Bobby Jindal - K-12 Education Plan

8/9/2019 Bobby Jindal - K-12 Education Plan

1/44


2/44


3/44


4/444

Just half of Americans would give theirnearby public schools a grade of A or B,while only 17 percent would give U.S. publicschools an A or B.1 Fifty-eight percent ofAmericans think the curriculum used in

their community’s schools needs to change.2

Americans are even more broadly dissatisfiedwith U.S. schools than that. A plurality ofAmerican parents—40 percent—would prefer toput their child in a private school. Thirty-sevenpercent would prefer a regular public school. Yet

approximately 87 percent of children attendregular public schools.3 This means millions ofAmerican families aren’t getting what they wantfrom the U.S. education system, at even the mostbasic level of what school to attend.

For at least the past 50 years, the United Stateshas tried spending more and more money in anattempt to improve public education. In inflation-adjusted dollars, U.S. taxpayers have tripled theirannual K-12 spending since 1970.4 The UnitedStates now spends more on education than every

other developed nation in the world.5 Whilestudents in fourth and eighth grades have made

slight increases in academic achievement in thattime, by graduation U.S. students’ test scores havenot improved.6 U.S. students rate mediocre, at best,compared to students in other developed nations,and have for years. In fact, the highest-performingAmerican school districts reach about the samelevel of academic achievement as average schoolsin many other developed nations.7

Or, in other words, Americans now spend threetimes as much for the same mediocre level ofeducation American children received in the1970s. It’s fashionable to discuss how muchthis shortchanges business and internationalcompetitiveness—true, and unacceptable—but atan individual level, it’s wrong for America to cheatour future. It means that we’ve allowed America’seconomic freedom to do most of the work oflifting society, without accompanying educationfreedom to lift it unimaginably further.

Our mediocre education system has otherconsequences. One estimate found that justclosing half the distance between the United States’international test scores and high-scoring Finland’scould add more than $50 trillion to our grossdomestic product (GDP) between 2010 and 2090.8

L M O H F

This is not just about money. It’s about providingmore opportunities for American citizens tomaximize their happiness and pursue theirdreams. Set aside the lost trillions and considerthe lost opportunities. Who can quantify whatmillions of children and our entire society havelost? Who can restore the incalculable loss offreedom and dignity when parents have beenforbidden to chart the course for the child theyalone know best?

One way to understand this loss is to considerhow well Americans can participate in civic life.In our country, public education exists becausea self-governing republic needs responsible,knowledgeable citizens. When people managetheir own affairs, they must be intellectuallyand morally capable of doing so. The very firstAmerican document to set aside a structure

E S

In other words, Americans nowspend three times as muchfor the same mediocre level ofeducation American childrenreceived in the 1970s.


5/445

for public education, the Northwest Ordinance,famously explained why a country like oursneeds a strong education system: “Religion,morality, and knowledge, being necessary togood government and the happiness of mankind,schools and the means of education shall forever

be encouraged.”9

Good government requires civic knowledge. Yet,today, a third of Americans cannot name a singleone of the three branches of government. Anotherthird cannot name all three branches.10 These arequestions a grade-schooler might find on an easyquiz. Given that a republic must have an educatedcitizenry to survive, our failure to cultivate civicliteracy is akin to a human neglecting to feed himself.

U.S. S

D

’

H

C P F L

We’re not only failing at our society’s centraltask of cultivating young citizens, we’re failingat far more menial instruction such as readingand math. Our education system pushes neitherhigh performers nor disadvantaged children tobe the best they can. Usually, it doesn’t push poorchildren to even basic competency. Essentially,children’s test scores paral lel family income,and income has become even more importantto achievement in the past 40 years,11 meaningthat American schools barely mitigate a child’sdisadvantages, and they’ve been getting worse atdoing so.12

Neither ZIP code nor family income shoulddetermine a child’s chances in life. America mustbe an aspirational society. Circumstances of birthshould not determine adult outcomes; if you

work hard and get a good education, you shouldhave the chance to do better than your parents.Research and history show that education—andsome specific ways of arranging an educationsystem—can help lift children above theircircumstances. It’s time to put that knowledge towork for some of the most vulnerable members ofour society, to improve American life for all.

