Sunteți pe pagina 1din 55

What Lies Ahead

for America’s Children and Their Schools

The Hoover Institution gratefully acknowledges the following individuals and foundations for their significant support of the

InItIatIve on amerIcan PublIc educatIon and the hoover InstItutIons Koret tasK Force on K-12 educatIon

Koret Foundation Tad and Dianne Taube Taube Family Foundation

Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation John M. Olin Foundation William E. Simon Foundation The Bernard Lee Schwartz Foundation, Inc. Jack R. and Mary Lois Wheatley

James E. Bass Stephen Bechtel Fund Dean A. Cortopassi Earhart Foundation Doris and Donald Fisher The JM Foundation Franklin and Catherine Johnson The Honorable and Mrs. Howard H. Leach Edmund and Jeannik Littlefield The Packard Humanities Institute Ronald B. Rankin The Smart Family Foundation Inc. Boyd and Jill Smith Thomas and Barbara Stephenson The Honorable Robert D. Stuart Jr. Chris T. Sullivan Walton Family Foundation, Inc. James S. Whitcomb Zachariah P. Zachariah, M.D.

What Lies Ahead

for America’s Children and Their Schools

Edited by Chester E. Finn Jr. and Richard Sousa

with an Introduction by Chester E. Finn Jr.


The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, founded at Stanford University in 1919 by 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.

Board of Overseers of the Hoover Institution. An imprint of the Hoover Institution Press Hoover

An imprint of the Hoover Institution Press

Hoover Institution Press Publication No. 644

Copyright © 2014 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University All 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

Manufactured in the United States of America

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum Requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences Permanence 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)










-13: 978-0-8179-1706-7 (e-book) ISBN -13: 978-0-8179-1707-4 (mobi) ISBN -13: 978-0-8179-1708-1 (PDF) 9 8 7 6 5



John Raisian



Chester E. Finn Jr.

List of Acronyms



Part I: Governance, Politics, and Personnel

1 Rethinking Governance

Paul T. Hill



2 Boosting Teacher Effectiveness

Eric A. Hanushek


3 Facing the Union Challenge

Terry M. Moe


Part II: Crucial Changes


4 Transforming via Technology

John E. Chubb


5 Expanding the Options

Herbert J. Walberg


6 Implementing Standards and Testing

Williamson M. Evers


7 Holding Students to Account

Paul E. Peterson


Part III: Resources and Research



Strengthening the Curriculum


Tom Loveless



Covering the Costs


Caroline M. Hoxby



Relying on Evidence

Grover “Russ” Whitehurst



Educating Smart Kids, Too

Chester E. Finn Jr.




About the Hoover Institution’s Koret Task Force on K–12 Education

Books of Related Interest






“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 important elementis human capital development. At the foundation of human capital development is a solid footing in K12 education. 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 tomorrow’s leaders is crucial if the United States is to maintain its competitive edge and its posi- tion as the world’s leading economic power. The public recognizes this. 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, 62 percent of surveyed voters listed “education” as a “very important” issue to themmore important than, for example, “immigration,” “national secu- rity,” and “environment.” Almost fifteen years ago, Hoover’s Koret Task Force on K12 Education first appeared on the map as a team with the release of A Primer on America’s Schools. Part of the volume’s purpose was, in the words of Terry M. Moe, the volume’s 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



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 America’s chil- dren; 61 percent were white in 2000, but by 2010 that number had fallen to 54 percent. (For K12 public school enrollment, the change is even more dramatic: from 61.2 percent white in 2000 to 52.4 per- cent white in 2010 to a preliminary estimate of 51.0 percent white in 2013.) Digital learning was more Jetsons than Leave It to Beaver and, conceptually, was limited primarily to a few science classes at the university level. MOOCs, STEM, Khan Academy, and No Child 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 K12 education is a $700 billion indus- try) has not and, in the task force’s view, will not solve our educa- tion troubles. Looking backward with 20/20 hindsight is easy; predicting the future is not, but planning for the future is necessary. In this vol- ume, the task force (as it did in 1999 2000) looks at where we’ve come from but, more important, looks cautiously to the future of American education (as hinted by this book’s 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 Institution’s



attention to K12 education and for the creation of Hoover’s Koret Task Force on K12 Education.

I thank the eleven members of the task force for their work on

this book. When the task force first convened in September 1999, today’s 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 Hoover’s 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 Lee Schwartz 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


Chester E. Finn Jr.

