Q&A on Common Sense School Reform

An Interview with Frederick M. Hess, Ed.M.'90 [caption id="attachment_8535" align="alignleft" width="185" caption="Frederick M. Hess, Ed.M.'90 (© 2004 Jennifer Bishop)"]

[/caption] Frederick M. “Rick” Hess, Ed.M.’90, is director of education and policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., and author of Common Sense School Reform. In this interview, Hess responds to some questions raised by his new book. Q: Is there a role for public schools in an environment of true competition? A: Absolutely. In fact, consequential competition is entirely amenable to a district run by educators who are employed by the state in the manner that we’re used to. The only requirement is that the process of opening alternative schools not be unduly onerous for potential competitors and that these competitors receive appropriate per-pupil funding, so long as they are able to attract students, post acceptable performance, and comply with other appropriate guidelines. In fact, since traditional public schools ought to be subject to the same constraints, a commonsense reformer is really agnostic about whether traditional publics serve 90% or 40% of students in a district. The key is ensuring that students are served. Q: Common Sense School Reform argues that, on its own, tough-minded accountability yields a shallow smorgasbord of options and facilities in schools, while competition offers highly specialized schools catering to very particular strengths and interests. What opportunity do students in a market-based model have to explore different interests over the course of their schooling? What happens if a student at a performing-arts school develops a passionate interest in athletics?

It’s true that all-purpose schools can make it easier for kids to bounce from one interest to another, but the costs of that lack of focus are dramatic in terms of quality and the inability of schools to excel.

A: Just as the “small-schools” movement recognizes that the comprehensive high school—for all of its ability to provide gyms and science labs and advanced courses—is still a bad trade-off for high-school kids, so a commonsense reformer believes that “shopping mall” schools are not a good way to ensure kids the schooling they need. It’s true that all-purpose schools can make it easier for kids to bounce from one interest to another—but the costs of that lack of focus are dramatic in terms of quality and the inability of schools to excel. Under a commonsense system, some schools would surely continue to serve as all-purpose schools while other schools would offer specialized programs—just as magnet schools and charter schools do today. And, just as in those schools, sensible accommodations and the ability to transfer when appropriate will help ensure that children have access to programs that match their [evolving] needs. Q: What steps can the government take to best inform parents of their options so that they can select schools without reverting to test scores and other hallmarks of "tough-minded accountability?" A: It’s vital that report cards include information on the rate at which students at a given school are improving. The problem with NCLB-style adequate yearly progress (AYP) measures is that they tell us as much about the makeup of the student population as the degree to which schools are promoting student growth. Beyond information on academic achievement, states should collect and make publicly available information on graduation rates, student turnover, teacher turnover, teacher quality, school size, program offerings, and school safety. States should not, however, absolutely and hierarchically rank the various measures of school performance. Instead, they should contract and support a variety of third parties and encourage the emergence of non-profit or for-profit entities, who can publish and disseminate guides and rankings for the use of parents. Q: Common Sense School Reform links the reluctance of parents to accept a competitive educational model with their own sentimental notions of educators as "spiritual" beings. What are your recommendations for moving beyond this popular conception of education to a market-based model? A: I’m not sure we need to or want to move beyond the notion that education is a unique or “spiritual” task. Personally, I’ve always been interested in education precisely because I find it such an enduring and special part of democratic life. However, I don’t think we can allow our sentiments to obscure the fact that we can no longer afford to continue providing our children with schools that run on little more than blind faith and good intentions. We need to construct a system that recruits and rewards excellence and that rapidly and efficiently addresses failure. With such a system there will be room for all kinds of approaches and pedagogies, so long as they are effective at educating children. Schools that foster more “spiritual” teaching should be welcomed. In fact, so long as teachers and schools who approach schooling with that kind of commitment are indeed serving children effectively, such a system will permit them to flourish and to escape so many of the procedures and requirements that can frustrate teachers today.