What Lies Ahead for America's Children and Their Schools

8/12/2019 What Lies Ahead for America's Children and Their Schools

1/55


2/55

What Lies Aheadfor Americas Children

and Their Schools


3/55


4/55

What Lies Aheadfor Americas Children

and Their Schools

Edited by Chester E. Finn Jr.

and Richard Sousa

with an Introduction by Chester E. Finn Jr.

H O O V E R I N S T I T U T I O N P R E S S

STANFORD UNIVERSITY STANFORD, CALIFORNIA


5/55

The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, founded

at Stanford University in 1919by Herbert Hoover, who went on

to become the thirty-first president of the United States, is an

interdisciplinary research center for advanced study on domestic

and international affairs. The views expressed in its publications

are entirely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect

the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Overseers of the

Hoover Institution.

www.hoover.org

An imprint of the Hoover Institution Press

Hoover Institution Press Publication No. 644

Copyright 2014by the Board of Trustees of the

Leland Stanford Junior UniversityAll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by

any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or

otherwise, without written permission of the publisher.

Hoover Institution Press assumes no responsibility for the

persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party Internet

websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee

that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or

appropriate.

First printing 2014

21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Manufactured in the United States of America

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum

Requirements of the American National Standard for Information

SciencesPermanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials,

ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.

Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available from the Library

of Congress.

ISBN-13: 978-0 -8179-1705-0(pbk. : alk. paper)

ISBN-13: 978-0-8179-1706-7(e-book)

ISBN-13: 978-0 -8179-1707-4(mobi)

ISBN-13: 978-0 -8179-1708-1(PDF)


6/55

Contents

Foreword

John Raisian vii

Introduction

Chester E. Finn Jr. 1

List of Acronyms 7

Part I: Governance, Politics, and Personnel 9

1 Rethinking Governance

Paul T. Hill 11

2 Boosting Teacher EffectivenessEric A. Hanushek 23

3 Facing the Union Challenge

Terry M. Moe 37

Part II: Crucial Changes 51

4 Transforming via TechnologyJohn E. Chubb 53

5 Expanding the Options

Herbert J. Walberg 71

6 Implementing Standards and Testing

Williamson M. Evers 87

7 Holding Students to Account

Paul E. Peterson 119


7/55

Part III: Resources and Research 135

8 Strengthening the CurriculumTom Loveless 137

9 Covering the Costs

Caroline M. Hoxby 149

10 Relying on Evidence

Grover Russ Whitehurst 177

11 Educating Smart Kids, Too

Chester E. Finn Jr. 191

Contributors 205

About the Hoover Institutions

Koret Task Force on K12 Education 211

Books of Related Interest 213

Index 215


8/55

Foreword

He who fails to plan is planning to fail

Winston Churchill

One of the most important elements in economic productivity

growth

if not the most importantelement

is human capitaldevelopment. At the foundation of human capital development is

a solid footing in K12education. Sadly, that solid footing in the

United States is, at best, crumbling and, at worst, barely standing.

In an increasingly complex global economy, providing the

highest-quality education to tomorrows leaders is crucial if

the United States is to maintain its competitive edge and its posi-

tion as the worlds leading economic power. The public recognizesthis. Although lists of citizens concerns are still topped by national

security and combating terrorism, government gridlock and poten-

tial financial default, and stubbornly high unemployment and a

persistently underperforming economy, American parents and the

general public still worry about how well (or poorly) we educate

our children. In a recent Rasmussen Poll, 62percent of surveyed

voters listed education as a very important issue to them

more important than, for example, immigration, national secu-

rity, and environment.

Almost fifteen years ago, Hoovers Koret Task Force on K12

Education first appeared on the map as a team with the release of A

Primer on Americas Schools. Part of the volumes purpose was, in

the words of Terry M. Moe, the volumes editor, simply describing

and assessing the current state of American education. The task

force members did not paint a pretty picture.

In the ensuing decade and a half, much has changed in American

education. Charter schools were just a blip on the radar screen; now


9/55

viii Foreword

there are more than five thousand charter schools in the United States

with total enrollment approaching two million students. There has

been a noticeable change in the demographics of Americas chil-dren; 61percent were white in 2000,but by 2010that number had

fallen to 54percent. (For K12public school enrollment, the change

is even more dramatic: from 61.2percent white in 2000to 52.4per-

cent white in 2010to a preliminary estimate of 51.0percent white

in 2013.) Digital learning was moreJetsons than Leave It to Beaver

and, conceptually, was limited primarily to a few science classes

at the university level. MOOCs, STEM, Khan Academy, and NoChild Left Behind were not in the education lexicon.

Education reform remains necessary because, regrettably, many

of the reforms proposed during the past fifteen (some say thirty)

years have not worked due to bad design, poor performance, polit-

ical resistance, or flat-out fear of change. Simply throwing more

money at the problem (and K12education is a $700billion indus-

try) has not and, in the task forces view, will not solve our educa-tion troubles.

Looking backward with 20/20hindsight is easy; predicting the

future is not, butplanningfor the future is necessary. In this vol-

ume, the task force (as it did in 19992000) looks at where weve

come from but, more important, looks cautiously to the future of

American education (as hinted by this books cover).

There is room for hope, and the task force members express

their hope for the future of American education in this volume.

Knowing that an educated public is necessary for a free society, we

must prepare our children to compete internationally in a highly

complex, more technical, global economy. With new technologies,

by inculcating a creative educational philosophy, and, at some lev-

els, by breaking from the past, we can prepare our children. In this

volume, the task force provides advice for change.

The Hoover Institution strives to generate, nurture, and dis-

seminate ideas defining a free society. Ideas should bloom in the

classroom. The intersection of idea-generation at a research center

and in the classroom is part of the motivation for the Institutions


10/55

Foreword ix

attention to K12education and for the creation of Hoovers Koret

Task Force on K12Education.

I thank the eleven members of the task force for their work onthis book. When the task force first convened in September 1999,

todays high school seniors were not yet in kindergarten. Fifteen

years later, nine of the eleven original task force members are still

with usa testament to their camaraderie (or resiliency) and to the

intellectual stimulation of the task force. I offer special acknowl-

edgment to Chester Finn, the task force chair, and to both Chester

and Richard Sousa, who edited this book.I wish to thank our generous and faithful donors, starting with

the Koret Foundation and the Taube Family Foundation and Tad

Taube, representing both these philanthropic institutions in their

founding and longstanding support for Hoovers education initia-

tive. Other supporters are deserving of acknowledgment for their

generosity as well: Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Edmund

and Jeannik Littlefield, John M. Olin Foundation, Bernard LeeSchwartz Foundation, Walton Family Foundation, Jack R. and

Mary Lois Wheatley, and William E. Simon Foundation. Without

their efforts, we would not have accomplished the important and

sustaining work over these many years.

For nearly one hundred years, the Hoover Institution has col-

lected rare and at-risk materials for its archives, and our scholars

have examined political, economic, and social change. We will

continue on that path, developing and marketing ideas defining a

free society. Nowhere is that more important than in human cap-

ital development for our young children. In this volume, Hoover

extends its legacy of excellence, producing high-quality scholarship

and thoughtful prescriptions for productive policy alternatives.

John Raisian

Tad and Dianne Taube Director

Hoover Institution

Stanford, California

January 2014


11/55


12/55

Introduction

Chester E. Finn Jr.

The coming decade holds immense potential for dramatic improve-

ment in American education and in the achievement of Amer-ican childrenprovided that we seize the many opportunities

at hand.

But the forces of resistance, lethargy, complacency, and iner-

tia that have largely blocked such dramatic improvements over the

past several decades wont magically vanish. Rather, they can be

counted upon to do their utmost to keep things pretty much as they

have been.

If they again prevail, our standards will remain low, our

achievement lacking, our tests not worth preparing students for,

our school choices few and often unsatisfactory, our ablest young-

sters unchallenged, many of our teachers ill-prepared, our technol-

ogy just so-so, and our return on investment disappointing. All the

while, our many competitors on this shrinking planet will continue

to make gains in no small part because the wealthiest and most

powerful nation on that planet has failed to maximize its human

capital during the period of their lives when girls and boys are most


13/55

2 Introduction

susceptible to learning and when society has the greatest ability to

shape what they will learn.

In this volume, members of the Hoover Institutions Koret TaskForce on K12Education examine both the potentials and the pit-

falls that lie ahead for primary-secondary education in the United

States.

