School Reform

Voices of School Reform

What exactly is school reform? According to Tozer (2009), four themes characterize the current reform movement: standardized assessment as indicative of educational excellence; tension between concern for excellence and concern for diversity and equity; student and parent choice in schooling; and restructuring in school governance (p. 352). Too often, state and federal level politicians are the only voices heard in the process of school reform. Many of our politicians are not educators; they are lawyers and political scientists, with no operational or instructional knowledge of the needs of our schools and students.

Through the No Child Left Behind act and Race to the Top policy, federal politicians are now the controlling voice in public education. How does a federal bureaucrat in Washington comprehend the needs of a child in Wyoming? What voices were heard when passing these legislative acts, placing further instructional and financial restraints on the states and local education agencies? Was it their electorate? One fact holds true: the voices of the teachers, administrators, parents, and students went unheard.   

It is imperative that all stakeholders have a voice in school reform. This includes parents, teachers, administrators, community members, and most importantly, the students. A politician in Washington is directly impacting the educational needs of the students by pushing through legislation that inevitably hurts the educational environment. Call me a classical liberal, anarchist, or libertarian, but an unelected federal bureaucrat should not have the ability to enact laws and legislation that directly impacts the youth of this country without hearing the needs of the stakeholders. 

By passing legislation without appropriating funding, schools are doomed for immediate failure. President Obama, in his Race to the Top program, for instance “leverages the incentive of grant money to compel states to make policy changes . . . one example: States stand a better chance of receiving grants if they remove barriers to the creation of public charter schools” (Strauss, 2012). Whether I agree or disagree with this policy is a moot point in this post; the methodology of enacting legislation is the key. The Race to the Top policy gives the wrong message.  It says:  we (i.e., the federal government) will provide more funding, only if you do what we tell you. 

Would the David School be successful as a school of choice if federal legislation required the school to teach a similar curriculum as that of a public school? The reason students such as Chris and Cody attended the David School is that it provided a differentiated curriculum; it gave students the opportunity to be successful. By complying with the No Child Left Behind act or the Race to the Top program, the David School would lose its distinctive appeal.   

My fear is, before long, federal bureaucrats and lobbyist will be telling educators what to teach and how to teach it. I understand the importance of a national set of standards for all students to make certain that a tenth grade student in Texas is being taught similar curriculum to a tenth grade student in Utah. However, it is imperative for the success of all students of the United States that a unilateral, bipartisan decision is made. This decision should occur only after hearing input from the key stakeholders of school reform:  teachers, students, parents, and the community. Sorry educational lobbyist—you are not invited.