The coming decade holds immense potential for dramatic improve- ment in American education and in the achievement of Amer- ican children provided 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 won’t 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



susceptible to learning and when society has the greatest ability to shape what they will learn. In this volume, members of the Hoover Institution’s Koret Task Force on K12 Education 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 country’s education system across a host of topics. During that time, we have separately and collectivelyauthored twenty-one books under the aegis of the task force; we launched (and served as the editorial board for) Education Next, today’s 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 countless articles, 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, they’re intensifying. And so we offer this volume, which mostly looks ahead but does so in the context of where American K12 education 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, we’re 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



that the result is completely comprehensive, it’s more than illustra- tive of how our education system could be transformedand why that’s 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 K12 system. Paul Hill considers the ways that the system’s inherited struc- tures and governance arrangements get in the way of radical improvement and frames some bold and imaginative alternatives (chapter 1). Eric Hanushek asks how best to ensure that tomorrow’s 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 reform standards/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 K12 education 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, what’s 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



and math and the assessment challenges that accompany them (chapter 6). Paul Peterson examines a key sub-topic within accountabilityholding 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 K12 education and its reform. Tom Loveless asks how to ensure that our students’ future curriculumbuffeted and amplified by new standards, tests, tech- nology, and more incorporates the most important skills and con- tent and doesn’t rekindle yesterday’s curriculum wars (chapter 8). Caroline Hoxby asks whether, in a time of tight budgets, we can afford to make the changes that the system needs —­particularly 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 that our 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 country’s 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 other’s thinking and stimulate each other’s work over the past decade and a half. We thank co-editor (and Hoover’s 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



over the past couple of years. We’re also deeply grateful to the Koret Foundation and other generous donors to Hoover that have made all this possible. The task force’s 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.

List of Acronyms


American Federation of Teachers


Advanced Placement


Common Core State Standards Initiative


Council of Chief State School Officers


English Language Arts


Education Testing Service


Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test


Institute of Education Sciences


Intermediate Education Unit


Kindergarten through 12th Grade


Knowledge Is Power Program


Last in, first out


Massive Open Online Course


National Assessment of Educational Progress


No Child Left Behind


National Council of Teachers of Mathematics


National Education Association


National Governors Association


National Science Foundation


Organisation for Economic Co-operation


and Development Programme for International Student Assessment


Race to the Top


Science, Technology, Engineering,


and Mathematics Trends in International Mathematics


and Science Study Virtual Opportunities Inside a School Environment


What Works Clearinghouse

Part I: Governance, Politics, and Personnel

Rethinking Governance

Boosting Teacher Effectiveness

Facing the Union Challenge

chaPter 1

Rethinking Governance

Paul T. Hill

The Real Impact of Governance in Public Education

Is talk of governance a distraction in the effort to improve America’s schools? Some people claim so. Children don’t 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. Governance the 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.


Rethinking Governance

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 funded schools 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 to deliver 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 nation’s 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 K12 education, 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

Paul T. Hill


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 dominant organized 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, K12 governance 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 an hour 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. 2 Teachers’ col- lective bargaining agreements, court orders, and individualized education plans for students with special needs are also part of governance. 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. Today’s 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 children’s needs; principals who have the skills and attitudes to identify a teacher who can be effective in


Rethinking Governance

a particular context are denied the opportunity to do so; teachers and school leaders who know the school’s needs and therefore how

it should spend its budget are prevented from doing so; and teach-

ers who know what their students have and haven’t 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 not

a 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 Friedman’s 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 Moe suggested a more complex system, with parents in charge but also some roles for regulators, from whom school operators would need to get licenses. 3 Moe has since made a strong case for a mixed sys- tem in which government’s role is strictly limited and choice and entrepreneurship are emphasized. 4 Others have suggested leaving a government-operated school system intact, but putting different people mayors, 5 appointed boards, or state officials 6 in 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

Paul T. Hill


same is true of takeovers by special masters or statewide school dis- tricts like Louisiana’s Recovery School District. As this is written, the New York and Hartford reforms are both in danger of being thrown 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. Louisiana’s 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 groups or 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 of the 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


Rethinking Governance

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 of hard-to-educate students by a subset of schools would destabilize the entire arrangement. 9 Our 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 choices as poorly prepared children could not get needed edu- cation or jobsbut nobody knows whether that would take a few years or a few generations. 10 In 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 can’t 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

Paul T. Hill


choices are similarly naïve. Charter school operators have very good motives to serve the students they enroll as effectively as possible but they are not responsible for any student they do not admit. 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 these things. 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 in Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools, 11 these 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. 12 Parents 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.


Rethinking Governance

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 their localities. 13 By 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.” 14 Some states’ movement 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, via online 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 don’t employ teachers directly but obtain them from 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 child’s 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

Paul T. Hill


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 can’t be prevented from 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 group’s 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


Rethinking Governance

which schools would surely be regulated and were clear about what data and other forms of evidence schools must provide.


1. For extensive critiques of existing governance arrangements, see Noel Epstein, Who’s 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, and America’s 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 America’s 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 Education 78, no. 4 (2003):

89 119.

6. Chester E. Finn Jr., “Reinventing Local Control,” Education

Week, January 23, 1991, 40.