America is stuck in a rut on education, and hasbeen for half a century. We don’t know everything

about what policies and arrangements are effective.But lawmakers and citizens haven’t even put intoplace yet the small number of things we know canimprove schools—so those are the places to start.

The three most significant influences on a child’s

academic achievement are: Parents, teachers, andcurriculum.13 Consider the impact of changing

just one of these things: placing a child in theclassroom of best teachers can increase his or herlifetime earnings by $20,000 over his or her peersin the classroom of an average teacher. Consider aclass of 20 students, who will all see their lifetimeearnings increase, and the impact grows toover $400,000.14 This might seem minimal, butmultiply times twelve or thirteen years in school,and by the number of students in each teacher’sclassroom, and the impact heads into the millions.But current laws and regulations ignore these kindsof data. They restrict parents, constrict educators,and strangle the conditions under which schoolsdemand the highest-quality curriculum.

W’ O P

Why doesn’t the United States have moresuperstar teachers, engaged parents, and superiorcurriculum offerings? For starters:

The horrifically bureaucratic educationsystem repels smart people looking atcareer options;

Union-dominated compensation andpension systems for teachers workagainst the individual choices teacherswant;

Piles of regulations regarding everythingfrom testing to curriculum anddiscipline to record-keeping limit

freedom in the classroom and wasteteachers’ time; and

Parents often find it impossible to vote with their feet and increase theattendance of a school that’s reallygood at hiring effective teachers whiledecreasing attendance at schools theyfind unsatisfactory.


6/446

In short, America’s education system is set upas a collective, a series of interlocking, coercivemonopolies, instead of an individual-drivenecosystem of freedom and choice where peoplewillingly work together to accomplish their mutualgoals. How should lawmakers and citizens cultivate

a thriving education ecosystem and improvethe lives of their fellow Americans? By holdingeducation policies against three criteria:

1. Parent choice;

2. Limited government;

3. And educator freedom.

Parent choice is the most foundational of these, asit supports the rest by establishing a consumer-driven market ecosystem. As parent choice grows,the need for central mandates decreases. Statesneed to enact temporary measures to restrict theeffects of monopoly education while it persists.These effects include policies that, among otherthings, assign students to schools based on theirZIP codes, direct dollars at the local level based onschool buildings rather than students, determinecurricula at the state or federal level, prescribeteacher evaluation systems that penalize teachers athigher performing schools, and prioritize schoolsas a jobs program for adults rather than a place to

teach kids.


7/447

I

Tere was a time when America’s education systemwas the envy of the world.Tere was also a timewhen assembly line manufacturing of Model T’s in

Detroit was the envy of the world.

American auto manufacturing has evolved andadapted to changing technologies and dynamics.America’s education system has not, and is infact mired in 50 year old thinking. It’s time tochange from our old, industrial age, pre-Interneteducation model, and to once again become theenvy of the world.

Tis is not nearly as complicated as some wouldmake it seem, but it is hard, and it takes courage

and a willingness to rock the boat and spendpolitical capital.Te simple fact is that theentrenched status quo in education, kept alive bythe leaders of our teacher unions, is holding usback by insisting on antiquated, one-size-ts-alldelivery systems. Our children are the casualties.

To be certain, many kids in America today arereceiving a rst rate education. Also certain, manyare not. It was long ago decided that every kid inAmerica deserves an equal opportunity for a goodeducation. We don’t guarantee equality of results,

but we do guarantee equal opportunity.

Here is the sad reality: In America today, we do notprovide equal opportunity in education.Tis is anindisputable point, even an inconvenient truth.

