After sitting idle for a week, our Obama Administration Reform-o-Meter is about to get a workout. That's because things are finally happening over at 400 Maryland Avenue. Wednesday brought news about Title I regs, some important details about the stimulus package, and the name of the next Under Secretary of Education. I'm playing a bit of catch-up; we'll start today with the regs. (I've already said a bit about them here and here.)
The main thing to know is that Arne Duncan plans to overturn very few of the regulations implemented by Margaret Spellings on her way out of office. (In terms of importance, these are key provisions, and foreshadow the Administration's thinking on NCLB reauthorization, so I'll rank it a six of out ten.) This shouldn't be a huge surprise; as I wrote last fall, these regulations already reflected the left-of-center school reform consensus, particularly on graduation rates. Critics of Duncan will say that this action shows him to be Spellings reincarnated (and thus a "conservative"); a better interpretation is to say that Spellings would have been comfortable working for Obama. But I digress.
As for the changes, some are what you might consider to be "pro-school reform," and some might be considered "pro-education establishment." But I'll admit that I'm torn, because I tend to agree more with the latter than the former. Maybe that means that I'm not the best arbiter of education reform! But again, I digress. Let's get specific.
First, Duncan keeps the new high school graduation rate requirements in place. On the whole that's smart, because they require a uniform approach to reporting graduation rates that is long overdue (and is akin to a national standard). No complaint there. But as I've written before, I worry a lot about the new rule that states set targets for boosting their graduation rates and that high schools must achieve these targets for all students, and for all subgroups, or else be declared "in need of improvement." Because of America's dismal graduation problem, particularly for poor and minority students, this will likely mean that every high school in the country will soon be declared failing. And that, in turn, could put pressure on states and school districts to start awarding all manner of non-traditional diplomas. In other words, just as the "100 percent proficiency" requirement put downward pressure on state standards, so too could this "accountability for grad rates" requirement put downward pressure on the meaning of a "graduate." Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic here but I see reasons for concern.
Second, he's allowing school districts that are themselves "in need of improvement" to offer "supplemental services" directly to parents, rather than making them outsource it all to private groups. This, too, is no surprise; Duncan famously fought those of us in the Bush Administration over an early NCLB regulation that said that "failing" districts couldn't offer the free tutoring themselves. He later won an exemption from Spellings and he's now offering the same to every district in the country. This action could be seen as "anti-reform," or at least "pro-traditional-school-district," since it makes it even less likely that non-profit, for-profit, or faith-based tutoring companies will serve many kids through the supplemental service program. But frankly, as we wrote in December, the implementation of supplementary services has been such a mess (because districts have a million ways to thwart the tutoring providers), that's it not even worth saving the program.
He's also allowing waivers for districts that can't provide timely notice to parents that their children are eligible for "public school choice." The reason is that many states still don't release test results until the fall, so this seems logical. Some die-hard believers in public school choice are upset about this, but again, this tepid form of choice is another provision of NCLB that's not working, can't work, won't ever work, so, frankly, who cares?
Finally, he's keeping in place Spellings's regulations around growth models (allowing them for all states) and restructuring (requiring real overhauls for persistently failing schools). The first represents common sense; the latter represents wishful thinking.
So let's add it up. On the "pro-reform" side there are the grad rates and the restructuring rules. On the "pro-education establishment side" are the flexibilities around tutoring and public school choice, plus growth models. All in all I think reform wins by a smidgeon, even though I'm personally not so crazy about it, so let's call it "Luke Warm." What do you think? Cast your votes below.