Paul T. Hill



Jennifer A. O’Day 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), 250 312.


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

Right for Seattle Schools?” (Seattle: Center on Reinventing Public Education, 2008).


Cases brought by parents of handicapped children already threaten re-regulation of the all-charter New Orleans public school system.


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).


Chubb and Moe, Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools.


See, for example, Paul T. Hill, Lawrence Pierce, and James Guthrie, Reinventing Public Education: How Contracting Can Transform America’s 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,


_to_urban_superintendents_in_the_united_states_of _america.html; and William Guenther and Justin Cohen, Smart Districts: Restructuring Urban Systems from the School Up (Boston: Mass Insight, 2012).


Rethinking Governance

13. Paul T. Hill, “Picturing a Different Governance Structure for Public Education,” in Education Governance for the Twenty-first Century: Overcoming the Structural Barriers to 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).


The Hoover Institution’s 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 Independent Schools. 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 Don’t 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 America’s 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 2007 to 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



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 served as assistant US education secretary for research and improvement from 1985 to 1988. Author of more than four hundred articles and twenty books, Finn’s most recent books are Exam Schools: Inside America’s Most Selective Public High Schools (Princeton University Press, 2012) and Reroute the Preschool Juggernaut (Education Next Books, 2009).

Eric A. Hanushek is 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. Hill is 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. Hoxby is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, the Scott and Donya Bommer Professor of Economics at Stanford



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 and labor 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 (Brookings Institution Press, 2007). Loveless’s 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 America’s Public Schools (Brookings Institution Press, 2011), provides the first comprehensive study of the teachers’ unions and their impacts on the nation’s schools. His past work on education includes Politics, Markets, and America’s 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



political scientist, Moe’s research interests extend well beyond pub- lic education. He has written extensively on political institutions, public bureaucracy, and the presidency and has been an influential contributor to those fields.

Paul E. Peterson is 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: From Horace 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 Hoover Institution, 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” Whitehurst is 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



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. In his 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 in Higher 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 K12 education. 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 government’s response to the economic crisis of 200809. Sousa was responsible for launching the Institu- tion’s major communications initiatives, including the Hoover Digest, Education Next, Policy Review, and Uncommon Knowl- edge. From 1990 to 1995, he directed the Institution’s Diplomat Training Program. He served as director of the Hoover Institution Library and Archives from 2007 to 2012 and 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 Ba’th Party collection.

About the Hoover Institution’s KORET TASK FORCE ON K - 12 EDU CATION The Hoover

About the Hoover Institution’s


The Hoover Institution’s Koret Task Force on K12 Education is made up of experts in the field of education. Brought together by the 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 K12 education. 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 country’s 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 Institution’s 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

Books of Related InteRest fRom the koRet task foRce on k-12 educatIon

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

The Best Teachers in the World: Why We Don’t Have Them and How We Could, by John E. Chubb (Hoover Institution Press, 2012)

Exam Schools: Inside America’s Most Selective Public High Schools, by Chester E. Finn Jr. and Jessica A. Hockett (Princeton University Press, 2012)

Choice and Federalism: Defining the Federal Role in Education, by the 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,

Saving Schools: From Horace Mann to Virtual Learning, by Paul E. Peterson (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2010)

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

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

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

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

Learning from No Child Left Behind: How and Why the Nation’s Most Important but Controversial Education Law Should Be Renewed, by John E. Chubb (Education Next Books, 2009)

Courting Failure: How School Finance Lawsuits Exploit Judges’ Good Intentions and Harm Our Children, edited by Eric A. Hanushek (Education Next Books, 2006)


Books of Related Interest

Charter Schools against the Odds: An Assessment by the Koret Task Force on K12 Education, edited by Paul T. Hill (Education Next Books, 2006)

Reforming Education in Florida: A Study Prepared by the Koret Task Force on K12 Education, edited by Paul E. Peterson (Hoover Institution Press, 2006)

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

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

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

Our Schools and Our Future

Are We Still at Risk?, edited by

Paul E. Peterson (Hoover Institution Press, 2003)

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

School Accountability: An Assessment by the Koret Task Force on K12 Education, edited by Williamson M. Evers and Herbert J. Walberg (Hoover Institution Press, 2002)

A Primer on America’s Schools, edited by Terry M. Moe (Hoover Institution Press, 2001)


access to education, 191203 equity and, 19495 excellence movement and, 19394 four-part problem with, 198 201 gifted students and, 196 203 for handicapped children, 193 history of, 19193 literacy and, 192 accountability curriculum and, 88 governance and, 18 19 of school districts, 39 standards and testing and, 88 of states, 42, 90 93 systemic reform and, 88 93 teacher effectiveness and, 4142 for time spent on subjects, 140 unions and, 4142 See also student accountability “The Accountability Illusion,”