If families have the means to live in areas withhigh performing public schools, or to send theirchildren to high performing private schools, or theability to home school their children, they can andwill provide their kids with a rst-rate education.

And if not, there is an alarmingly high chance thattheir kids will never have the opportunity for a rstrate education, and therefore those kids will have amuch harder time in the rest of their lives.Tis isnot only bad for those kids, it is bad for our entirecountry.

Whether you seek reform because of yourconcern for the lives of the individual children, orwhether you seek reform because you realize the

lost opportunity and damage to our society andeconomy, either way we must reform.

Te defenders of the status quo always insist thatthey are making changes; they urge us to wait andto be patient. Te problem with that is that kidsonly grow up once, a third grader does not havetime to wait, and our patience has worn out overthe past half century. It doesn’t have to be this way.

Tis education reform policy paper contains manydetails and solutions. I would call your attention tothree principles of vital importance.

First, we need to allow the dollars to follow thechild.Tis is the modern way of thinking—giving

families, parents, and students more choices leadsto better results.

For some this means staying in the public schoolthat their ZIP code directs them to. For others itmeans attending a diff erent public school than theone the government assigns them to. For othersit means opting for a non-government schoolthat better suits their needs. For others it meanscharter schools. For others it means a combinationof approaches, from online learning to homeschooling, to tutoring, to private schools.

We have aggressively enacted school choice inLouisiana and are seeing the results. Over 90% ofkids in the public school system in New Orleansnow attend charter schools. 7,000 kids use ourscholarship program to attend the schools of theirchoice, and the parent satisfaction rate amongthose in the program is over 90%.

The simple fact is that theentrenched status quo in education,kept alive by the leaders of our

teacher unions, is holding us backby insisting on antiquated, one-size-fits-all delivery systems. Our childrenare the casualties.


8/448

Second, we must reform teacher tenure laws. Allof us can remember great teachers who helped uslearn, thrive, and achieve.Tose who devote theirprofessional lives to teaching our kids should beheld in the highest regard.

It’s also true that all of us can remember teacherswho were not very good. In that regard, teaching islike every other single profession in America. Wemust get out of the mode of paying teachers forhow long they have been breathing. We owe it toour kids to give them the best possible teachers.

No thriving business or organization can thrivewithout the ability to constantly seek excellenceand an excellent work force. Louisiana enactedteacher tenure reforms, as have other states, andthe results will pay off . Good teachers need to berewarded, and underperforming teachers need tobe put on notice, and ultimately dismissed if theydo not improve.

Tird, education is best directed at the local level,not by the federal government. In today’s debatethis brings us to the issue of Common Core, whichthis plan discusses. When Common Core rstcame on the scene it was described as an eff ort ledby states to seek high standards for our students. Itsounded pretty good.

But Common Core has become a way forthe federal government to dictate a national

curriculum. Some inaccurately believe that thosewho oppose Common Core are opposed to highstandards.Tis is simply false.

High standards are crucial for our success, andsome level of testing of students is necessary. Butin today’s schools, we are quite simply testing ourstudents to the point of absurdity. In many cases

our teachers are forced to ‘teach to the test’ yearround. And while teaching to the test, they aretherefore teaching the federal curriculum that isrequired to excel on the tests.

A few years back, some in the media had the

perception that those opposing Common Corewere just a bunch of right-wingers. But then, manyin the teaching profession began to sound thealarm as well. Finally, there is now a new groupthat is insisting on eliminating Common Core.Tey are called parents.

It’s bad enough that the federal government hasbegun tying compliance with Common Core tofederal funds, but once you see the methods andthe homework that accompanies Common Core,the verdict is in, Common Core must go.

Finally, a strong educational system shouldn’t bea partisan issue—and in millions of homes acrossour country, it isn’t. Parents of all political stripeswant the best quality education they can nd fortheir children. Sadly though, in some cases parentscan’t nd it—because their children remain stuckin failing schools, and lack the personalizededucation options that would allow their sons anddaughters to achieve their full potential.

