If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose
on America the mediocre educational performance
that exists today, we might well have viewed it
as an act of war.
—National Commission on Excellence in Education
Ever since I graduated from law school in 1950 I have been involved with the issue of public education.
I've worked on levy campaigns, been on university visiting committees and committees led by business groups, and have served for more than a decade on the board of regents of the University of Washington.
I am concerned about the quality of education in America.
A 1983 landmark report from the National Commission on Excellence in Education, appropriately titled Nation at Risk, underscores my concern.
There is a dramatic paragraph in that report quoted at the beginning of this section. The full quote goes on to say:
As it stands we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. We have even squandered the gains in student achievement made in the wake of the Sputnik challenge. Moreover, we have dismantled essential support systems which helped make those gains possible. We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament.
In considering this, one fact I find interesting is that the quality of our higher education system is considered the best in the world.
I think I understand one important reason why this is so. Being a trustee of a university, I have observed that institutions such as mine compete with one another as vigorously as players in any industry you can name.
They compete head to head for the best students, for the best faculty, and for the best facilities.
Rankings of universities and the schools and departments within them—though they sometimes are belittled—are mostly taken seriously and there is constant effort to improve these rankings.
In this highly competitive atmosphere pay and advancement are directly related to the quality of the professor's academic work and teaching skills. And there is always stiff competition for research grants and other outside funding.
A question: If our universities are so good, and competition is so paramount to the way they operate, might it follow that competition improves quality? It seems to me it does.
So what about pre-university education? I've looked at that, too.
Any analysis of our K-12 system shows virtually no competition whatsoever. No competition among teachers, no competition among schools, and no competition among school districts.
I say “virtually no competition” because as information about graduation rates and performance on standardized tests has become an element in public education there is a basis for comparison that is having some impact.
Some clear facts about the world of K-12 education in America: Schools can be judged and graded based on the performance of their students; teachers can be evaluated for their ability to teach and to motivate their students; our most talented college graduates are not interested in becoming teachers; around 40 percent of disadvantaged young people who start high school drop out before graduating.
The challenge is that the reform required is so fundamental. The profession of teaching K-12 must be revitalized.
Consider again what works in higher education, where everyone is motivated. Why not provide similar incentives for K–I2 education?
Teachers and administrators could look forward to rewards for work well done, and, conversely, poor performance would result in job loss or demotion. Another element not to be overlooked as a motivating force is respect from colleagues for doing a quality job.
I am optimistic these needs will be recognized and accepted one day, but I do not underestimate the challenge. Higher rewards for effective teaching certainly imply more than mere tinkering with the present compensation practices.
Public will for reform can arise when a school system is so disastrously bad that radical reform becomes acceptable.
A prime example of this phenomenon is New York City. Here the mayor, Michael Bloomberg, concluded that major reform was required. He personally took charge of the schools and hired a hard-charging former trial attorney to be superintendent. This reorganization was accomplished by breaking up several large high schools with two thousand or more pupils each into smaller units and engaging charter school operators to organize and manage the new schools.
One outcome: These new schools, serving the same communities, increased the graduation rate from 35 percent to 77 percent.
Another powerful example is Washington, D.C. A new mayor there was elected with an overwhelming mandate as the first candidate in history to win every precinct. His platform was school reform. He established a department of education, and when he did the local board of education and the city council lost direct authority over the District's public schools.
Another factor in the district was that the new school chancellor, Michelle Rhee, was a change agent extraordinaire. She closed some of the most troubled schools, fired a raft of principals, and let go hundreds of teachers. And she began awarding bonuses to teachers in schools where students boosted their performance on District tests.
They are attacking the problem in a meaningful way, although no one is ready to declare victory yet.
So there it is—two of the necessary ingredients for realizing progress: empowered central authority and effective management of the teaching corps that educates our sons and daughters.
Many parents, teachers, administrators, and communities refuse to admit to the basic flaws in their school systems. My optimism is based on what seem to me the lessons from revitalization of major city school districts such as New York and Washington, D.C. Reform will occur as the people insist on it.
The solutions to the problems confronting education in America require fundamental changes and drastic action. Getting it right will not be easy or comfortable. And getting it done will take broad engagement and support—from me and from you.