Achieve Inc., 9798, 13132 achievement. See student achievement adolescent society, 79 Advanced Placement (AP) examinations for, 126 gifted students and, 198 99 online instruction for, 58 Pell grants and, 132 advocacy, for gifted students, 2013 AFT. See American Federation of Teachers Alexander, Lamar, 194 Alliance Tennenbaum Family Technology High School, 54, 63 American Federation of Teachers (AFT), 38 lobbying by, 40 American Psychological Association, 202

AP. See Advanced Placement Arizona, online instruction in, 61 authentic assessment, 102 autonomy, of teachers, 95 Avery, Christopher, 202

balanced literacy, 139 Benchmarking for Success (Achieve Inc.), 98 Bishop, John, 123 black-white achievement gap, 24 blended schools, 54, 58 competition with, 63 in North Carolina, 64 research on, 66 Broad, Eli, 44 Brookings Institution, 104, 202 Brown v. Board of Education, 192 93 Bush, George H. W., 88, 89 Bush, George W. NAEP and, 98 NCLB and, 9398, 195 standards and testing and, 9398 as Texas governor, 92

California accountability standards in, 92 93 NAEP and, 129 30 online instruction in, 61 standards and testing by, 115n54 textbooks in, 139, 194 Capitalism and Freedom (Friedman), 14 CapitalOne, 179 80, 187 Carpe Diem, 6364 CCSSI. See Common Core State Standards Initiative CCSSO. See Council of Chief State School Officers Center on Education Policy, 106, 140


Champion, Sara, 155 charter schools, viiviii appeal of, 76 expanded course offerings by, 73 governance by, 16 17 handicapped children and, 17, 21n9 lotteries for, 17, 75, 159 mathematics in, 76 in New York, 76 online instruction in, 60, 61, 6364 reading in, 76 re-regulation of, 21n9 school choice and, 41 states and, 61, 74 student achievement at, 76 support for, 59 60 technology in, 53 transportation for, 165 unions and, 73 child protection, legal protections for, 16 Choice Scholarship Program, in Indiana, 7475 choice schools. See school choice Christensen, Clayton M., 14142 Chubb, John, 3, 14, 17, 67, 141 Churchill, Winston, vii Clinton, Bill, 88 “Goals 2000” act by, 195 NSF and, 116n60 Cognitively Guided Instruction, 144 Cohen, David K., 124 Coleman, James S., 79, 123, 18384, 194 collective bargaining agreements governance and, 11, 13 ineffective organization from, 38 40 teacher evaluations and, 38 39 for teachers, 11, 13, 38 40, 44 unions and, 38 40, 44 Colorado online instruction in, 61 standards in, 97 common content core, 89


Common Core State Standards, 34 adoption of, 1012 competition and, 96 critics of, 96 curriculum and, 14345 exit examinations and, 122 in Georgia, 111n33 lobbying for, 97 mathematics and, 1056, 145 NCLB and, 9596 private schools and, 1078 quality of, 101 race to the bottom and, 105 student achievement and, 1046 textbooks and, 90, 103, 107 Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI), 101 competition Common Core State Standards and, 96 with school choice, 41, 59 60, 82 83, 16166 compulsory attendance laws, by states, 192 computer-based learning, in hybrid schools, 18 contracts, of teachers, 29 See also collective bargaining agreements Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), 96 credit recovery classes, 131 online instruction for, 58 59 curriculum accountability and, 88 Common Core State Standards and, 14345 in Massachusetts, 9192 in mathematics, 139 1990s wars on, 13739 research on, 146 47 school choice and, 80 81 standards and testing for, 88 strengthening of, 13747 technology and, 14143 time on subjects in, 139 41


Curriculum Focal Points, by NCTM, 139 curriculum-content standards, 88 91 “curve busters,” 123

Darling-Hammond, Linda, 102 3 Dee, Thomas, 32 Democratic Party, unions and, 40, 4344 Democrats for Education Reform, 44 Department of Education, 77, 89, 100 gifted students and, 2012 IES in, 181 national tests by, 102 3 differentiated instruction, 58, 73, 203 digital learning, viii disabled children. See handicapped children discovery learning, 90 NCLB and, 95 NSF and, 89 teacher autonomy in, 95 discrimination legal protections from, 16 school segregation and, 12 dismissal threats, teacher effectiveness and, 32 Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns (Christensen, Horn, and Johnson), 14142 Driscoll, David, 128 29 Duncan, Arne, 44, 99, 100

Edison, Thomas, 177 Education Next, 2, 129, 202 Education Testing Service (ETS), 126,


