Apparently tired of being called defeatist defenders of the status quo, the Economic Policy Institute (home of Lawrence Mishel and Richard Rothstein) just released a policy statement calling for a "broader, BOLDER approach" to education. It's a smart and savvy strategy: they go out of their way to say that school improvement matters, but they also want a focus on other social issues:
Education policy in this nation has typically been crafted around the expectation that schools alone can offset the full impact of low socioeconomic status on learning. Schools can--and have--ameliorated some of the impact of social and economic disadvantage on achievement. Improving our schools, therefore, continues to be a vitally important strategy for promoting upward mobility and for working toward equal opportunity and overall educational excellence.Evidence demonstrates, however, that achievement gaps based on socioeconomic status are present before children even begin formal schooling. Despite the impressive academic gains registered by some schools serving disadvantaged students, there is no evidence that school improvement strategies by themselves can close these gaps in a substantial, consistent, and sustainable manner.
Nevertheless, there is solid evidence that policies aimed directly at education-related social and economic disadvantages can improve school performance and student achievement. The persistent failure of policy makers to act on that evidence--in tandem with a school-improvement agenda--is a major reason why the association between social and economic disadvantage and low student achievement remains so strong.
This reasonable argument attracted the support of many co-signers, including Fordham trustee Diane Ravitch. But I see three big problems with the statement.
First, while admitting the importance of school improvement, it's REALLY squishy on school accountability:
The public has a right to hold schools accountable for raising student achievement. However, test scores alone cannot describe a school's contribution to the full range of student outcomes. New accountability systems should combine appropriate qualitative and quantitative methods, and they will be considerably more expensive than the flawed accountability systems currently in use by the federal and state governments.
You could be kind and read that as "mend it don't end it" on accountability, but I read it as "we don't really want accountability but we can't quite admit it."
Second, the group's big idea--that poor kids need high-quality preschool--is riddled with the same challenge as the big idea the group is challenging--that schools alone can narrow the achievement gap. Namely: we don't have any experience bringing high-quality preschool to scale, just like we don't have any experience bringing "no excuses" schools to scale. To my knowledge, the number of high-quality pre-K programs with strong evidence of effectiveness can be counted on one hand. (Sara Mead, am I missing something? Update: Sara says I am.) So why should we feel any better about putting our eggs in the preschool basket?
And finally, while it's fair to say that "schools alone" can't solve all these social problems, we shouldn't pretend that most schools are coming anywhere close to doing all they could be doing to narrow achievement gaps. As long as the vast majority of inner-city schools, in particular, use watered-down curricula, hire inadequate teachers, and refuse to create a culture of high expectations, then we won't know just how much "schools alone" could do.
Is this a broader approach? Sure. A bolder approach? Hardly.