Reform along the principles outlined in this

paper will restore the balance in educationtoward parents and teachers, and away from thebureaucracies that stand as obstacles to change.Most importantly, it will give parents the powerto choose from among many quality educationaloptions, instead of taking away their power bykeeping children in poor-performing schools.

Tese are the stakes—restoring freedom forparents to choose, and the freedom for children todevelop the tools with which they can ourish inlife. It’s time for us to embrace this opportunity—

because the opportunity of the next generation istoo critical to waste.

Governor Bobby JindalHonorary Chairman

Reform along the principlesoutlined in this paper will restorethe balance in education toward

parents and teachers, and awayfrom the bureaucracies that stand asobstacles to change.


9/449

All parents deserve to choose the education thatts their children best. Any change to educationpolicy should be measured, rst, by whether it will

empower them to choose or take that choice away.

Members of the educational-industrial complexdon’t want parents to make education decisionsfor their children usually because they genuinelybelieve parents are incapable of making the “right”decisions—or giving parents the freedom tochoose would expose the problems in the systemand jeopardize the complex’s status. Of course,parents are not perfect. But neither are government

bureaucrats. Every day, parents must face thechildren about whom they are making importantdecisions. Parents are accountable to their childrenand their communities. Bureaucrats ofen keep their

jobs and pensions even when they make the mostegregious errors in judgment. Someone—parent orbureaucrat—has to be the prime decision-makerfor children. History, research, and common senseshow that parents do a far, far better job.Tis is thebest and truest form of accountability.

Without parents, there would be no educationsystem. Yet our current education system treatsparents as an impediment, at worst, and one ofmany “stakeholders,” at best.Tis high-handedattitude inverts the just and common-sensearrangement of giving parents genuine authorityover their children’s education, just as we presumeparents should direct their children’s health care,nutrition, safety, religious observance, behavior, andso forth. Recognizing that parents have primaryresponsibility over their children’s lives requiresgranting them the power to help their childrenreceive the best education possible (within broadsocial norms, of course). While all children

should learn to read, write, do math, and explainthe American system of government, this generalstatement also doesn’t discuss times when society

must step in and abrogate parent rights—in cases ofabuse or neglect, for example.

Despite the myriad studies showing the economicbenets of a quality education and that parentsare the largest factor in helping children achieveit, our power players prefer to deny children whatthey need most. Liberal federal, state, and localbureaucrats, the teachers’ union leaders they obey,and officials in lef-wing groups assume an insidiouspaternalism towards the students and parents theypretend to represent. Consider these examples:

In Louisiana, a former leader of that state’steachers’ union publicly stated that low-income parents have “no clue” how tochoose schools for their children.15

In New Hampshire, the state’s AmericanCivil Liberties Union chapter led a lawsuitagainst tax-deductible donations to K-12scholarships because parents might usethose scholarships to enroll their childrenin religiously-affiliated institutions. It

argued that “tax funds are perpetually theproperty of government,” and that parentsshould not be allowed to choose educationoptions for their children.16

Te U.S. Department of Justice invokedthe Civil Rights Act in attempting toblock a Louisiana scholarship programwhere nearly 90 percent of participantscome from racial minority groups. It alsocited the Americans with Disabilities Actto object to Wisconsin’s school-choice

program, even though not a single studentor parent has complained about access forchildren with disabilities.17

END THE EDUCATION-INDUSTRIAL

COMPLEX

Te American school system today resembles theindustrial policy and rampant shortages of the oldSoviet Union. Customers—parents and students—

PRINCIPLE #1: PARENT CHOICE

Without parents, there would be noeducation system. Yet our currenteducation system treats parents asan impediment, at worst, and oneof many “stakeholders,” at best.


10/4410

face long lines, bare shelves, and poor quality oflimited “goods.” As with any monopoly,18 publicor private, government bureaucrats in education feellittle need or desire to respond to parents’ concerns, orimprove their off erings. Afer all, what other optionsdo low-income and middle-class parents have?