ELA. See English Language Arts Elementary and Secondary Education Act. See No Child Left Behind endogenous change, unions and, 4344 English Language Arts (ELA), 144 Equality of Educational Opportunity (Coleman), 18384


equity, access to education and, 19495 ETS. See Education Testing Service Evers, Williamson, 34 evidence-based education, 17788 in future, 18588 on performance pay, 31 Exam Schools (Finn and Hockett), 200 excellence movement, access to education and, 19394 exit examinations Common Core State Standards and, 122 in high school, 122 33 in Massachusetts, 12729, 128f NCLB and, 129, 134n14 in New York, 126 online instruction and, 130 32 Pell grants and, 132 politics of, 129 30 research on, 132 33 student achievement and, 12729 student motivation and, 12325 teachers and, 123 exogenous change, unions and, 4546

Farrar, Eleanor, 124 FCAT. See Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test Finn, Chester E., Jr., 91, 99, 200 Fisher, Ronald, 179 Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT), 140 Florida Virtual School, 62 Fordham, Thomas B., 99 100, 105 Frenkel, Edward, 1056 Freudenthal Institute, 144 Friedman, Milton, 14 full-time work, 15556, 171n15

Gaebler, Ted, 18 Gardner, Howard, 141, 19495 Gates, Bill, 44 Gates Foundation, 40 GDP deflator, 169n2


Georgia Common Core State Standards in, 111n33 standards in, 96 97 student achievement in,


gifted students access to education and, 196 203 advocacy for, 2013 in high school, 199 200 identification of, 198 201 research on, 2013 value-added measures for, 199 Gillies, Dorothy, 120 21 “Goals 2000” act, by Clinton, 195 Goodman, Jonathan, 105 Google, 179, 187 governance, 1120 accountability and, 18 19 by charter schools, 16 17 collective bargaining agreements and, 11, 13 getting it right, 1417 harm done by current arrangements, 12 14 impact of, 1112 implementation and, 19 by market, 1516 by mayors, 1415 mixed, 1719 in next decade, 19 20 re-regulation and, 19 20 by states, 12 by teachers, 16 grade inflation, in high school, 121 Guastaferro, Lynnette, 102

handicapped children access to education for, 193 charter schools and, 17, 21n9 Hanushek, Eric, 3, 72 Hawaii, NAEP and, 129 high school as dysfunctional, 122 exit examinations in, 122 33 gifted students in, 199 200


grade inflation in, 123 NAEP and, 122 Hill, Paul, 3 Hirsch, E. D., 14142 Hockett, Jessica, 200 home-schooling, 62, 74 technology and, 60 tuition tax credits for, 74 Hoover Institution, vii, viiiix, 45, 202 Horn, Michael B., 14142 Hoxby, Caroline, 4, 75, 198, 202 Hufstedler, Shirley, 89 human capital development, vii Hung-Hsi Wu, 1056 Hunt, James B., Jr., 97 hybrid schools computer-based learning in, 18 randomized controlled trial for,


student achievement in, 158 59

IES. See Institute of Education Sciences implementation governance and, 19 of standards and testing, 87108 income, teacher effectiveness and, 2427, 25t Indiana Choice Scholarship Program in, 7475 standards and testing by, 115n54 individualized education plans, 13 Institute of Education Sciences (IES), 181 instructional assistants, 156 Intermediate Education Units (IUs), 63

Jencks, Christopher, 194 Johnson, Curtis W., 14142

Kentucky accountability standards in, 91 Common Core State Standards in, 101


time spent on subjects in, 140 Kern Family Foundation, 202 Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP), 76 Koret Task Force on K-12 Education, vii, ix

labor laws, teacher effectiveness and, 29 last in, first out (LIFO), teacher effectiveness and, 28 learning styles, 142 Leffelman, Kristen Ulrich, 45 Liberating Learning (Chubb and Moe), 67 licensing policies, governance and, 13, 17 lifetime earnings, teacher effectiveness and, 2427, 25t LIFO. See last in, first out Lind, James, 178 79 literacy access to education and, 192 balanced, 139 student accountability for, 132 See also reading lobbying by AFT, 40 for Common Core State Standards, 97 by NEA, 40 Los Angeles Times, 29 Los Angeles Unified School District, teacher effectiveness in, 32 lotteries, for charter schools, 17, 75, 159 Louisiana, Recovery School District in, 15 Loveless, Tom, 4, 104

Manzi, Jim, 179 market governance by, 1516 school choice and, 80


Massachusetts accountability standards in, 9192 curriculum in, 9192 exit examinations in, 12729, 128f NAEP and, 128, 129 standards and testing by, 115n54 standards in, 96 massive open online courses (MOOCs), 54, 66 Mastri, Annalisa, 155 Mathematica Policy Group, 76 mathematics in charter schools, 76 Common Core State Standards and, 1056, 145 curriculum in, 139 multiplier effects with, 82 NAEP and, 150 NCLB and, 93, 139 NCTM, 138, 139 remedial, 59 standards and testing for, 105 STEM, viii, 202 textbooks for, 138 TIMSS, 92, 170n5 tracking in, 145 US student rankings in, 72 MathLand, 139 mayors governance by, 1415 in New York, 39 school boards and, 15 superintendents and, 15 in Washington, DC, 39 McCallum, William, 105 McGuinn, Patrick, 94 McKeown, Michael, 89 90 Metzenberg, Stan, 90 Milgram, R. James, 105 Missouri, NAEP and, 129 mixed governance, 1719 Moe, Terry M., vii, 3, 14, 17, 67, 73, 141 MOOCs. See massive open online courses Moore, Charles, 120 21