The eleven of us (plus two emeritus members) have worked

together for more than fifteen years to examine, analyze, diag-

nose, and prescribe for this countrys education system across

a host of topics. During that time, we have

separately andcollectivelyauthored twenty-one books under the aegis of the

task force; we launched (and served as the editorial board for)

Education Next, todays most significant education-policy jour-

nal; we advised governors, legislators, and presidential candidates;

we testified at congressional hearings; we met with educators,

public officials, and fellow scholars; we took part in innumer-

able conferences, seminars, and workshops; we wrote countlessarticles, talked with journalists, and made media appearances;

and we deliberated long and hard over an extraordinary array of

education-policy issues.

Whew! Although the task force as we have known it will soon

change its structure, those issues and the challenges and oppor-

tunities that they present are not going away. If anything, theyre

intensifying.

And so we offer this volume, which mostly looks ahead but does

so in the context of where American K12education has been,

what changes (primarily but not always for the better) have been

made, what has and has not been accomplished by way of a com-

prehensive overhaul, and where things stand today.

As you will see in the eleven short chapters that follow, although

far from sanguine, were fundamentally optimistic about the

opportunities at hand. Each task force member tackles one (or a

closely related set) of these opportunities. While we cannot claim


14/55

Introduction 3

that the result is completely comprehensive, its more than illustra-

tive of how our education system could be transformedand why

thats not pie in the sky. We also indicate dozens of ways that fur-ther research, policy analysis, and evaluation can assist with (and

provide vital feedback on) such a transformation.

The book is organized into three sections.

Part I, Governance, Politics, and Personnel,takes up three mega-

issues that beset our K12system.

Paul Hill considers the ways that the systems inherited struc-

tures and governance arrangements get in the way of radicalimprovement and frames some bold and imaginative alternatives

(chapter 1).

Eric Hanushek asks how best to ensure that tomorrows schools

and students have the quality teachers that they need (chapter 2).

Terry Moe examines political obstacles to change, above all

teachers unions, and explains how the powerful advance of tech-

nology will inexorably weaken their ability to block needed reforms(chapter 3).

Part II, Crucial Changes,appraises the current condition of three

prominent engines of education reformstandards/assessment/

accountability, school choice, and online learningand sets forth

both some challenges that they face and the reasons that those

challenges must be overcome.

John Chubb maps the fast-changing world of online and

blended learning and shows why, for the first time in memory,

even K12education will yieldfor the betterto improvements

made possible by technology (chapter 4).

Herbert Walberg takes stock of school choice in the United

States, describing its evolution, whats known about its educational

value, and what remains to be investigated (chapter 5).

Williamson Evers takes up the often-contentious realm of aca-

demic standards, testing, and accountability with particular refer-

ence to the recently developed Common Core standards for English


15/55

4 Introduction

and math and the assessment challenges that accompany them

(chapter 6).

Paul Peterson examines a key sub-topic within accountability

holding students themselves responsible for their learningwith

particular reference to the hard-to-reform territory of high schools

(chapter 7).

Part III, Resources and Research,raises four essential concerns

about K12education and its reform.

Tom Loveless asks how to ensure that our students future

curriculum

buffeted and amplified by new standards, tests, tech-nology, and moreincorporates the most important skills and con-

tent and doesnt rekindle yesterdays curriculum wars (chapter 8).

Caroline Hoxby asks whether, in a time of tight budgets, we can

afford to make the changes that the system needsparticularly

in quality teaching, suitable technology, and sufficient school

choicesand shows why the answer is affirmative (chapter 9).

Grover Russ Whitehurst asks how we can be confident thatour schools and the educational strategies they employ are actually

effective and explains how evidence-based research and evaluation

can boost that confidence (chapter 10).

And in the final essay, I examine why American education has

been neglecting its high-ability (gifted) students and suggest what

can be done to develop this vital human resource, both for the

countrys good and to continue our long march to providing all

youngsters with suitable learning opportunities (chapter 11).

My task force colleagues join me in thanking the Hoover

Institution for the extraordinary opportunities it has afforded us to

meet with, provoke, inform, and advance each others thinking and

stimulate each others work over the past decade and a half. We

thank co-editor (and Hoovers senior associate director) Richard

Sousa, who has deftly herded us cats with patience, sound judg-

ment, and expert guidance during the entire history of the task

force, and Kristen Leffelman, who has helped keep us organized


16/55

Introduction 5

over the past couple of years. Were also deeply grateful to the

Koret Foundation and other generous donors to Hoover that have

made all this possible.The task forces combined activities may be winding down.

But we are notand we look forward to continuing our quest to

bring scholarship, analysis, and forthrightness to bear on the chal-

lenges and opportunities that face American education in the years

ahead.


17/55


18/55

List of Acronyms

AFT American Federation of Teachers

AP Advanced Placement

CCSSI Common Core State Standards Initiative

CCSSO Council of Chief State School Officers

ELA English Language ArtsETS Education Testing Service

FCAT Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test

IES Institute of Education Sciences

IU Intermediate Education Unit

K-12 Kindergarten through 12th Grade

KIPP Knowledge Is Power Program

LIFO Last in, first outMOOC Massive Open Online Course

NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress

NCLB No Child Left Behind

NCTM National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

NEA National Education Association

NGA National Governors Association

NSF National Science Foundation

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation

and Development

PISA Programme for International Student Assessment

RttT Race to the Top

STEM Science, Technology, Engineering,

and Mathematics

TIMSS Trends in International Mathematics

and Science StudyVOISE Virtual Opportunities Inside a School Environment

WWC What Works Clearinghouse


19/55


20/55

Part I: Governance, Politics,

and Personnel

Rethinking Governance

Boosting Teacher Effectiveness

Facing the Union Challenge


21/55


22/55

CHAPTER1

Rethinking Governance

Paul T. Hill

The Real Impact of Governance in Public Education

Is talk of governance a distraction in the effort to improve Americas

schools? Some people claim so. Children dont learn from elected

officials or the laws and regulations they create; students learn from

teachers. Just give every child a good teacher, some say, and all the

problems of our schools would be solved. They would be right, of

course, if only it were possible to give every child a better teacher

without changing the rules by which public schools are governed.

Governancethe rules made by school boards, legislatures,

and bureaucracies, and the actions those bodies take to make sure

the rules are followedultimately determines who teaches whom

and what gets taught. Governance sets teacher pay scales and

licensing standards. Collective bargaining agreements are part of

governance, and they control how teachers are hired, assigned to

schools, assigned work, and evaluated. Governance also determines

what schools teach, how they use time and money, how their per-

formance is judged, and whether anything is done about a school

where children are not learning.


23/55


Public education requires governance because it involves two

takings of liberty: taxpayers are compelled to pay for it, and par-

ents are compelled either to send their children to publicly fundedschools or to make other arrangements at their own expense.

Publicly funded education is the only realistic option for the vast

majority of parents.

Important conflicts are inherent to public education. Conflicts

are found among the preferences of policymakers who define the

purposes of public education, the taxpayers who pay for it, parents

who surrender their children to it, and educators who are paid todeliver it. These conflicts can never be fully resolved, but they can

be managed via agreements about rules and processes for mak-

ing decisions and managing what gets done. Thus the need for

governance.

The Harm Done by Current Governance Arrangements

Public education governance in the United States is a weird prod-

uct of our nations history, federal structure, and openness to

political entrepreneurship. Nobody designed our mishmash of

governance arrangements. Instead, they arose a little bit at a time

in response to crises, political entrepreneurship, and interest-group

opportunism.

Due to our frontier past, schools grew organically in individual

towns and neighborhoods, long before state governments seriously

took on the responsibility for education assigned to them by their

constitutions. Once states started regulating and funding K12

education, tensions about who was in charge began. The national

government, long inactive in K12education, burst into action dur-

ing the 1960s War on Poverty. Its programs and carrot-and-stick

approach (subsidies in return for mandated activities) created new

regulatory pressures on schools. Our history of school segrega-

tion ultimately pulled courts into K12. Once the courts proved

willing to rule on a broad range of issues framed around equal


24/55

PAULT. HILL 13

protection of the laws, they too became sources of rules and con-

straints, sometimes at odds with those created by other units of

government. In the 1970s teachers unions became the dominantorganized force in public education; negotiated collective bargain-

ing agreements became the most potent source of constraints on

how teachers work and schools operate.