Successful education reform empowers families overgovernment bureaucrats by providing more andbetter education options for parents to choose. Atits core, successful reform will weaken the currentstranglehold of the educational-industrial complexby making the entire education system more anddirectly responsive to the people who rely on itmost. Breaking up the ineff ective ways of the pastrequires aggressive change. Eff ective school reformdoesn’t just require changing one policy, or off eringone new option; it requires leveling the entireplaying eld, and off ering myriad new choices forAmerica’s students. It bears recognizing that thereare hard working teachers who defy the norm—theyshould be the standard, not the rare exception. Oureducation system should empower, not frustrate,talented teachers.

Change is hard, and many people resist it, evenwhen it is obviously necessary and in their own bestinterest. Making changes to American educationcauses a furious reaction from those invested inthe status quo. Politicians who enact change ineducation can expect to pay a price for it. So beit. As the old saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’txit.” For American education today, we need a newsaying: “It is broke, so let’s x it.”

END ZIP CODE ASSIGNMENTS

Te most obvious example of Soviet style rationingis the system that assigns children to a singleschool based on where they live. If that school islow performing, unsafe, and/or lacking the electivecourses or programs that a child wants or needs,

the child typically must attend anyway, unless theirfamily has the money to pay private-school tuitionatop taxes or the job exibility to move to an areawith better-performing public schools. One verybasic policy change parent choice requires, then, isto stop assigning children to schools by ZIP codeor articial “attendance zones.” No mother orfather should feel compelled to act like a criminal,falsifying addresses like desperate parents in

Ohio,19 Pennsylvania,20 and California,21 who haveattempted to make it look like their family lives ina better but unaff ordable neighborhood so theirchildren can attend better schools.

Americans decided long ago that every child

deserves a quality education, and equal opportunityin education.Te present system amounts to areverse means-test for education. If you have themeans, you can send your child to a private schoolor move to an area with better performing public

schools. If you don’t have the means, you get whatyou get from a system that ofen refuses reform andattacks all those who dare to try.

DOLLARS SHOULD FOLLOW EACH CHILD

But there are also many subtler ways that choiceis denied to parents, ofen involving how moneyows to schools. Choice requires states to beginshifing their typically byzantine education fundingsystems22—where the existing confusion about howmoney is allocated benets only lawyers and othercompliance enforcers—to clear and simple systemswhere, as in the private market, a child’s publiceducation money follows him or her to any willingschool his or her parents choose.

In the current system, taxpayers also getshortchanged.Te most fundamental and obviouslycommon-sense reform would be to enable families

to send their children to the schools that best meettheir needs. In the present system, many studentsare forced to attend poor-performing schools, andare thereby denied an equal opportunity for aquality education.Tis is because dollars ow toschools based on teacher salaries not actual students.

Schools with higher-salaried teachers typicallyreceive more dollars than schools with lower-

Effective school reform doesn’t justrequire changing one policy, oroffering one new option; it requiresleveling the entire playing field,

and offering myriad new choicesfor America’s students.


11/4411

salaried teachers. Districts typically set teachersalaries according to union-demanded salaryscales, which compensate purely based on seniorityand credentials, and schools with more expensiveteachers receive more money than schools with lessexpensive teachers.

Tis funding disparity is particularly bad news forpoor and minority students. Rules let more seniorteachers “bump” junior teachers from certainpositions and cluster junior teachers in low-incomeschools. Seniority is not necessarily related toteacher quality, but it means extra dollars thatlawmakers set aside for low-income students ofenwind up going to more affluent schools, becausethat’s where the higher-salaried teachers are.