Moynihan, Daniel P., 194 multiple intelligence, 141 multiplier effects, with school choice, 82

NAEP. See National Assessment of Educational Progress A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education), 37, 55, 193 standards and testing and, 87 National Academies of Science, 180 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 9192, 94, 107, 170n3 Bush, G. W., and, 98 high school and, 122 Massachusetts and, 128 mathematics and, 150 NCTM and, 138 PISA and, 197 reading and, 150 states and, 96, 129 30 TIMSS and, 170n5 National Association for Gifted Children, 196, 201 National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk by, 37, 55, 193 standards and testing and, 87 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), 138, 139 National Education Association (NEA), 38 lobbying by, 40 National Governors Association (NGA), 96, 97, 112n34, 112n37 Achieve Inc. by, 9798 National Science Foundation (NSF) Clinton and, 116n60 discovery learning and, 89 NCTM and, 138 Systemic Initiative of, 89 90 textbooks and, 90 national standards. See Common Core State Standards


national tests, by Department of Education, 102 3 NCLB. See No Child Left Behind NCTM. See National Council of Teachers of Mathematics NEA. See National Education Association “nerd harassment,” 123 New Mexico, NAEP and, 129 New York charter schools in, 76 exit examinations in, 126 mayors in, 39 unions in, 14 New York Times, 29, 202 Nexus Academy, 64 NGA. See National Governors Association No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Bush, G. W., and, 9398, 195 Common Core State Standards and, 9596 critics of, 94 discovery learning and, 95 exit examinations and, 129,


mathematics and, 139 Obama and, 114n51 reading and, 139 Reading First in, 138 39 standards and testing and, 9398 states and, 94 student achievement and, 94 teacher effectiveness in, 28 teachers and, 95 Texas and, 92 unions and, 42 waivers, 100, 106, 114n49, 130 non-fiction, Common Core State Standards and, 144 Norquist, Grover, 112n34 North Carolina blended schools in, 64 online instruction in, 62 standards in, 97


Northwest Evaluation Association, 107 NSF. See National Science Foundation

Obama, Barack, 41, 44 NCLB and, 114n51 private schools at, 195 RttT by, 195 observational evaluations for school choice, 76 in teacher contracts, 32 for teacher effectiveness, 30 O’Day, Jennifer, 88 89 OECD. See Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

Ohio gifted students in, 196 online instruction in, 61 O’Neill, Tip, 38 online instruction, 18 for AP, 58 in charter schools, 60, 61, 6364 for credit recovery classes, 58 59 exit examinations and, 130 32 financial savings from, 59 parents and, 62 school districts and, 59, 62 63 states and, 62 63 student accountability and, 130 32 student achievement and, 58,


student retention and, 58 teachers and, 5556 unions and, 4546, 55 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 149 Osborne, David, 18 outcomes-based perspective, 15 teacher contracts and, 29 teacher effectiveness and, 2324, 154 See also student achievement


“parent trigger” legislation, 75 parents governance and, 12, 17 online instruction and, 62 school choice and, 79, 84 voucher systems and, 18 parochial schools, 81 “pass to play,” in Texas, 125 Patrick, Deval, 91 Pearson Education, 64 Pell grants, 120 AP and, 132 exit examinations and, 132 Pennsylvania charter schools in, 165 online instruction in, 60, 61,

62 63

private schools in, 165 Perdue, Sonny, 96 97 performance. See student achievement performance pay accountability and, 41 for teacher effectiveness, 30 31, 41, 15357 performance standards, 88 performance-based assessment, 102 Perot, Ross, 125 Peterson, Paul E., 4, 27, 75 Petrilli, Michael, 100 PISA. See Programme for International Student Assessment Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools (Chubb and Moe), 17 Powell, Arthur G., 124 President’s Commission on School Finance, 180 A Primer on America’s Schools, vii principal instructional assistants and, 156 student accountability and, 122 student achievement and, 27 teacher effectiveness and, 1314 private schools advantages of, 8182 appeal of, 76


private schools (continued) Common Core State Standards and, 1078 cost of, 76, 81 expanded course offerings by, 73 funding of, 77 Obama at, 195 Romney at, 195 scholarships for, 74 transportation for, 165 tuition tax credits for, 41 voucher systems for, 41 privatization, 83 professional development, for teacher effectiveness, 29 The Proficiency Illusion, 99 100 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), 98 99, 144 NAEP and, 197