As a result, K12governance is chaotic. Every level of govern-

ment imposes controls of some kind on how funds will be used

and accounted for, who may teach, what jobs teachers may and

may not do, how many students may be assigned to a teacher in anhour or a day, what hours and days schools will operate, how space

and equipment will be used, what parent groups must be consulted

before decisions are made, what facilities schools may occupy, etc.1

School boards can intervene in almost any detail of school opera-

tion under the guise of casework for constituents.2Teachers col-

lective bargaining agreements, court orders, and individualized

education plans for students with special needs are also part ofgovernance. So are licensing policies that exclude many people

with relevant skills from working in schools.

Governance can tie up funds on unproductive activities, causing

schools to spend more for facilities and transportation than school

leaders would do if they had their choice, or to teach some students

courses they are not prepared for and to teach other students sub-

jects they already know.

Our system acts as if the exercise of discretion and the exper-

tise that goes along with it are dangerous. Over time, as problems

arise and new rules are created in an (often futile) effort to ensure

that they never happen again, constraints on the educators and

parents grow.

Todays governance makes it difficult for the people who know

what children need to act on what they know. Parents who

know what their children need are given few options to choose the

school that best fits their childrens needs; principals who have

the skills and attitudes to identify a teacher who can be effective in


25/55


a particular context are denied the opportunity to do so; teachers

and school leaders who know the schools needs and therefore how

it should spend its budget are prevented from doing so; and teach-ers who know what their students have and havent mastered are

denied the discretion that would enable them to use such knowl-

edge to develop a new curriculum or engage technology to help.

Can We Get Governance Right?

How to fix public education governance in the United States is nota new question. Analysts have suggested many alternative forms

of governance, each intended to shift the locus of decision-making

from local school boards and state legislatures to other entities,

including mayors, parents, and school entrepreneurs.

Milton Friedmans book Capitalism and Freedom set off a

debate on education governance that continues to this day. He

argued for putting parents in charge. John Chubb and Terry Moesuggested a more complex system, with parents in charge but also

some roles for regulators, from whom school operators would need

to get licenses.3Moe has since made a strong case for a mixed sys-

tem in which governments role is strictly limited and choice and

entrepreneurship are emphasized.4

Others have suggested leaving a government-operated school

system intact, but putting different peoplemayors,5appointed

boards, or state officials6in charge and using performance stan-

dards to focus the attention of educators on student learning, not

distracting rules.7

Proposals to fix governance by putting mayors or state offi-

cials in charge are popular, if poorly thought-through. A change in

mode of selection is always a good idea when a governing body is

overly politicized or deadlocked.8

Takeovers by mayors have overcome the blocking power

of unions and district bureaucracies in New York, Hartford,

Connecticut, and other cities, but they only work for a while. The


26/55

PAULT. HILL 15

same is true of takeovers by special masters or statewide school dis-

tricts like Louisianas Recovery School District. As this is written,

the New York and Hartford reforms are both in danger of beingthrown out by successor mayors who can gain union support by

bashing their predecessors policies. The promising state takeover

in Oakland, California, has already been abandoned under polit-

ical pressure. Louisianas Recovery District is required by law to

return schools to local control.

Mayorally appointed boards and superintendents can run into

the same problems as elected ones, particularly if provider groupsor political machines control appointments. Appointed boards

often confound the expectations of mayors and others who appoint

them, just as elected boards can disappoint voters. Any way of

selecting board members is open to abuse. When things are not

working out well under one method, the grass can look much

greener under another.

More fundamental new governance ideas from both sides ofthe political spectrum also have flaws, from even more open town-

meeting style control of schools on the left to total abandonment

of governance in preference for market mechanisms on the right.

Unbounded public deliberation about the goals and means of

public education would lead to continual and escalating regula-

tion of schools, accelerating the harmful developments of the past

thirty years. Each succeeding crisis or emergence of a noble cause

would lead to new regulations, to be layered on top of those cre-

ated earlier.

In an ideal world, well-intentioned regulation driven by com-

munity politics would serve to increase equity of access and out-

comes. In practice, it leads to precisely the opposite outcome by

severing the link between those who know something that might

help and those who make the decisions.

Total reliance on the market is also unrealistic. A pure market

would allow only parents consumer behavior to govern who ran

schools, which schools were forced to close, what schools offered


27/55


in the way of instruction, and thus ultimately what children would

learn. While consumer choice would drive improvement, it is likely

that, absent government oversight, data-cooking and exclusion ofhard-to-educate students by a subset of schools would destabilize

the entire arrangement.9Our existing legal protections governing

discrimination and child protection would lead to court interven-

tion and piecemeal re-regulation of exactly the kind that produced

the irrational governance system we have today.

A pure market would in time attract innovators and entrepre-

neurs with new ideas about how to meet existing and new needs.It would also ultimately teach families the consequences of bad

choicesas poorly prepared children could not get needed edu-

cation or jobsbut nobody knows whether that would take a few

years or a few generations.10In the meantime, many could suffer,

and the pressure for re-regulation would be hard to resist.

Governance changes are tricky. Proposals that assume that

some class of actors, if put fully in charge, will naturally seek effec-tive schools for all children are doomed to failure. No one group

or entity has exactly the same interest as children, and each can be

expected, in the long run, to pull schooling, and the uses of public

funds, in directions that meet its own interests.

Proposals that educators be left to govern themselves, decid-

ing how much money schools need and assessing their own per-

formance, are obvious non-starters. Teachers have their own

interests and cant always be trusted to automatically give chil-

dren what they need. Similarly, proposals that governance be

reduced to standard-setting are based on the Pollyanna assump-

tion that lack of knowledge about what students need to know

is the only barrier to effective, concerted action among educa-

tors, parents, and taxpayers. Misalignment in the education sys-

tem is due to differences in agendas and interests, not to lack of

information.

Proposals that charter schools or charter management orga-

nizations should govern themselves constrained only by family


28/55

PAULT. HILL 17

choices are similarly nave. Charter school operators have very

good motivesto serve the students they enroll as effectively as

possible

but they are not responsible for any student they do notadmit. Predictably, some charter operators in New Orleans have

tried to avoid serving disabled children, and some charters in New

York City have tried to rig admissions lotteries and have refused to

admit children who move into the city in the middle of the school

year. Online education providers in Ohio have worked hard to pre-

vent competitors from entering the marketplace.

Only a few charter schools and online providers have done thesethings. Nor will most public school teachers cheat their students by

tampering with test booklets to inflate the results. But such things

do happen because some actors will define their interests narrowly.

Because one dramatic case of neglect or discrimination can lead to

re-regulation, a stable governance system cannot place blind trust

in any group.

Emerging Mixed Governance Ideas

It is possible to move toward a system that harnesses the power of

markets by significantly enhancing the openness and competitive-

ness of the system and choice for families while at the same time

creating real protections for children who might otherwise suffer

discrimination and neglect.

Since 1990, promising new ideas about limiting governance and

employing market mechanisms have emerged. Led by Chubb

and Moe inPolitics, Markets, and Americas Schools,11these pro-

posals would limit government to oversight rather than opera-

tion of public schools. Independent parties would operate schools,

choose curricula and instructional approaches, employ staff, and

control budgets based on student enrollment.12Parents would freely

choose any school. Government would only license, contract with,

or charter schools and ensure that parents had access to good per-

formance information.


29/55


The most recent constitutional proposal is the most explicit:

local school boards should have no powers whatever other than to

decide on a slate of independently run schools to operate in theirlocalities.13By law, school boards would be forbidden to employ

teachers or principals, incur debts, or own property. Schools could

enforce their freedom from regulation in court.

Growing numbers of states and localities are experiment-

ing with one or another of these proposals, all of which are con-

sistent with the principle expressed by David Osborne and Ted

Gaebler that government should steer but not row.14Some statesmovement from program-based to pupil-based funding and invest-

ment in longitudinal student performance databases reinforce these

developments in governance.

