For decades, policymakers have piled regulations onto public schools. This top-down, input-driven approach made sense back in an era when too many students weren’t receiving even a rudimentary education and nobody was as fussy about academic results. As Netflix’s Reed Hastings once said, the only thing worse than a regulated monopoly is an unregulated monopoly.
But times have changed. We now realize that students need strong minds, not just strong backs, to compete for jobs in a competitive and knowledge-based economy. Rigorous academic expectations are the coin of the realm in contemporary education policy, but there is also near-universal consensus that youngsters deserve schooling experiences tailored to their individual needs, gifts, and interests. And parental choice is no longer a distant dream of Milton Friedman’s; it’s a reality in most urban communities in America.
These powerful forces demand a radically different approach to public education—and especially to the old regulatory regime that ruled it. States must demand that schools raise their academic performance to prepare all students for success in college or a career. In return, educators should have the autonomy to design instruction aimed at achieving these ambitious goals and to customize their approaches to accord with their pupils’ needs, capabilities, and circumstances. This means that the compliance-based approach to public education must give way to more flexible arrangements.
Some states, such as Ohio, have taken some praiseworthy steps in this direction. The Buckeye State is implementing rigorous school report cards that shine a bright light on academic results. Families have more schooling choices than ever before, including public charters, private school vouchers, and an array of specialty options like STEM and technical vocational schools. Legislators recently created a competitive grant program (the Straight A Fund) that has catalyzed more than sixty innovative projects during the past two years.
Yet despite promising steps like these in Ohio and other states, many legislators continue to shackle their public schools with a burdensome regulatory regimen. Policymakers understand the problem, and some are considering ways to cut the red tape. Ohio Governor John Kasich and State Senate President Keith Faber have both pointed to the need for education “deregulation,” and legislators have responded by introducing bills that would (if enacted) free certain districts from a handful of onerous state requirements. In our view, however, lawmakers could go much bigger and bolder.
Given the urgency, promise, and the peril of deregulating public schools, we sought to create a framework for policymakers in a new policy brief. What should be on the table for deregulation? What are the issues that policymakers should not touch? What are the surest levers to provide educators and local communities with badly needed flexibility? Should legislators simply repeal laws and start over, or are there other alternatives? And what about local schools—if given greater freedom, how should they wield it, and how can state policymakers safeguard against abuse?
Knotty questions like these warrant expert thinking, so we enlisted Paolo DeMaria of Education First, along with two of his colleagues. Paolo is a veteran of policy debates, having held leadership roles in the state’s education department and worked with the legislature and governor’s office.
The anchoring principle of Paolo’s fine brief is that if educational excellence is to be a top priority, policymakers must vest much greater operational authority in on-the-ground educators and leaders. We understand that this is commonsense advice that dates back to the ancient idea of “subsidiarity”: Whenever possible, the people closest to a problem should have the power, as well as the obligation, to address it.
It’s also a view that we at Fordham have been pressing for years. Indeed, empowering education leaders on the ground is one reason we support the charter school model, which allows schools to operate with less state interference. In reports like Yearning to Break Free and Ohio at the Crossroads, we’ve documented our belief that district schools should not have to toil under heavy regulation, either.
This paper fleshes out the policy mechanisms by which policymakers can empower local leaders—and nurture the productive use of newfound autonomies. It recommends several avenues, including rolling back archaic legislation (we flag areas ripe for repeal); providing for a simple waiver process that districts can use to get out of unconstructive regulations, such as teacher licensure and uniform salary schedules; and creating a culture where deregulatory activity becomes the norm, not the exception.
The suggestions for repeal are necessary priorities for any reform effort. They focus on giving districts the flexibility to fine-tune their staffing arrangements and ensure the very best education for their students. Some of this flexibility has already been given to school leaders in Cleveland’s school district, STEM schools, and charters. We recommend that state policymakers provide the same staffing latitude to districts across Ohio.
The paper also insists—and we strongly concur—that granting regulatory relief hinges on an unwavering commitment to state-led, results-based accountability based on rigorous academic standards and assessments. Policymakers must ensure a fair and transparent system that holds all public schools and districts to account for student outcomes. Autonomy in exchange for honest-to-God accountability—that’s the bargain.
Experience has shown the wisdom of this axiom: Government authorities can tell schools what to do, but they can’t force them to do it well. No government can regulate schools into excellence. Yet all students deserve an excellent education, which requires policymakers to adopt a more pliable approach to public school governance. Baby steps are already being made, and policymakers would do well to make even longer strides forward.