In states that use weighted student funding models,

this disparity is stark. A child whose family incomeis under the poverty line might be funded at 1.2times the average funding amount in the fundingformula. A child with certain special needs might

merit 1.5 times the average amount. But eventhough some dollars ow to districts based onthe number of children enrolled, school districtstypically reallocate them based on adults—apractice that sidelines parents and creates arbitraryfunding disparities between schools. Educationdollars should benet the individuals they’re meantfor, not collectives in the shape of districts, regionalcooperatives, or even schools.23 Tis includes alla child’s education dollars, including those fortransportation and wraparound services. Simply

throwing money at the problem won’t solve it, butat least dollars should be allocated and spent onchildren, not adults.

STOP DOUBLE-TAXING PARENTS WHO

EXERCISE CHOICE

Tese funding rules also deny parents the abilityto make choices outside the public school system.Dollars also do not follow each child to privateschools, charter schools, virtual schools, single-

course providers, or any other kind of alternativeeducation option. Parents who choose tohomeschool or send their child to a private schoolpay twice for that education—once in tuition orsupplies and again in taxes. Parents who sendtheir children to public options that are funded

directly outside or on top of state education fundingformulae, such as charter schools, virtual schools,or course providers, also pay local taxes that donot fund their children’s education.Tis is wasteful,needlessly complicated, and unfair.

Instead, children’s public education money shouldfollow them to the school they attend or providersthey use, including private schools that acceptpublicly funded scholarships, charter schools,

virtual schools, and course providers. Transitioningto a system where dollars follow the child wouldhave to be phased in over time to moderate thesignicant shifs in dollars that would occur, but itultimately benets children by making sure theirmoney actually goes towards educating them, andempowering principals to direct their own budgetsand staff . Principals at schools serving more low-income students will have the funds to pay for moreeff ective teachers and pay them well to stay. Allstudents should have this power, regardless of familyincome and regardless of the performance of theschool they desire to leave. It’s long past time to

fund students, not institutions.Tey’re the reasonfor education, afer all.

UNBUNDLE EDUCATION FUNDINGEnsuring dollars follow each child does notguarantee that a given school can serve their needs.Schools located in rural areas, for example, maynot be able to recruit specialized teachers to addelectives such as foreign languages or honors classes,and students in most states must pick from coursesonly off ered at their school.24 Schools also may nothave expertise in technical classes such as welding

or pipetting. If parents opt to pay for extra coursesoutside of the traditional school day, not only doestheir child not get credit towards his or her highschool diploma for those courses, but parentsmust again pay double for education.Te currentsystem also incentivizes students to spend all fouryears in high school, denying them opportunitiesto take exible classes or graduate early. Becauseschools usually receive full per-pupil funding foreach student regardless of the number of classes

It’s long past time to fundstudents, not institutions.They’re the reason foreducation, after all.


12/44


13/4413

job alone, and turned to the private sector for help.By turning most traditional public schools in NewOrleans into charter schools, then adding a privatescholarship program in 2008 and greater accessto specialized course providers and streamliningthe charter application process in 2012, the state

granted more exibility to school leaders so theycould gure out how to meet the needs of the NewOrleans community.29 In addition, the legislationcreated a tax rebate for taxpayers’ donations tononprots that fund scholarships for low-incomestudents to attend private schools.30 Te resultsspeak for themselves:

A 2013 Stanford University report foundthat in New Orleans, where more than 90percent of students attend charter schools,50 percent of charter schools and 62

percent of schools perform signicantlybetter than traditional public schools inreading and math, respectively. Forty-sixpercent of Louisiana charters outperformtheir traditional public school peers inmath and 41 percent outperform theirpeers in reading, according to the samereport.Tis improved performanceequates to two months of extra learningin reading and three months of extralearning in math.31

In 2014-15, more than 7,000 Louisianastudents are attending nonpublic schoolsthrough Louisiana’s Scholarship forEducational Excellence Program.32 Withmore than 8,000 projected scholarshipawards for 2015-16, the program has grownby approximately 1,233 percent sincelawmakers passed it six years ago.33