In the next ten years, ideas like these will need to be tried and

refined to make room for new possibilities created by technology

and social entrepreneurship:

Schools that serve students statewide or even nationally, viaonline instruction

Hybrid schools where student and teacher work is organized

around individualized, computer-based learning, which might

employ fewer but more highly skilled teachers, require student

attendance only part-time, and need far more modest facilities

than existing schools

Schools that dont employ teachers directly but obtain themfrom specialized services (analogous to providers of specialized

physician services to hospitals)

Voucher systems that allow parents to hire different providers

for different parts of their childs learning experiences

To accommodate these inevitable changes in educational prac-

tice and instructional delivery, governance must become less bound

to geographically defined provision; less prescriptive about whom

schools employ and how they use time and money; more focused


30/55

PAULT. HILL 19

on accountability for performance; and vastly less focused on com-

pliance. Yet, voters will still demand accounting for public funds

and evidence of results. Courts and legislatures cant be preventedfrom taking action when someone can make a good case that chil-

dren have been neglected or abused.

The Work of the Next Decade

Governance challenges are not insoluble. But solving them requires

hard thinking about design, disciplined experimentation with pos-sible solutions, and close analysis of real-world experience. Any

governance reform must be closely scrutinized for its susceptibil-

ity to capture, i.e., one groups domination of schools in its own

interest.

There will be no substitute for data-based tracking of imple-

mentation, results, and unexpected developments. Things seldom

work out as intended, both because theorists who invent new gov-ernance ideas can seldom think through all the angles the first time

and because good ideas can be distorted in implementation.

Failure to track implementation can mean a governance idea is

called a proven failure when in fact it was never tried. In Philadel-

phia, for example, opponents claimed that increasing school-level

control of resources was a failure because student results did not

improve. Reformers had no response to these claims, though subse-

quent analysis showed that the schools concerned never got the

promised freedom over staffing and spending and that the tradi-

tional schools to which they were compared got a great deal of

extra money.

Solving the governance problem will require serious analysis,

not just sloganeering. When it comes to creating a governance sys-

tem in which schools are free from continual re-regulation, the

truth sounds paradoxical: schools would be freer and suffer less

governance instability if new governance plans anticipated areas in


31/55


which schools would surely be regulated and were clear about what

data and other forms of evidence schools must provide.

Notes

1. For extensive critiques of existing governance arrangements,

see Noel Epstein, Whos In Charge Here? The Tangled Web of

School Governance and Policy(Washington, DC: Brookings

Institution Press, 2004). See also Dominic Brewer and Joanna

Smith, Evaluating the Crazy Quilt: Educational Governance

in California (Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on

Education Policy and Practice, 2006).

2. For a review of school board duties as assigned by state

legislation, see Paul T. Hill, Christine Campbell, Kelly Warner-

King, Meaghan McElroy, and Isabel Munoz-Colon, Big City

School Boards: Problems and Options (Seattle: Center on

Reinventing Public Education, 2003).

3. John Chubb and Terry M. Moe, Politics, Markets, andAmericas Schools(Washington, DC: Brookings Institution

Press, 1990).

4. Terry M. Moe and Paul T. Hill, Moving to a Mixed

Model: Without an Appropriate Role for the Market, the

Education Sector Will Stagnate, in The Futures of School

Reform,ed. Jal Mehta, Robert B. Schwartz, and Frederick

M. Hess (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2012).

5. Kenneth K. Wong, Francis X. Shen, Dorothea Anagnostopoulos,

and Stacey Rutledge, The Education Mayor: Improving

Americas Schools (Washington, DC: Georgetown University

Press, 2007). See also Kenneth K. Wong, Measuring the

Effectiveness of Mayoral Takeover as a School Reform

Strategy, Peabody Journal of Education78, no. 4(2003):

89119.

6. Chester E. Finn Jr., Reinventing Local Control, EducationWeek,January 23, 1991, 40.


32/55

PAULT. HILL 21

7. Jennifer A. ODay and Marshall S. Smith, Systemic

Reform and Educational Opportunity, in Designing

Coherent Education Policy: Improving the System,ed.Susan H. Fuhrman (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993),

250312.

8. Ashley Jochim and Paul T. Hill, Mayoral Intervention:

Right for Seattle Schools? (Seattle: Center on Reinventing

Public Education, 2008).

9. Cases brought by parents of handicapped children already

threaten re-regulation of the all-charter New Orleans public

school system.

10. On the time dimension in implementation of choice,

see a recent Hoover Institution Press book by the present

author, Learning as We Go: Why School Choice is

Worth the Wait(2010).

11. Chubb and Moe, Politics, Markets, and Americas Schools.

12. See, for example, Paul T. Hill, Lawrence Pierce, and James

Guthrie, Reinventing Public Education: How ContractingCan Transform Americas Schools(Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1997); Andy Smarick, The Urban School

System of the Future:Applying the Principles and Lessons

of Chartering(Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield,

2012); Paul T. Hill, Christine Campbell, and Betheny

Gross, Strife and Progress: Portfolio Strategies to Manage

Urban Schools(Washington, DC: Brookings Institution

Press, 2012); and Neerav Kingsland, An Open Letter to

Urban Superintendents in the United States of America,

Part I: Reformers and Relinquishers, in Rick Hess Straight

Up(blog), January 23, 2012, http://blogs.edweek.org

/edweek/rick_hess_straight_up/2012/01/an_open_letter

_to_urban_superintendents_in_the_united_states_of

_america.html; and William Guenther and Justin Cohen,

Smart Districts: Restructuring Urban Systems from theSchool Up(Boston: Mass Insight, 2012).


33/55


13. Paul T. Hill, Picturing a Different Governance Structure

for Public Education, in Education Governance for the

Twenty-first Century: Overcoming the Structural Barriersto School Reform, ed. Patrick McGuinn and Paul Manna

(Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2013).

14. David Osborne and Ted Gaebler, Reinventing Government:

How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public

Sector(Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1992).


34/55

Contributors

The Hoover Institutions Koret Task Force on K12 Education

currently includes the eleven members listed below:

John E. Chubb, a distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Insti-

tution, is the president of the National Association of IndependentSchools. He served as the interim CEO of Education Sector, a non-

profit, nonpartisan research organization. He was previously a

senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a faculty member at Stan-

ford University, and an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins Univer-

sity and Princeton University. His books include The Best Teachers

in the World: Why We Dont Have Them and How We Could

(Hoover Institution Press, 2012), Liberating Learning:Technology,Politics, and the Future of American Education (Jossey-Bass,

2009), and Politics, Markets, and Americas Schools(Brookings

Institution Press, 1990), the last two with Terry M. Moe.

Williamson M. Evers, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution,

was the US assistant secretary of education for policy from 2007to

2009. In 2003, Evers served in Iraq as a senior adviser for educa-

tion to Administrator L. Paul Bremer of the Coalition Provisional

Authority. Evers has been a member of the National Educational

Research Policy and Priorities Board, a commissioner on the Cali-

fornia State Academic Standards Commission, a trustee on the

Santa Clara County Board of Education, and president of the board

of directors of the East Palo Alto Charter School.

Chester E. Finn Jr. is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and

chairman of the task force. He is also president and trustee of the

Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Previously, he was professor of


35/55

206 Contributors

education and public policy at Vanderbilt University, senior fellow

of the Hudson Institute, founding partner with the Edison Project,

and legislative director for Senator Daniel P. Moynihan. He servedas assistant US education secretary for research and improvement

from 1985to 1988. Author of more than four hundred articles and

twenty books, Finns most recent books are Exam Schools: Inside

Americas Most Selective Public High Schools(Princeton University

Press, 2012) and Reroute the Preschool Juggernaut (Education

Next Books, 2009).

Eric A. Hanushekis the Paul and Jean Hanna Senior Fellow in Edu-

cation at the Hoover Institution. He is best known for introducing

rigorous economic analysis into educational policy deliberations.

He has produced twenty-one books and over two hundred schol-

arly articles. He is chairman of the Executive Committee for the

Texas Schools Project at the University of Texas at Dallas and a

research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research.He formerly served as chair of the Board of Directors of the

National Board for Education Sciences. His newest book, Endan-

gering Prosperity: A Global View of the American School(Brook-

ings Institution Press, 2013),documents the huge economic costs of

continuing to have mediocre schools.

Paul T. Hillis a distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institu-

tion. He is the founder and former director of the Center on Rein-

venting Public Education at the University of Washington. His

most recent books are Learning as We Go: Why School Choice is

Worth the Wait(Education Next Books, 2010) and Charter Schools

Against the Odds(Education Next Books, 2006).He also contrib-

uted a chapter to Private Vouchers (Hoover Institution Press,

1995),a groundbreaking study edited by Terry M. Moe.

