Election Aftermath: An Uncertain Future for Education Policy?
Anne Hyslop
This post originally appeared on .
Conventional wisdom may say that the federal government should make way for states in education reform, but a week ago, voters didn鈥檛 seem to agree. In , voters rejected merit pay for teachers, limits on unions鈥 collective bargaining powers, and an expensive to provide one-to-one mobile computing devices to students and teachers. voted down similar measures to eliminate tenure and adopt merit pay. And in perhaps the biggest upset, Glenda Ritz, a teacher, Indiana鈥檚 incumbent Superintendent for Public Instruction, Tony Bennett, an education reform . Ritz received strong support from unions and Tea Party alike, who opposed Bennett鈥檚 initiatives to adopt the standards and assessments, develop an A-F school grading system, evaluate teachers based in part on standardized tests, takeover failing schools, and implement school vouchers. The only education initiatives that fared well were charter school颅s, with both and approving ballot initiatives.
If last week鈥檚 elections tell us anything about the fate of education policy over the next four years, it鈥檚 that parents 鈥 and the public as a whole 鈥 have little faith in education policy. And who can blame them? Which specific policies, from the federal government or from states, have improved their child鈥檚 experience in the classroom over the last decade?
Sure, there are better data than ever before about schools, teachers, and students. But it鈥檚 not always shared with in a compelling, personalized way. Yes, states adopted more rigorous standards for all students, not just those expected to succeed. But the general public is, in most cases, of the standards and why they matter. And they鈥檙e definitely turned off by the idea that, even if students learn the same standards, there are for their performance based on . Finally, new technologies have emerged that can engage students in learning experiences in remarkable ways. But they are overshadowed by standardized tests of little value that appear to from real learning.
More so than public opinion toward unions or Common Core, last week鈥檚 election results appear to demonstrate the extent of public frustration with testing and 鈥渢eaching to the test鈥 in particular. In the No Child Left Behind era, teachers and school leaders have often felt battered, rather than empowered, by reform, and their views have seeped into the general public. From the Atlanta cheating to , testing is viewed 鈥 at best 鈥 as a necessary evil with enough influence already over the education system. and (and voters) don鈥檛 necessarily take issue with merit pay or evaluations in their own right, but rather with the fact that these judgments will be based on test scores.
Education policy tends to involve rules, requirements, sanctions, and other left-brained tools and structures. However, these tend to conflict with the critical thinking, analytical, innovative right-brained skills and attitudes widely perceived as critical for success in the hyper-connected, 21st century world. Based on the last decade, government bureaucracies and structures 鈥 no matter how well-intentioned 鈥 often appear ill-fit to create educational settings where this kind of learning occurs.
So some parents have turned to charter schools, hoping that schools outside the authority of districts and states could break the hold of testing and create more productive, engaging school environments. But while growing numbers embrace the idea of charters, the same cannot be said for other mainstream education reform ideas like school takeovers or closures, teacher evaluations, and changes in HR policies like merit pay or tenure reform, based primarily on student test scores. For most parents, returning autonomy and authority to educators is a far more appealing proposition than increasing the significance of standardized test scores. While over of the public has trust and confidence in America鈥檚 teachers, the is true for government 鈥 and it showed in last week鈥檚 polls.
As for education policy wonks, this election should serve as a warning. Advocates and policymakers must do a better job of making the case for standards, tests, data, and accountability policies enacted by states and the federal government. One way to do this is by improving them 鈥 creating more sophisticated assessments, using and valuing achievement data beyond test scores, and improving how parents and the public access information about school quality. But maybe it鈥檚 also time to ditch the rule book and add some right-brained thinking to education reform.