In 2014, 91.9 percent of parents whosechildren received a scholarship said theyare satised with the scholarship program;91.6 percent said they are happy with theirchild’s academic progress; 98.7 percentreported that their child feels safe inschool; and 97.6 percent said they and theirchildren feel welcome.34 Contrast thosenumbers with national Gallup poll results,which show that only 75 percent of parentsare satised with their child’s school, and53 percent of Americans are dissatisedwith the quality of U.S. public schools.35

Between 2008 and 2013, the percentageof scholarship students who are procientin third-grade English language arts hasgrown by 20 percentage points, and inmath by 28 percentage points. In 2013-14,nearly 90 percent of scholarship recipients

were minority students.36

In 2005, 65 percent of New Orleansstudents attended a failing school. Nowonly 4 percent of New Orleans studentsattend a failing school.37

CREATE NEW SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAMSNew Orleans is not an isolated school-choicesuccess. Every school-choice program spendsless per pupil than public schools—in fact, tenscholarship programs saved taxpayers at least $1.7billion from 1990 to 201038—and research shows notone has any discernible aggregate negative eff ectson children.39 In fact, every single high-quality studyon private school choice programs has found they

increase academic performance—both for studentswho participate in school choice and for studentswho remain in public schools.40 Catholic schoolslike the Cristo Rey network (private schools thatserve primarily low-income, minority students)have seen great success helping the lowest-achievingstudents not only get to graduation, but also entercollege and the job market successfully aferwards.41 Te benets of private-school choice extend evenfurther than money and academics. Researchalso nds that scholarship programs reduceracial segregation, increase civic knowledge andengagement, and increase respect for others’ rights.42

Milwaukee is the grandfather of choice programs.Created in 1990, the Milwaukee Parental ChoiceProgram (MPCP) now serves nearly 26,000students at more than 100 schools.43 Te programhas undergone several expansions, most notably

In 2005, 65 percent of NewOrleans students attendeda failing school. Now only4 percent of New Orleans

students attend a failing school.


14/4414

to religious schools in 1998, afer a ruling of theWisconsin Supreme Court, and statewide in 2013.Not only are parents satised with the program’sresults, but Wisconsin has saved $238 million sincethe program’s inception.44 Further, when studentsparticipating in the MPCP were matched to similar

students attending traditional public schools, theywere more likely to graduate from high school,enroll in a four-year college, and persist in college,all by 4-7 percentage points.45

States should establish these programs or expandexisting ones. Scholarship programs can take theform of a direct state or local subsidy to schoolsparents choose, as in Louisiana and Indiana, ortax-credit or rebate programs to donors who fundscholarships through nonprot organizations, asin Louisiana, Arizona, Florida, and South Carolina.School choice’s proven results have generatedsignicant demand. In Florida, for example, nearly400,000 students have attended private schools witha publicly funded scholarship since its rst year in2002.46 Tat demand is simply unmet in most places.

EXPAND EXISTING SCHOLARSHIP

PROGRAMSIn other places, current direct and tax-creditscholarship programs are nowhere near big enoughto meet parent demand. Current enrollment inprivate-school choice programs is approximately314,000.47 If we know, according to a recent survey,that 40 percent of parents would like their childrento attend private schools,48 a back-of-the-envelopeestimate that multiplies that number by the totalU.S. K-12 enrollment of 50 million children showspotential demand for private school enrollment atapproximately 20 million children nationwide.49

It is obvious that the gap between desire andopportunity is vast. Part of the problem is policy:most parent-choice programs severely limit

participation.Te most frequent limit is familyincome, which is unfair given that all families havea right to public education and all families payfor education. Another frequent limitation is anenrollment cap.

Tere’s no defensible reason a child whose familylls out a choice application a few days earlier thananother should get preference, especially when

both would otherwise be eligible. Parent choicein education should be universal, just as publiceducation is universal. No child is worth more orless than another, and education policy should nottreat children that way. Restricting choice to thelucky few mistakenly prioritizes special interests

over children’s needs.