Caroline M. Hoxbyis a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, the

Scott and Donya Bommer Professor of Economics at Stanford


36/55

Contributors 207

University, the director of the Economics of Education Program at

the National Bureau of Economic Research, and a presidential

appointee to the National Board of Education Sciences. A public andlabor economist, she is a leading scholar in the economics of educa-

tion. Some of her research areas include the outcomes of graduates

from different colleges, public school finance, school choice, and the

effect of education on economic growth and income inequality. She

is currently completing studies on how education affects economic

growth, globalization in higher education, peer effects in education,

and the effects of charter schools on student achievement.

Tom Loveless is a senior fellow at the Brown Center on Education

Policy at the Brookings Institution. He researches education policy

and reform and is author of The Tracking Wars: State Reform

Meets School Policy(Brookings Institution Press, 1999) and editor

of several books, most recently Lessons Learned: What Interna-

tional Assessments Tell Us about Math Achievement(BrookingsInstitution Press, 2007). Lovelesss teaching experience includes

nine years as a sixth-grade teacher in California and seven years

as assistant and associate professor of public policy at the John

F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Terry M. Moe is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the

William Bennett Munro Professor of Political Science at Stanford

University. He has written extensively on the politics and reform of

American education. His newest book, Special Interest: Teachers

Unions and Americas Public Schools(Brookings Institution Press,

2011), provides the first comprehensive study of the teachers

unions and their impacts on the nations schools. His past work on

education includes Politics, Markets, and Americas Schools

(Brookings Institution Press, 1990) and Liberating Learning: Tech-

nology, Politics, and the Future of American Education(Jossey-

Bass, 2009), both with John Chubb, and Schools, Vouchers, and

the American Public (Brookings Institution Press, 2001). As a


37/55

208 Contributors

political scientist, Moes research interests extend well beyond pub-

lic education. He has written extensively on political institutions,

public bureaucracy, and the presidency and has been an influentialcontributor to those fields.

Paul E. Petersonis a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and edi-

tor in chief of Education Next: A Journal of Opinion and Research.

He is also the Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of Government and

director of the Program on Education Policy and Governance at

Harvard University. He is the author of Saving Schools: FromHorace Mann to Digital Learning(Belknap/Harvard, 2010) and a

co-author of Endangering Prosperity: A Global View of the Amer-

ican School(Brookings Institution Press, 2013) and Teachers Ver-

sus the Public: What Americans Think about Their Schools and

School Reform(forthcoming, 2014).

Herbert J. Walberg, a distinguished visiting fellow at the HooverInstitution, taught for thirty-five years at Harvard and at the Uni-

versity of Illinois at Chicago. Author or editor of more than seventy

books, he has written extensively for educational and psychologi-

cal scholarly journals on measuring and raising student achieve-

ment and human accomplishments. His most recent book is Tests,

Testing, and Genuine School Reform (Education Next Books,

2011). He was appointed a member of the National Assessment

Governing Board and the National Board for Educational Sciences

and is a fellow of several scholarly groups, including the American

Association for the Advancement of Science, the International

Academy of Education, and the Royal Statistical Society. He chairs

the Beck Foundation and the Heartland Institute.

Grover Russ Whitehurstis the Brown Chair, senior fellow, and

director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings

Institution, where he is responsible for shaping public and political

opinion on education policy based on findings from research. As


38/55

Contributors 209

the first director of the Institute of Education Sciences within the

US Department of Education, he is widely acknowledged to have

had a transforming effect on the quality of education research. Inhis earlier career as a professor of developmental psychology, he

carried out seminal research on early literacy, language develop-

ment, and preschool education. A program he developed to enhance

language development in children from low-income families,

Dialogic Reading, is used in preschools around the world. He is a

pioneer in delivering college-level instruction through the Internet,

in recognition of which he received the Microsoft Innovators inHigher Education Award.

This volume was co-edited by:

Richard Sousa, senior associate director and research fellow at the

Hoover Institution, is an economist who specializes in human cap-

ital, discrimination, labor market issues, and K12education. He

co-authored School Figures: The Data behind the Debate(Hoover

Institution Press, 2003) and co-edited Reacting to the Spending

Spree: Policy Changes We Can Afford (Hoover Institution Press,

2009), an assessment of the governments response to the economic

crisis of 200809. Sousa was responsible for launching the Institu-

tions major communications initiatives, including the Hoover

Digest, Education Next, Policy Review,and Uncommon Knowl-

edge. From 1990to 1995, he directed the Institutions Diplomat

Training Program. He served as director of the Hoover Institution

Library and Archives from 2007to 2012and was responsible for

major acquisitions, including the Chiang Kai-shek diaries; the

William Rehnquist papers; the Georgian, Estonian, and Lithua-

nian KGB files; and the Bath Party collection.


39/55


40/55

About the Hoover Institutions

KORET TASK FORCE ON K-12 EDUCATION

The Hoover Institutions Koret Task Force on K12Education is

made up of experts in the field of education. Brought together bythe Hoover Institution, Stanford University, with the support of the

Koret Foundation and other foundations and individuals, the task

force examines the prospects and options for education reform in

the United States. Its primary objectives are to gather, evaluate,

and disseminate existing evidence in an analytic context and to

analyze reform measures that will enhance the quality and produc-

tivity of K12education.

The task force includes some of the most highly regarded and

best-known education scholars in the nation, many of whom have

served in executive and advisory roles for federal, state, and local

governments and as professors at the countrys leading universities.

Their combined expertise represents more than three hundred

years of research and study in the field of education.

The task force is the centerpiece of the Hoover Institutions

Initiative on American Educational Institutions and Academic

Performance. In addition to producing original research, analysis,

and recommendations in a growing body of work on the most

important issues in American education today, task force members

serve as editors, contributors, and members of the editorial board

of Education Next: A Journal of Opinion and Research,published

by the Hoover Institution. For further information, see the task

force website at www.hoover.org/taskforces/education.


41/55


42/55

BOOKSOFRELATEDINTEREST

FROMTHEKORETTASKFORCEONK-12 EDUCATION

Endangering Prosperity: A Global View of the American School,byEric A. Hanushek, Paul E. Peterson, and Ludger Woessmann(Brookings Institution Press, 2013)

The Best Teachers in the World: Why We Dont Have Them and HowWe Could,by John E. Chubb (Hoover Institution Press, 2012)

Exam Schools: Inside Americas Most Selective Public High Schools,

by Chester E. Finn Jr. and Jessica A. Hockett (Princeton UniversityPress, 2012)

Choice and Federalism: Defining the Federal Role in Education,bythe Koret Task Force (Hoover Institution Press, 2012)

Tests, Testing, and Genuine School Reform,by Herbert J. Walberg(Education Next Books, 2011)

American Education in 2030,by the Koret Task Force (2010), PDF

e-book, http://www.hoover.org/taskforces/education/AE2030Saving Schools: From Horace Mann to Virtual Learning,by PaulE. Peterson (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2010)

Learning as We Go: Why School Choice is Worth the Wait, byPaul T. Hill (Education Next Books, 2010)

Advancing Student Achievement, by Herbert J. Walberg (EducationNext Books, 2010)

Reroute the Preschool Juggernaut, by Chester E. Finn Jr. (EducationNext Books, 2009)

Liberating Learning: Technology, Politics, and the Future ofAmerican Education, by Terry M. Moe and John E. Chubb (Jossey-Bass, 2009)

Learning from No Child Left Behind: How and Why the NationsMost Important but Controversial Education Law Should BeRenewed, by John E. Chubb (Education Next Books, 2009)

Courting Failure: How School Finance Lawsuits ExploitJudges Good Intentions and Harm Our Children, edited byEric A. Hanushek (Education Next Books, 2006)


43/55

214 Books of Related Interest

Charter Schools against the Odds: An Assessment by the Koret TaskForce on K12 Education,edited by Paul T. Hill (Education Next

Books, 2006)Reforming Education in Florida: A Study Prepared by the Koret TaskForce on K12Education, edited by Paul E. Peterson (HooverInstitution Press, 2006)

Reforming Education in Arkansas: Recommendations from the KoretTask Force, by the Koret Task Force (Hoover Institution Press, 2005)

Within Our Reach: How America Can Educate Every Child, editedby John E. Chubb (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005)

Reforming Education in Texas: Recommendations from the KoretTask Force, by the Koret Task Force (Hoover Institution Press, 2004)

