Inasmuch as last week's column was about chickens (Chicken Littles, to be precise) it's fitting that this one is about canards-the loud-quacking kind-that need to be put out of their misery and cooked fast.
Roaming the education reform field, I've encountered many ridiculous statements hurled at those who seek major changes in the K-12 delivery system. My purpose here is to respond to a half dozen of the most absurd.
First canard: "You'd let anyone into the classroom to teach, without having them meet any external standards."
The truth: This canard is generally voiced by people who assume that the way to get better teachers for U.S. schools is to regulate entry ever more stringently via state certification and a requirement that everyone complete a state-approved and nationally-accredited training program. But why is this the only option? Private schools are free to hire whomever they like, as are many charter schools, and they seem to be doing fine. Why can't that freedom be extended to regular public schools as well? Each school should be able to select and deploy its own teaching team-and be held accountable for their classroom results. The state's role-here come the external standards-should be to ensure that candidates can be trusted around children (hence a "background check" is called for) and are knowledgeable about their subjects (which can be determined by testing them and/or requiring that they majored in the subjects they will be teaching). Whether they're effective in class must be determined by the school that's hiring them-and the school does not have to retain them if they're not. As for how they got trained, that's their business. If they know their stuff and are effective with kids, why should anyone care what degrees and certificates they possess?
Second canard: "You would exempt charter schools from all outside standards and accountability."
The truth: Charter schools are more accountable than other U.S. schools because they're answerable in two directions. First, they must demonstrate the results they promised in their charter or they have no right to continue; that generally means five years in which a charter school must prove to its "sponsor" (usually a state or local board) that it actually did what it said it would. Else it ought not get renewed. That nearly always includes showing student performance vis-??-vis state academic standards as measured on state tests. In addition, the charter school must answer to its clients: if students and parents aren't satisfied, they won't stay. If enough leave, the school will have to close. Thus the charter school is accountable both to public authorities and to the marketplace. Only those that produce acceptable results and satisfy their customers should continue. Why isn't that the right formula for regular public schools as well?
Third canard: "Your real aim is to destroy public education in America."
The truth: The issue here is what we mean by "public education." If we mean a government monopoly of government-operated schools run by a government bureaucracy then, yes, I'm for busting it open. But I solemnly believe that society has an obligation to ensure that "the public" gets educated. This can and should be done through diverse schools run in various ways by multiple operators, schools that compete for students and are accountable for their results. (See response to canard #2, above.) I do not agree with those who would have the state abjure responsibility for the education of the next generation. But I don't think the state should have a monopoly on how that education gets delivered. Public education properly means the "education of the public," not the operation of government schools.
Fourth canard: "All your talk about 'high standards' is meant to make today's schools look bad so as to cause people to lose confidence in them."
The truth: One of the biggest lies by the Panglosses who (at least since 1983's "Nation at Risk" report) have denied that American K-12 education has a grave quality problem, is that those judging schools and students by high standards are doing so in order to discredit the enterprise of public education. That's like saying we set high water quality standards in order to make municipal water systems look bad. Rubbish. It's because we want U.S. schools and pupils to be the best in the world that we hold them to high standards, just like U.S. health care or military preparedness. It's truly weird to make this argument to people who were just alleging that reformers don't want to hold schools and teachers to high standards! (See canards #1 and #2, above.)
Fifth canard: "You'd do anything to avoid spending more money on schools."
The truth: With every passing year, the U.S. spends more money on its schools. I have every expectation that it will continue doing so and that's fine with me. I have no problem spending money on schools and kids. The serious issue is whether we're getting our money's worth, whether our schools are as efficient and productive as they should be, whether they're yielding true value for money. In general, "more of the same" is not a wise use of resources. But I also recognize that some of the reforms we need to make-rewarding great teachers, for example, boosting the uses of technology, extending the school year-carry large price tags. Well and good. Let's spend the additional money on things that produce better results.
Sixth canard: "You don't really care about poor kids and others left behind by your harebrained reform schemes."
The truth: The parlous plight of disadvantaged children is the core of the entire education reform enterprise. Those are the youngsters for whom the present system is least satisfactory and who therefore have the greatest need of different schools, more choices, better teachers, higher standards and all the rest. It's precisely because the present system leaves them behind that we must change it. As for the allegation that school choice, in particular, does little for the neediest, a decade of experience with charter schools and public and private voucher programs shows that this is a true canard. Far from "creaming" the best and the brightest or richest and whitest, schools of choice are most apt to be sought out by desperate families with kids who are acutely ill-served by their present schools. Poor families turn out to be pretty good at making education choices. It's just that nobody ever gave them the chance before.