race legal protections from discrimination with, 16 teacher effectiveness and, 24 race to the bottom Common Core State Standards and, 105 states and, 95, 99 100 Race to the Top (RttT), 99 100 by Obama, 195 teacher evaluations and, 4142 unions and, 44 Rand Corporation, 140, 180 randomized controlled trial for hybrid schools, 172n20 on school choice, 7576 for streptomycin, 179 Rasmussen Poll, vii Ravitch, Diane, 88 reading in charter schools, 76 multiplier effects with, 82 NAEP and, 150 NCLB and, 93, 139 remedial, 59 Reading Excellence Act, 138


Reading First, in NCLB, 138 39 Recovery School District, in Louisiana, 15 religion, private schools and, 81 remedial mathematics, 59 remedial reading, 59 Renaissance 2010, 64 re-regulation of charter schools, 21n9 governance and, 19 20 research, 17788 on curriculum, 146 47 on exit examinations, 132 33 in future, 18588 on gifted students, 2013 for school choice, 7475 on school choice, 8384, 16769 on standards and testing, 1038 on student accountability, 132 33 on technology, 6467, 16769 on value-added measures, 16769 WWC and, 181, 182 Rhee, Michelle, 32 Rocketship Education, 63, 159 61 Romer, Roy, 97 Romney, Mitt, 195 Rothman, Robert, 99 RttT. See Race to the Top

salaries teacher effectiveness and, 2425, 28, 30 31 of teachers, seniority and, 38 SAT, 120 Scafidi, Benjamin, 155 Schmidt, William, 105, 145 scholarships for private schools, 74 for student achievement, 127 school boards governance by, 13, 18 mayors and, 15 unions and, 39, 46 school choice, 7184 assessment and, 16364 avoiding bureaucracy with, 79 80


capacity for, 16465 competition with, 41, 59 60, 82 83, 16166 cost of, 82 83, 16166 curriculum and, 80 81 historical pattern of, 76 78 kinds, growth, and research for,


market and, 80 multiplier effects with, 82 observational evaluations for, 76 parents and, 79, 84 present status of, 7576 randomized controlled trial on,


research on, 8384, 16769 size of, 78 student achievement and, 83 teacher effectiveness and, 80 unions and, 41 value-added measures and, 162 66 virtuous circles with, 166 67 See also charter schools; private schools; voucher systems School Choice: The Findings (Hoxby), 75 school closings, 75, 78 school districts accountability of, 39 online instruction and, 59, 62 63 student achievement and, 18384, 184f school segregation, 12, 192 93 school suspensions, 122 Schools and Staffing Survey, 139 The Schools We Need: And Why We Don’t Have Them (Hirsch),


Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), viii, 202 segregation, in schools, 12, 192 93 seniority, of teachers, 38 Shanker, Al, 125 Shaw, Kathryn, 155 The Shopping Mall High School (Powell, Farrar, and Cohen), 124


Shuls, James V., 144 Shultz, George, 72 Sizer, Theodore, 124 Sjoquist, David, 155 Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, 102 Smith, Marshall, 88 89, 99 Sousa, Richard, ix, 4 specialized services, teachers from, 18 Spencer, Herbert, 137 standards accountability and, 88 Bush, G. W., and, 9398 for curriculum, 88 curriculum and, 138 curriculum-content, 88 91 implementation of, 87108 for mathematics, 105 NCLB and, 9398 Obama and, 98 103 research on, 1038 by states, 115n54 systemic reform and, 88 93 See also Common Core State Standards Stanford University Center for Research on Education Outcomes, 76

states accountability by, 42, 90 93 charter schools and, 61, 74 Common Core State Standards in, 1012 compulsory attendance laws by, 192 governance by, 12 NAEP and, 96, 129 30 NCLB and, 94 online instruction and, 62 63 race to the bottom and, 95, 99 100 standards and testing by, 115n54 teaching restrictions for, 29 tuition tax credits in, 74 See also specific states Statistical Methods for Research Workers (Fisher), 179


STEM. See Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Stengel, Casey, 185 Stinebrickner, Todd, 155 streptomycin, randomized controlled trial for, 179 student accountability current state of, 12527 for literacy, 132 online instruction and, 130 32 principal and, 122 research on, 132 33 student achievement at charter schools, 76 Common Core State Standards and, 1046 cost for improving, 149 69 exit examinations and, 12729 finances and, 111n30 in Georgia, 111n32 in hybrid schools, 158 59 long-term consequences of, 72 73 NCLB and, 94 online instruction and, 58,


principal and, 27 scholarships for, 127 school choice and, 83 school districts and, 18384, 184f teacher effectiveness and, 2427 teachers and, 18384, 184f US ranking for, 72 student outcomes. See outcomes-based perspective student performance. See student achievement students accountability of, 118 33 motivation of, exit examinations and, 12325 retention of, online instruction and, 58 unique identifiers for, 31 See also gifted students; specific relevant topics


superintendents curriculum-core standards and, 97 mayors and, 15 suspensions, from school, 122

