In Politics of School Reform, Transparency Doesn't Equal Accountability
Andrew J. Rotherham is co founder and publisher of Education Sector. He writes the blog Eduwonk.com. Corrected on 05/19/09: An earlier version of this article misspelled Ross Wiener's name.
Transparency is powerful and President Obama has rightly made it a pillar of his administration's approach to policymaking. But transparency also offers the seductive promise of an easy way out for policymakers. It can trap proponents of various policy proposals in an intellectual cul de sac because it becomes easy to see information as sufficient to drive reform rather than just as a predicate for change. The risk is especially potent when proponents are convinced of the obviousness of the changes they seek.
We've seen this repeatedly with federal education policy. The Bush administration assumed the federal No Child Left Behind law would produce a tidal wave of student and school performance data that would swamp opposition to school improvement efforts. Seven years later the political resistance to education reform is as potent as ever and former Bush aides now acknowledge placing too much faith in the power of information.
In 1997, Congress tried unsuccessfully to increase accountability for colleges of education and teacher training programs by requiring them to report more data about outcomes. "Congress asked colleges of education to take stock of quality issues, but instead the colleges mostly whitewashed the problem," says Ross Wiener, a senior adviser at The Education Trust. No Child Left Behind also required states and school districts to issue better report cards about educational performance. There, too, evasion rather than aggressive efforts are the norm.
Problematic examples abound. In fact, over more than a half century, federal education policy has succeeded only when coupled with civil rights laws or linked to clear conditions and enforcement.
This is why some of what the Obama administration is proposing on education is disconcerting to school reformers. The recent economic stimulus bill contains more than $100 billon in education spending, a historic investment equal to about 16 percent of the nation's annual expenditures on public elementary and secondary schools. In exchange, states are required to report more information about student performance and make "assurances" that they will work to improve schools. However, the law requires little in the way of actual changes. "States have made these assurances over and over again, the question is whether they're going to have to meet the promises they keep making," argues Charlie Barone, formerly a top aide on the House of Representatives education committee and now policy director for Democrats for Education Reform, an advocacy group.
Describing the information states are required to report, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan wrote recently that, "When parents recognize which schools are failing to educate their children, they will demand more effective options for their kids." Perhaps. But there are good reasons for skepticism.
Although schools are notoriously opaque institutions, parents are not completely in the dark now. Urban parents and minority parents, for instance, generally rate their schools lower than other parents. Data on school performance support their judgment. Still, parents and students lose in the policy battles more often than they win because that information alone does not force change on powerful stakeholders or the formidable array of special-interest groups resisting reforms with costs for the groups they represent. In that way, education reform is an old story in a representative democracy like ours: The unorganized general interest is often trumped by organized special interests.
Consider our cluttered tax code, inefficient or harmful agriculture subsides, gun control, environmental policy, or unsustainable energy and healthcare policies. Does the lack of progress on any of these issues really stem from insufficient awareness of the problems? Or is the status quo a function of interests and politics, basically the exact forces that the nation's founders sought to both cultivate and mitigate?
Yet because there is a pervasive sense that education is unique (everyone just wants what's best for the kids!), basic political tendencies are too frequently wished away. Actually, in education these trends are often more acute because of the highly politically controlled nature of public schools and the decentralization of education decision-making.
Data, transparency, and public availability of educational information are all highly desirable elements of education reform. It's ridiculous that today a parent can find more information about choosing a new washing machine or automobile than about choosing a school, and it's a travesty how frequently ideology trumps evidence in education policymaking. But given how the politics of education work, transparency will drive change only in concert with policies actually requiring change. Information alone is not enough.
Check out our political cartoons.
Reader Comments
Transparency is not reform
We agree with the article that tranparency doees not necessarily lead to reforms, and that money alone is not the answer. And waht is promoted as tranparency may not be. Schools are opaque and state measures of performance highly subject to politically-pressured re-definitions.
In our issue area, the environmental conditions of schools (healthy vs unhealthy school environments) are well documented in the pper-reviewed literature to impact child health and learning, as well as personnel productivity. Yet pressure groups in state after state have deeply resisted reforms, even when attached to new funds. That's why schools have high lead levels in drinking water, don't report or remediate mercury spills, engage in dust and debris-causing hazardous renovations when children are in hrms's way, and paint over mold infestations-- as just a few examples. Tranparency?
Asthma is the leading cause of school absenteeism-- and not surprisingly-- a leading OCCUPATIONAL disease of teachers and custodians: they get it on the job due to poor working conditions. And kids don't?
A 2006 survey by the CDC on the environmental conditions of schools, including indoor air quality, inadvertently revealed that the state and local school officials were either misrepresenting their activites, or had little or no accurate knowledge of relevant state laws or policies. Many claimed they were in full compliance with state laws on indoor air, but in reality, those are few and far between and not enforced. Transparency?
We can't have it both ways: we should not pretend the conditions are NOT affecting kids; we should not pretend that schools are in compliance with laws that don't exist.
Transparency is a blissful fiction without on the ground accountability and environment and health enforcements that benefit those at highest risk-- the nation's 54+ million school-age children.
Children with mental disabilities
I have a child that has ADHD and is mentally challenged, does that mean this child doesnt get an education because he has behaviors. Does this excuse him from school. A normal child could start acting out and be labeled the same way, so he then has no challenged either, Does he pass because he exhibits the same behaviors as another child. ADHD children have to be sent to psychologist, doctors to prove that they have this disability, should a normal child that has the same symptoms but knows how to react so he just gets special help be labeled too. I want to know are they going to supply my child a teacher this year or will she be in AEP or in a class of mexican kids that dont speak english, an ESL class because she doesnt fit into the perfect school room, because of her behavior problem which is a disability
Politics of School Reform
Many of the comments on this article are quite good and deserve consideration and, perhaps, eventual enactment in trials. Education is one of the top priorities in this country and should not be subject to political gamesmanship any more than national defense should be.
Why is it that in the United States we cannot seem to understand that those to whom we entrust our children really ought to be rewarded well? I mean teachers, of course, and I do mean WELL. The excuses for not doing a better job in educating our students are many--overcrowded and underfunded classrooms, uninvolved parents, uncommitted teachers, and so on. The excuses for not rewarding teachers well boil down to a single one--not enough money. Not enough money to pay starting teachers, say, $80.000 for a nine-month contract. Not enough money to up the ante annually by $20,000 or more based on performance. Not enough will, in short, to put our money where our mouths are. We claim to want well educated, motivated kids, but we don't want to pay the price that would guarantee that outcome. "Throwing money at the problem won't work" is the rejoinder to every suggestion that the money solution really hasn't been tried! Go figure.
I, for one, am tired of all the meddling that hasn't solved the many problems of educating our young adequately. I say let teachers, well rewarded teachers, take over the problem--from hiring to firing, from class size to teacher load, from testing of students to dress codes, etc. Let them be totally responsible for expected outcomes, and let the rest of us figure out where the money will come from.
A nation that can reward athletes extravagantly, brokers outrageously, and film stars royally can surely afford real rewarding of our teachers. It's put up or shut up time, friends.
advertisement