Our Schools and Our Future . . . Are We Still at Risk?, edited byPaul E. Peterson (Hoover Institution Press, 2003)

Choice with Equity, edited by Paul T. Hill (Hoover InstitutionPress, 2002)

School Accountability: An Assessment by the Koret Task Forceon K12Education, edited by Williamson M. Evers and Herbert

J. Walberg (Hoover Institution Press, 2002)

A Primer on Americas Schools,edited by Terry M. Moe (HooverInstitution Press, 2001)


44/55

access to education, 191203equity and, 19495excellence movement and, 19394four-part problem with, 198201gifted students and, 196203for handicapped children, 193

history of, 191

93literacy and, 192

accountabilitycurriculum and, 88governance and, 1819of school districts, 39standards and testing and, 88of states, 42, 9093systemic reform and, 8893teacher effectiveness and, 4142for time spent on subjects, 140unions and, 4142See alsostudent accountability

The Accountability Illusion,114n47

Achieve Inc., 9798, 13132achievement. Seestudent achievementadolescent society, 79Advanced Placement (AP)

examinations for, 126gifted students and, 19899online instruction for, 58Pell grants and, 132

advocacy, for gifted students, 2013AFT. SeeAmerican Federation of

TeachersAlexander, Lamar, 194Alliance Tennenbaum Family

Technology High School, 54, 63

American Federation of Teachers(AFT), 38

lobbying by, 40American Psychological

Association, 202

AP. SeeAdvanced PlacementArizona, online instruction in, 61authentic assessment, 102autonomy, of teachers, 95Avery, Christopher, 202

balanced literacy, 139Benchmarking for Success(Achieve

Inc.), 98Bishop, John, 123black-white achievement gap, 24blended schools, 54, 58

competition with, 63in North Carolina, 64research on, 66

Broad, Eli, 44Brookings Institution, 104, 202Brown v. Board of Education, 19293Bush, George H. W., 88, 89Bush, George W.

NAEP and, 98NCLB and, 9398, 195standards and testing and, 9398as Texas governor, 92

Californiaaccountability standards in, 9293NAEP and, 12930online instruction in, 61standards and testing by, 115n54textbooks in, 139, 194

Capitalism and Freedom(Friedman), 14

CapitalOne, 17980, 187Carpe Diem, 6364

CCSSI. SeeCommon Core StateStandards Initiative

CCSSO. SeeCouncil of Chief StateSchool Officers

Center on Education Policy, 106, 140

Index


45/55

216 Index

Champion, Sara, 155charter schools, viiviii

appeal of, 76expanded course offerings by, 73governance by, 1617handicapped children and,

17, 21n9lotteries for, 17, 75, 159mathematics in, 76in New York, 76online instruction in, 60, 61, 6364reading in, 76

re-regulation of, 21n9school choice and, 41states and, 61, 74student achievement at, 76support for, 5960technology in, 53transportation for, 165unions and, 73

child protection, legal protectionsfor, 16

Choice Scholarship Program, inIndiana, 7475choice schools. Seeschool choiceChristensen, Clayton M., 14142Chubb, John, 3, 14, 17, 67, 141Churchill, Winston, viiClinton, Bill, 88

Goals 2000 act by, 195NSF and, 116n60

Cognitively Guided Instruction, 144

Cohen, David K., 124Coleman, James S., 79, 123,

18384, 194collective bargaining agreements

governance and, 11, 13ineffective organization

from, 3840teacher evaluations and, 3839for teachers, 11, 13, 3840, 44unions and, 3840, 44

Coloradoonline instruction in, 61standards in, 97

common content core, 89

Common Core State Standards, 34adoption of, 1012competition and, 96critics of, 96curriculum and, 14345exit examinations and, 122in Georgia, 111n33lobbying for, 97mathematics and, 1056, 145NCLB and, 9596private schools and, 1078quality of, 101

race to the bottom and, 105student achievement and, 1046textbooks and, 90, 103, 107

Common Core State StandardsInitiative (CCSSI), 101

competitionCommon Core State Standards

and, 96with school choice, 41, 5960,

8283, 16166

compulsory attendance laws, bystates, 192computer-based learning, in hybrid

schools, 18contracts, of teachers, 29

See alsocollective bargainingagreements

Council of Chief State School Officers(CCSSO), 96

credit recovery classes, 131

online instruction for, 5859

curriculumaccountability and, 88Common Core State Standards

and, 14345in Massachusetts, 9192in mathematics, 1391990s wars on, 13739research on, 14647school choice and, 8081

standards and testing for, 88strengthening of, 13747technology and, 14143time on subjects in, 13941


46/55

Index 217

Curriculum Focal Points, byNCTM, 139

curriculum-content standards, 8891curve busters, 123Darling-Hammond, Linda, 1023Dee, Thomas, 32Democratic Party, unions and,

40, 4344Democrats for Education Reform, 44Department of Education, 77, 89, 100

gifted students and, 2012

IES in, 181national tests by, 1023differentiated instruction, 58, 73, 203digital learning, viiidisabled children. Seehandicapped

childrendiscovery learning, 90

NCLB and, 95NSF and, 89teacher autonomy in, 95

discriminationlegal protections from, 16school segregation and, 12

dismissal threats, teacher effectivenessand, 32

Disrupting Class: How DisruptiveInnovation Will Changethe Way the World Learns(Christensen, Horn, andJohnson), 14142

Driscoll, David, 128

29Duncan, Arne, 44, 99, 100Edison, Thomas, 177Education Next, 2, 129, 202Education Testing Service (ETS), 126,

133n10ELA. SeeEnglish Language ArtsElementary and Secondary Education

Act. SeeNo Child Left Behind

endogenous change, unions and, 4344

English Language Arts (ELA), 144Equality of Educational Opportunity

(Coleman), 18384

equity, access to educationand, 19495

ETS. SeeEducation Testing ServiceEvers, Williamson, 3

4

evidence-based education, 17788in future, 18588on performance pay, 31

Exam Schools(Finn andHockett), 200

excellence movement, access toeducation and, 19394

exit examinations

Common Core State Standardsand, 122in high school, 12233in Massachusetts, 12729, 128fNCLB and, 129, 134n14in New York, 126online instruction and, 13032Pell grants and, 132politics of, 12930research on, 13233

student achievement and, 127

29student motivation and, 12325teachers and, 123

exogenous change, unions and, 4546Farrar, Eleanor, 124FCAT. SeeFlorida Comprehensive

Assessment TestFinn, Chester E., Jr., 91, 99, 200Fisher, Ronald, 179

Florida Comprehensive AssessmentTest (FCAT), 140

Florida Virtual School, 62Fordham, Thomas B., 99100, 105Frenkel, Edward, 1056Freudenthal Institute, 144Friedman, Milton, 14full-time work, 15556, 171n15Gaebler, Ted, 18

Gardner, Howard, 141, 194

95Gates, Bill, 44Gates Foundation, 40GDP deflator, 169n2


47/55

218 Index

GeorgiaCommon Core State Standards

in, 111n33standards in, 96

97

student achievement in,111n32

gifted studentsaccess to education and, 196203advocacy for, 2013in high school, 199200identification of, 198201research on, 2013

value-added measures for, 199Gillies, Dorothy, 12021Goals 2000 act, by Clinton, 195Goodman, Jonathan, 105Google, 179, 187governance, 1120

accountability and, 1819by charter schools, 1617collective bargaining agreements

and, 11, 13

getting it right, 1417

harm done by currentarrangements, 1214

impact of, 1112implementation and, 19by market, 1516by mayors, 1415mixed, 1719in next decade, 1920re-regulation and, 1920

by states, 12by teachers, 16

grade inflation, in high school, 121Guastaferro, Lynnette, 102handicapped children

access to education for, 193charter schools and, 17, 21n9

Hanushek, Eric, 3, 72Hawaii, NAEP and, 129

high schoolas dysfunctional, 122exit examinations in, 12233gifted students in, 199200

grade inflation in, 123NAEP and, 122

Hill, Paul, 3Hirsch, E. D., 141

42

Hockett, Jessica, 200home-schooling, 62, 74

technology and, 60tuition tax credits for, 74

Hoover Institution, vii, viiiix,45, 202

Horn, Michael B., 14142Hoxby, Caroline, 4, 75, 198, 202

Hufstedler, Shirley, 89human capital development, viiHung-Hsi Wu, 1056Hunt, James B., Jr., 97hybrid schools

computer-based learning in, 18randomized controlled trial for,

172n20student achievement in, 15859

IES. SeeInstitute of EducationSciencesimplementation

governance and, 19of standards and testing, 87108

income, teacher effectiveness and,2427, 25t

IndianaChoice Scholarship Program

in, 7475

standards and testing by, 115n54individualized education plans, 13Institute of Education Sciences