Systemic Initiative, of NSF, 89 90 systemic reform accountability and, 88 93 NSF and, 89 90 standards and, 88 93 state accountability standards

and, 90 93

taxpayers, 16, 83 governance and, 12 Tea Party, 43 teacher effectiveness accountability and, 4142 contracts and, 29 current policies on, 28 31 dismissal threats and, 32 improving, 2332 income and, 2427, 25t labor laws and, 29 lifetime earnings and, 2427, 25t LIFO and, 28 in Los Angeles Unified School District, 32 in NCLB, 28 observational evaluations for, 30 outcomes-based perspective for, 2324, 154 performance pay for, 30 31, 41,


principal and, 1314 professional development for, 29 prospects for further improvement in, 3132 race and, 24 salaries and, 2425, 28, 30 31 school choice and, 80 student achievement and, 2427 teacher evaluations for, 30 value-added measures for, 26, 29 30, 15357, 163, 16769,


in Washington, DC, 32


teacher evaluations collective bargaining agreements and, 38 39 RttT and, 4142 for teacher effectiveness, 30 unions and, 40 teachers autonomy of, 95 collective bargaining agreements for, 11, 13, 38 40, 44 contracts of, 29, 32 eliminating worst, 27 exit examinations and, 123 governance by, 16 layoffs of, seniority and, 38 NCLB and, 95 online instruction and, 5556 salaries of, seniority and, 38 seniority of, 38 from specialized services, 18 student accountability and, 120 student achievement and, 18384,


technology and, 173n21 tenure of, 31, 73 transfers of, seniority and, 38 unique identifiers for, 31 technology in charter schools, 53 competition and choice with, 59 60 cost savings with, 15761 curriculum and, 14143 driving force for, 5559 to enrich instruction, 15761 home-schooling and, 60 research on, 6467, 16769 response and counter-response to,


teachers and, 173n21 transformation with, 5367 unions and, 4546, 47 See also online instruction tenure, of teachers, 31, 73 testing accountability and, 88 Bush, G. W., and, 9398


for curriculum, 88 by Department of Education,

102 3

implementation of, 87108 for mathematics, 105 NCLB and, 9398 Obama and, 98 103 research on, 1038 by states, 115n54 value-added measures from, 29 30 See also exit examinations Texas accountability standards in, 92 “pass to play” in, 125 textbooks in California, 139, 194 Common Core State Standards and, 90, 103, 107 for mathematics, 138 A Nation at Risk and, 87 NSF and, 90 Thatcher, Margaret, 120 21 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 202 TIMSS. See Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study Toma, Eugenia, 95 Touchstone Education, 64 tracking, in mathematics, 145 transportation costs, 165 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 92 NAEP and, 170n5 tuition tax credits for private schools, 41 in states, 74

unions accountability and, 4142 blocking of laws by, 40 42 challenge of, 3747 charter schools and, 73 collective bargaining agreements and, 38 40, 44 Democratic Party and, 40, 4344 endogenous change and, 4344 exogenous change and, 4546


unions (continued) future and, 4347 hastening future for, 46 47 NCLB and, 42 in New York, 14 online instruction and, 4546, 55 performance pay and, 31 RttT and, 44 school boards and, 39, 46 school choice and, 41 teacher evaluations and, 40 teacher tenure and, 73 technology and, 4546, 47 voucher systems and, 73 in Washington, DC, 32 unique student identifiers, 31 unique teacher identifiers, 31

value-added measures computation of, 16566 for gifted students, 199 publication of, 29 research on, 16769 school choice and, 162 66 in teacher contracts, 32 for teacher effectiveness, 26, 29 30, 15357, 163, 16769,


from testing, 29 30 Vinovskis, Maris, 89


Virtual Opportunities Inside a School Environment (VOISE), 64 virtuous circles, with school choice,

166 67

VOISE. See Virtual Opportunities Inside a School Environment voucher systems, 7475 parents and, 18

for private schools, 41 school choice and, 41 unions and, 73

Walberg, Herbert, 3 War on Poverty, 12 Washington, DC mayors in, 39 teacher effectiveness in, 32 Washington state, NAEP and, 129 What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), 181, 182 Whitehurst, Grover “Russ,” 4 whole language, 138 Wilhoit, Gene, 101 Willingham, Daniel T., 142 Woessmann, Ludger, 27 Wurman, Ze’ev, 105 WWC. See What Works Clearinghouse Wyckoff, James, 32

year-round calendar, 163