Copyright 1999 Boston Herald Inc.
The Boston Herald
July 3, 1999 Saturday ALL EDITIONS
SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. 015
LENGTH: 774 words
HEADLINE:
Op-Ed; Ed reform's new letters of credence
BYLINE: By
Chester E. FINN JR. & Michael J. PETRILLI
BODY:
Congressional leaders recently introduced the "Academic Achievement for All
Act" (also known as "Straight A's") to overhaul the federal role in K-12
education. It's a major event because this proposal offers a fundamental
alternative to 35 years of failure - and stands as a powerful rebuke to the
Clinton-Gore approach.
Straight A's is 19 pages long. The White House
proposal is 600-plus pages. There's a reason for the difference. Since the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed in 1965, Washington's approach
to aiding U.S. schools has been heavy-handed. It has relied on strict regulation
of what states and communities may do with their federal dollars - now totaling
some $ 12 billion annually - and what priorities they must set.
It
hasn't worked. Evaluations of the dozens of separate ESEA
programs make clear that the rich-poor achievement gap hasn't narrowed, that
schools are neither safe nor drug-free, that much of the "professional
development" money is frittered away and so forth.
Yet the White House
would tighten the regulatory screws even further. In the name of
"accountability," it would have federal enforcers micromanage the schools'
academic goals, promotion policies, teacher assignments, class sizes, discipline
practices and much more. That's why the administration's bill is so long. It's
an energetic, take-charge strategy that assumes these programs can be made to
work if smart executives in Washington make the key decisions and require
everyone to fall into line - or risk losing their federal aid dollars.
President Clinton has made no secret of his reasoning: "If the federal
government fails to act, the best of these practices will spread, but much more
slowly We do not have the luxury of waiting and
continuing to subsidize failure."
Those who believe that education
change comes from the top down are applauding the administration's activism. But
a rival view is now making headway on Capitol Hill. It's the view incorporated
in Straight A's: that real reform comes from energized citizens, communities and
states, and will succeed only if they can direct their federal dollars into
their own strategies for school improvement.
Straight A's removes the
key decisions from federal enforcers and places them with governors, mayors and
legislatures. It starts from the premise that Americans want their schools
managed as close to home as possible. And it echoes the theory of charter
schools, the most dynamic reform idea on the contemporary education scene (and a
theory that has long proven itself in the private sector): freedom in return for
results. Stop regulating how money is spent and how people spend their time;
instead, look to see what results are produced.
Straight A's expands
this approach from individual schools to entire states and districts. It says to
those jurisdictions that opt to participate that Washington invites you to
deploy your federal dollars as you deem best, so long as you demonstrate
improved academic achievement within five years. And the improvement must
include low-income and at-risk youngsters.
In pursuit of that primary
goal, states may utilize whatever education reform strategies they wish,
including teacher training, charter schools, smaller classes, individual
tutoring, longer days, more technology, etc.
This is not a traditional
"block grant" proposal, which confers freedom over the money but demands nothing
in return. Instead, Straight A's recalls the arms control maxim; trust but
verify. It hinges on the one form of education accountability that really
matters: whether kids end up learning more. If they do, the state (or district)
gets to keep its freedom and earns a bonus. If they don't, it's back to the
regulatory woodshed for the unsuccessful jurisdiction.
Two very
different views of education reform are now on the table. Big decisions lie
ahead. How the 106th Congress settles this debate has immense implications for
U.S. schools.
Which approach will do the children more good? Perhaps we
can find out. We can try both at once. Straight A's is voluntary; only states
and school districts that wish to opt into it would do so. The Clinton approach,
or something like it, could apply elsewhere. All that's required is for Congress
to agree to this ambitious experiment. Five years hence, when the next
ESEA cycle comes around, we might know a great deal more about
which vision will best guide the nation's schools.
Chester E. Finn Jr.,
an assistant U.S. Secretary of Education from 1985 to 1988, is John M. Olin
fellow at the Manhattan Institute, where Michael J. Petrilli is a research
associate.
LOAD-DATE: July 03, 1999