(IES), 181instructional assistants, 156Intermediate Education Units (IUs), 63Jencks, Christopher, 194Johnson, Curtis W., 14142

Kentuckyaccountability standards in, 91Common Core State Standards

in, 101


48/55

Index 219

time spent on subjectsin, 140

Kern Family Foundation, 202Knowledge is Power Program

(KIPP), 76Koret Task Force on K-12Education,

vii, ixlabor laws, teacher effectiveness

and, 29last in, first out (LIFO), teacher

effectiveness and, 28

learning styles, 142Leffelman, Kristen Ulrich, 45Liberating Learning(Chubb and

Moe), 67licensing policies, governance and,

13, 17lifetime earnings, teacher effectiveness

and, 2427, 25tLIFO. Seelast in, first outLind, James, 17879

literacyaccess to education and, 192balanced, 139student accountability for, 132See alsoreading

lobbyingby AFT, 40for Common Core State

Standards, 97by NEA, 40

Los Angeles Times, 29Los Angeles Unified School

District, teacher effectivenessin, 32

lotteries, for charter schools, 17,75, 159

Louisiana, Recovery SchoolDistrict in, 15

Loveless, Tom, 4, 104

Manzi, Jim, 179market

governance by, 1516school choice and, 80

Massachusettsaccountability standards in, 9192curriculum in, 9192exit examinations in, 127

29, 128f

NAEP and, 128, 129standards and testing by, 115n54standards in, 96

massive open online courses(MOOCs), 54, 66

Mastri, Annalisa, 155Mathematica Policy Group, 76mathematics

in charter schools, 76Common Core State Standardsand, 1056, 145

curriculum in, 139multiplier effects with, 82NAEP and, 150NCLB and, 93, 139NCTM, 138, 139remedial, 59standards and testing for, 105

STEM, viii, 202textbooks for, 138TIMSS, 92, 170n5tracking in, 145US student rankings in, 72

MathLand,139mayors

governance by, 1415in New York, 39school boards and, 15

superintendents and, 15in Washington, DC, 39

McCallum, William, 105McGuinn, Patrick, 94McKeown, Michael, 8990Metzenberg, Stan, 90Milgram, R. James, 105Missouri, NAEP and, 129mixed governance, 1719Moe, Terry M., vii, 3, 14, 17, 67,

73, 141MOOCs. Seemassive open online

coursesMoore, Charles, 12021


49/55

220 Index

Moynihan, Daniel P., 194multiple intelligence, 141multiplier effects, with school

choice, 82NAEP. SeeNational Assessment of

Educational ProgressA Nation at Risk(National

Commission on Excellence inEducation), 37, 55, 193

standards and testing and, 87National Academies of Science, 180

National Assessment of EducationalProgress (NAEP), 9192, 94,107, 170n3

Bush, G. W., and, 98high school and, 122Massachusetts and, 128mathematics and, 150NCTM and, 138PISA and, 197reading and, 150

states and, 96, 129

30TIMSS and, 170n5

National Association for GiftedChildren, 196, 201

National Commission on Excellencein Education, A Nation at Riskby, 37, 55, 193

standards and testing and, 87National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics (NCTM), 138, 139

National Education Association(NEA), 38

lobbying by, 40National Governors Association

(NGA), 96, 97, 112n34, 112n37Achieve Inc. by, 9798

National Science Foundation (NSF)Clinton and, 116n60discovery learning and, 89NCTM and, 138

Systemic Initiative of, 89

90textbooks and, 90

national standards. SeeCommonCore State Standards

national tests, by Department ofEducation, 1023

NCLB. SeeNo Child Left BehindNCTM. SeeNational Council

of Teachers ofMathematics

NEA. SeeNational EducationAssociation

nerd harassment, 123New Mexico, NAEP and, 129New York

charter schools in, 76

exit examinations in, 126mayors in, 39unions in, 14

New York Times,29, 202Nexus Academy, 64NGA. SeeNational Governors

AssociationNo Child Left Behind (NCLB)

Bush, G. W., and, 9398, 195Common Core State Standards

and, 95

96critics of, 94discovery learning and, 95exit examinations and, 129,

134n14mathematics and, 139Obama and, 114n51reading and, 139Reading First in, 13839standards and testing and, 9398

states and, 94student achievement and, 94teacher effectiveness in, 28teachers and, 95Texas and, 92unions and, 42waivers, 100, 106, 114n49, 130

non-fiction, Common Core StateStandards and, 144

Norquist, Grover, 112n34

North Carolinablended schools in, 64online instruction in, 62standards in, 97


50/55

Index 221

Northwest EvaluationAssociation, 107

NSF. SeeNational ScienceFoundation

Obama, Barack, 41, 44

NCLB and, 114n51private schools at, 195RttT by, 195

observational evaluationsfor school choice, 76in teacher contracts, 32

for teacher effectiveness, 30ODay, Jennifer, 8889OECD. SeeOrganisation for

Economic Co-operation andDevelopment

Ohiogifted students in, 196online instruction in, 61

ONeill, Tip, 38online instruction, 18

for AP, 58in charter schools, 60, 61, 6364for credit recovery classes, 5859exit examinations and, 13032financial savings from, 59parents and, 62school districts and, 59, 6263states and, 6263student accountability and,

13032

student achievement and, 58,6567

student retention and, 58teachers and, 5556unions and, 4546, 55

Organisation for EconomicCo-operation and Development(OECD), 149

Osborne, David, 18outcomes-based perspective, 15

teacher contracts and, 29teacher effectiveness and,

2324, 154See alsostudent achievement

parent trigger legislation, 75parents

governance and, 12, 17online instruction and, 62school choice and, 79, 84voucher systems and, 18

parochial schools, 81pass to play, in Texas, 125Patrick, Deval, 91Pearson Education, 64Pell grants, 120

AP and, 132

exit examinations and, 132Pennsylvaniacharter schools in, 165online instruction in, 60, 61,

6263

private schools in, 165Perdue, Sonny, 9697performance. Seestudent achievementperformance pay

accountability and, 41

for teacher effectiveness, 30

31,41, 15357performance standards, 88performance-based assessment, 102Perot, Ross, 125Peterson, Paul E., 4, 27, 75Petrilli, Michael, 100PISA. SeeProgramme for

International StudentAssessment

Politics, Markets, and AmericasSchools(Chubb and Moe), 17

Powell, Arthur G., 124Presidents Commission on School

Finance, 180A Primer on Americas Schools, viiprincipal

instructional assistants and, 156student accountability and, 122student achievement and, 27

teacher effectiveness and, 1314

private schoolsadvantages of, 8182appeal of, 76


51/55

222 Index

private schools (continued)Common Core State Standards

and, 1078cost of, 76, 81expanded course offerings by, 73funding of, 77Obama at, 195Romney at, 195scholarships for, 74transportation for, 165tuition tax credits for, 41voucher systems for, 41

privatization, 83professional development, for teachereffectiveness, 29

The Proficiency Illusion, 99100Programme for International Student

Assessment (PISA), 9899, 144NAEP and, 197

race

legal protections from

discrimination with, 16teacher effectiveness and, 24race to the bottom

Common Core State Standardsand, 105

states and, 95, 99100Race to the Top (RttT), 99100

by Obama, 195teacher evaluations and, 4142unions and, 44

Rand Corporation, 140, 180randomized controlled trial

for hybrid schools, 172n20on school choice, 7576for streptomycin, 179

Rasmussen Poll, viiRavitch, Diane, 88reading

in charter schools, 76multiplier effects with, 82

NAEP and, 150NCLB and, 93, 139remedial, 59

Reading Excellence Act, 138

Reading First, in NCLB, 13839Recovery School District, in

Louisiana, 15religion, private schools and, 81remedial mathematics, 59remedial reading, 59Renaissance 2010, 64re-regulation

of charter schools, 21n9governance and, 1920

research, 17788on curriculum, 14647

on exit examinations, 132

33in future, 18588on gifted students, 2013for school choice, 7475on school choice, 8384, 16769on standards and testing, 1038on student accountability, 13233on technology, 6467, 16769on value-added measures, 16769WWC and, 181, 182

