innovative, dynamic, flexible centers of learning. I wrote a couple of months ago---be careful what you wish for,  Frederick Hess et al. They promote performance-based pay based on test scores while they promote charter schools. But since charter schools are funded with public dollars they must follow the same accountability rules as traditional public schools. If test scores are the primary way to measure the proper and effective use of public dollars in public classrooms then the risk of narrowed teaching and learning exists for both traditional schools and charter schools. Is this what they had in mind? If not, how do they propose maintaining adequate accountability and encouraging innovation, without a double standard?

Three- They believe that on-line learning is a no-brainer for improving instruction because children are already so oriented toward technology. And they assume that it will save money. Fewer teachers with salaries and benefits. But the question remains. With less human-to-human interaction, discussion and debate, especially in communities that lack strong social and economic infrastructure, will young adults be more, or less, able to work, innovate and create TOGETHER? We are supposed to be educating and empowering whole human beings. What will we lose if there is too much of a shift to on-line learning. What is too much? Where is the balance? When does the tool of learning become an end instead of a means?

Are the business-model folks thinking about these things? I see few signs that they are. What I do hear from them and the media is that it is the teachers' unions who are alone resisting these shifts. That they are self-motivated. And, yes, there is a bit of that. It is their livelihood after all (although I do agree they need to be contributing more toward their health care and retirement to align better with the private sector). And they are professionals who understand the complexity of teaching our diverse children and are rightly frustrated by non-educators who think they know best. The politicians who are full throttle in this direction say they care about teachers' concerns but believe wrongly, for the most part, that parents and families are fully behind these shifts toward performance pay and "outsourcing." Dismissal of, to borrow the business lexicon, these first-tier "customers" and "clients" is hazardous and short-sighted.

As one whose children have recently graduated from public school and are either in college or out on their own, I'm frankly relieved that they've moved on.  The testing culture was still somewhat in balance before they graduated, and over the long haul they did receive a rich, comprehensive education. They are whole human beings and have done well in higher education and in life. But, I worry about the path we're one and what that means for young families now and for my children when they have their own children. I've started telling them to keep a close eye on these trends. I say reluctantly that they may need to consider private school for their kids if they are the only schools that teach the whole child. I hate saying that, but it is not hard to predict such a future.

And what about children whose parents won't have the option of private school? Whose only option is the neighborhood school or charter school where testing may become the common teaching tool. Where more time is spent in front of a computer screen than working hand-in-hand with a teacher or in teams with other students. Where less time is spent exploring the arts and humanities, performing science and physics experiments, learning another language, studying the natural and built world with their hands, eyes and ears, debating and discussing current events, learning geography, creating journals, solving problems, designing, creating, innovating...

As I wrote yesterday, is this business-model direction going to transform our children into the leaders and workers, the innovators and implementers, the dreamers and doers that we need??? I'm increasingly alarmed that it may not. And I know that I am NOT alone in those fears. It's not just the teachers' unions. It's parents... and citizens...like me.