In October, Education Secretary Arne Duncan announced a renewed initiative to reform and critically evaluate the post-graduate programs that certify teachers. In his speech to the Teachers College at Columbia University, Duncan asserts that “by almost any standard, many if not most of the nation’s 1,450 schools, colleges, and departments of education are doing a mediocre job of preparing teachers for the realities of the 21st century classroom…America’s university-based teacher preparation programs need revolutionary change–not evolutionary tinkering,”.
Within that context, of a Democratic administration that is not going to accept the status-quo in America’s education system, the move by President Obama to offer relief from the crushing costs of college tuition and the debt of student loans reinforces the necessity of reform that makes the system work better for those it is supposed to serve. This relief includes the capping of monthly loan payments at 10% of the borrower’s discretionary income, offering debt forgiveness after 20 years (10 if a career in public service is pursued), and eliminating the federal subsidies given to private lenders for student loans and instead expanding the hugely successful Direct Loan/Pell Grant program
.
Now however, the context has shifted a bit. In a time where 35 out of 50 states have budget shortfalls of over 20%, and nearly 2/3 of the stimulus funds meant to ensure that these exact budget shortfalls would not result in cuts to public school budgets has already been accounted for, there is increased pressure on states to proceed with reforms within this cash-strapped environment. The stimulus funds apportioned to this cause were meant to ensure that public school funding would not be cut, but they also provided an incentive to reform those same public schools in the form of additional federal money.
(source : ProPublica stimulus tracker)
The problem, however, is that many states have proceeded to cut their public school funding while simultaneously accepting billions of dollars in stimulus money. According to an October report issued by the Department of Education inspector general:
“…some states are using the program to reduce their own funding for public education…states can collect billions of dollars in stimulus funding for education, and still reduce their own overall spending on schools to 2006 levels. The flexibility in the program was designed to let states facing severe budget shortfalls, like California, avoid cuts to their total education funding. But according to the IG, even some states that can afford to spend their money on reform may not end up doing so.”
So now, with budget shortfalls looming, stimulus funds drying up and reform efforts, in general, still being supported many states legislatures have turned their sights on public high schools. We’ve mentioned the proposals by Utah state sen. Chris Buttars that seeks to eliminate the 12th grade and bus service as being entirely antithetical to proactive reform. Alongside proposals such as that, many states have had trouble securing the funds necessary to repair their dilapidated schools as provided for in the stimulus.
But amongst this discord and angst, there remains hope for proactive reform that will benefit students.
The National Center on Education and Economy, with the aid of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is organizing a program that would allow students to begin taking college courses after their sophomore year based upon their performance on a series of exams. This notion of increasing reliance upon standardized testing may bring up bad memories of the utterly failed No Child Left Behind Act, which tied federal funding for school districts to student’s performance on certain tests, but rest assured these two programs should not be considered harmonious.
The effort is seeking to capitalize, in fact, on the 350$ million in stimulus funds designated for improving standardized testing in public school. The new series of exams would be based largely upon successful systems in Denmark, England, Finland, France and Singapore. The purpose of such a reform is clear – to allow students who excel to move forward in their education and make college success more tangible, while providing an opportunity for school districts who perform well to lower their spending on public high schools. As well, this effort seeks to decrease the amount of student who enroll in remedial courses in college and thus decrease the amount of remedial courses that need to be offered by community colleges.
Pilot programs for the NCEE’s new coursework and evaluation standards will begin in the fall of 2011 in Connecticut, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Notice the distinct difference between a proposal such as this, which seeks to provide more opportunities for students, and the proposal by Buttars which seeks to sell-out students by eliminating the 12th grade?
Particularly, Buttar’s proposal benefits only the budget of Utah and supports only the ideologies of anti-public school activists, while casting off the consequences to be carried by students and teachers.
That is not reform, it is not a step forward; it is a step into uncharted territory that threatens the stability of Utah’s public school system upon which more than 96% of the state’s children depend.