Rhee, Michelle, 32Rocketship Education, 63, 15961Romer, Roy, 97Romney, Mitt, 195Rothman, Robert, 99RttT. SeeRace to the Topsalaries

teacher effectiveness and, 2425,28, 3031

of teachers, seniority and, 38SAT, 120Scafidi, Benjamin, 155Schmidt, William, 105, 145scholarships

for private schools, 74for student achievement, 127

school boardsgovernance by, 13, 18mayors and, 15

unions and, 39, 46school choice, 7184

assessment and, 16364avoiding bureaucracy with, 7980


52/55

Index 223

capacity for, 16465competition with, 41, 5960,

8283, 16166cost of, 82

83, 161

66

curriculum and, 8081historical pattern of, 7678kinds, growth, and research for,

7475

market and, 80multiplier effects with, 82observational evaluations for, 76parents and, 79, 84

present status of, 75

76randomized controlled trial on,7576

research on, 8384, 16769size of, 78student achievement and, 83teacher effectiveness and, 80unions and, 41value-added measures and, 16266virtuous circles with, 16667

See alsocharter schools; privateschools; voucher systemsSchool Choice: The Findings

(Hoxby), 75school closings, 75, 78school districts

accountability of, 39online instruction and, 59, 6263student achievement and,

18384, 184f

school segregation, 12, 192

93school suspensions, 122Schools and Staffing Survey, 139The Schools We Need: And Why We

Dont Have Them(Hirsch),14142

Science, Technology, Engineering, andMathematics (STEM), viii, 202

segregation, in schools, 12, 19293seniority, of teachers, 38

Shanker, Al, 125Shaw, Kathryn, 155The Shopping Mall High School

(Powell, Farrar, and Cohen), 124

Shuls, James V., 144Shultz, George, 72Sizer, Theodore, 124Sjoquist, David, 155Smarter Balanced Assessment

Consortium, 102Smith, Marshall, 8889, 99Sousa, Richard, ix, 4specialized services, teachers from, 18Spencer, Herbert, 137standards

accountability and, 88

Bush, G. W., and, 93

98for curriculum, 88curriculum and, 138curriculum-content, 8891implementation of, 87108for mathematics, 105NCLB and, 9398Obama and, 98103research on, 1038by states, 115n54

systemic reform and, 88

93See alsoCommon Core State

StandardsStanford University Center for

Research on EducationOutcomes, 76

statesaccountability by, 42, 9093charter schools and, 61, 74Common Core State Standards

in, 101

2compulsory attendance laws

by, 192governance by, 12NAEP and, 96, 12930NCLB and, 94online instruction and, 6263race to the bottom and, 95, 99100standards and testing by, 115n54teaching restrictions for, 29

tuition tax credits in, 74See alsospecific states

Statistical Methods for ResearchWorkers(Fisher), 179


53/55

224 Index

STEM. SeeScience,Technology, Engineering,and Mathematics

Stengel, Casey, 185Stinebrickner, Todd, 155streptomycin, randomized controlled

trial for, 179student accountability

current state of, 12527for literacy, 132online instruction and, 13032principal and, 122

research on, 132

33student achievementat charter schools, 76Common Core State Standards

and, 1046cost for improving, 14969exit examinations and, 12729finances and, 111n30in Georgia, 111n32in hybrid schools, 15859

long-term consequences of, 72

73NCLB and, 94online instruction and, 58,

6567

principal and, 27scholarships for, 127school choice and, 83school districts and, 18384, 184fteacher effectiveness and, 2427teachers and, 18384, 184f

US ranking for, 72student outcomes. Seeoutcomes-based

perspectivestudent performance. Seestudent

achievementstudents

accountability of, 11833motivation of, exit examinations

and, 12325retention of, online instruction

and, 58unique identifiers for, 31See alsogifted students; specific

relevant topics

superintendentscurriculum-core standards and, 97mayors and, 15

suspensions, from school, 122Systemic Initiative, of NSF, 8990systemic reform

accountability and, 8893NSF and, 8990standards and, 8893state accountability standards

and, 9093

taxpayers, 16, 83governance and, 12Tea Party, 43teacher effectiveness

accountability and, 4142contracts and, 29current policies on, 2831dismissal threats and, 32improving, 2332income and, 2427, 25t

labor laws and, 29lifetime earnings and, 2427, 25tLIFO and, 28in Los Angeles Unified School

District, 32in NCLB, 28observational evaluations for, 30outcomes-based perspective for,

2324, 154performance pay for, 3031, 41,

15357

principal and, 1314professional development for, 29prospects for further improvement

in, 3132race and, 24salaries and, 2425, 28, 3031school choice and, 80student achievement and, 2427teacher evaluations for, 30

value-added measures for, 26,2930, 15357, 163, 16769,170n4

in Washington, DC, 32


54/55

Index 225

teacher evaluationscollective bargaining agreements

and, 3839RttT and, 41

42

for teacher effectiveness, 30unions and, 40

teachersautonomy of, 95collective bargaining agreements

for, 11, 13, 3840, 44contracts of, 29, 32eliminating worst, 27

exit examinations and, 123governance by, 16layoffs of, seniority and, 38NCLB and, 95online instruction and, 5556salaries of, seniority and, 38seniority of, 38from specialized services, 18student accountability and, 120student achievement and, 18384,

184ftechnology and, 173n21tenure of, 31, 73transfers of, seniority and, 38unique identifiers for, 31

technologyin charter schools, 53competition and choice with, 5960cost savings with, 15761curriculum and, 14143

driving force for, 5559

to enrich instruction, 15761home-schooling and, 60research on, 6467, 16769response and counter-response to,

6164

teachers and, 173n21transformation with, 5367unions and, 4546, 47See alsoonline instruction

tenure, of teachers, 31, 73testing

accountability and, 88Bush, G. W., and, 9398

for curriculum, 88by Department of Education,

1023

implementation of, 87108

for mathematics, 105NCLB and, 9398Obama and, 98103research on, 1038by states, 115n54value-added measures from, 2930See alsoexit examinations

Texas

accountability standards in, 92pass to play in, 125textbooks

in California, 139, 194Common Core State Standards

and, 90, 103, 107for mathematics, 138A Nation at Riskand, 87NSF and, 90

Thatcher, Margaret, 12021

Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 202TIMSS. SeeTrends in InternationalMathematics and Science Study

Toma, Eugenia, 95Touchstone Education, 64tracking, in mathematics, 145transportation costs, 165Trends in International Mathematics

and Science Study (TIMSS), 92NAEP and, 170n5

tuition tax creditsfor private schools, 41in states, 74

unions

accountability and, 4142blocking of laws by, 4042challenge of, 3747charter schools and, 73collective bargaining agreements

and, 3840, 44

Democratic Party and, 40, 4344endogenous change and, 4344exogenous change and, 4546


55/55

226 Index

unions (continued)future and, 4347hastening future for, 4647NCLB and, 42in New York, 14online instruction and,

4546, 55performance pay and, 31RttT and, 44school boards and, 39, 46school choice and, 41teacher evaluations and, 40

teacher tenure and, 73technology and, 4546, 47voucher systems and, 73in Washington, DC, 32

unique student identifiers, 31unique teacher identifiers, 31value-added measures

computation of, 16566for gifted students, 199

publication of, 29research on, 16769school choice and, 16266in teacher contracts, 32for teacher effectiveness, 26,

2930, 15357, 163, 16769,170n4

from testing, 2930Vinovskis, Maris, 89

Virtual Opportunities Inside a SchoolEnvironment (VOISE), 64

virtuous circles, with school choice,166

67

VOISE. SeeVirtual OpportunitiesInside a School Environment

voucher systems, 7475parents and, 18for private schools, 41school choice and, 41unions and, 73

Walberg, Herbert, 3War on Poverty, 12Washington, DC

mayors in, 39teacher effectiveness in, 32

Washington state, NAEP and, 129What Works Clearinghouse

(WWC), 181, 182Whitehurst, Grover Russ, 4whole language, 138

Wilhoit, Gene, 101Willingham, Daniel T., 142Woessmann, Ludger, 27Wurman, Zeev, 105WWC. SeeWhat Works

ClearinghouseWyckoff, James, 32year-round calendar, 163

Documents

What Lies Ahead for America's Children and Their Schools