ESTABLISH EDUCATION SAVINGS

ACCOUNTS (ESAS)Publicly subsidized scholarships for private schoolsare just one of many ways public dollars canempower parents to make choices. Created in 2011,Arizona Empowerment Scholarship Accounts allowparents to withdraw their child from public schooland receive 90 percent of the student’s taxpayerfunding as an allotment.50 Once the parent signs acontract with the Arizona Department of Education,

the state uploads the child’s dollars to a debit cardthe parent can use on eligible expenditures such asprivate online courses, Advanced Placement exams,

tutoring, and private-school tuition. Parents canroll over unused funds from one year to the next,allowing them to shop based on quality and price.51 In 2014, Florida created a similar program forstudents with special needs.52

Te experiences of special-needs families aferschool choice is available to them are dramatic andheartening. Parents of special-needs children ofenhave to ght their school districts to get them toprovide every last bit of proper attention and care,because their desires are diametrically opposed:

Parents want the best for their children, and districtswant everything to be easier and cheaper.Tis isone reason why Congress mandated “maintenanceof eff ort,” a provision requiring states to continuallyspend more money on special education, evenif enrollment dips or providers learn how to domore, better, with less money. Giving parentsof special-needs children freedom to spend thepublic provision for their children as they see t

In Louisiana, Arizona, Florida,and South Carolina, schoolchoice’s proven results havegenerated significant demand.


15/4415

immediately alters the relationship between themand those who educate their children from one ofantagonism to mutual cooperation—parents off ermoney, which providers happily accept in exchangefor their services. Choice restores the balance ofpower to where it belongs, nowhere more notably

than in special education.

States should establish education savings accountsto give parents of all children the ultimate exibilityto spend their tax dollars on the education thatis right for their child. Tese options can includehomeschooling, online classes, college classes, or

vocational-technical training.Tey should alsofollow Arizona’s lead in including routine fraud-prevention mechanisms.53 Tis model also allowsparents to mix and match from a variety of choicesrather than tying them exclusively to one option.Parents know what is best for their children, andESAs give them the greatest exibility with theirdollars and the most tailored educational experiencefor their child.

PROVIDE QUALITY CONTROL BUT CUT

REGULATION

School scholarship programs will defeat theirpurpose if they function as a Trojan horse thatincreases government control of private institutions.Tey should expand education diversity andaccess, not convert every education institutioninto a trivially diff erent provider for centrallydetermined curriculum and teaching. So lawmakersmust refuse to substitute their preferences forparents’ preferences, and recognize that marketaccountability, where parents determine theoutcomes they desire and whether schools arereaching them, is far better than government-styleaccountability, which is a poor substitute at best.54 When parents can vote with their feet and theirdollars, schools will become more responsive to theneeds and desires of their customers.

School choice cannot be a mechanism to movethe education monopoly into the private sector. Itmust be a mechanism to move free enterprise intothe government monopoly. States must regulatescholarship schools as lightly as possible, or elserisk co-opting their uniqueness.Te regulationsshould also vary by funding mechanism—tax-creditscholarships, for example, function on private

dollars, so should be subject only to existing taxand regulatory oversight of scholarship nonprots.Two sound regulations for scholarship programsinclude independent audits of only the school’spublic funds every two or three years, and an annualexam of the school’s choice from a list of nationally-

normed assessments, as Florida does with its largestschool-choice program.Te results of both shouldbe publicly posted in a prominent and accessiblelocation on the schools’ websites.

Giving schools the freedom to choose their ownexams reduces government control over curriculumand allows for variations in what and how diff erentinstitutions measure learning. To allow for easiercomparison between schools, states can requiretests that schools use to be benchmarked to theNational Assessment of Educational Progress

or norm-referenced; or states can perform

periodic psychometric comparisons between themost popular tests and the state test, or requireschools to report how they compare to others thatadministered the test. Given that most privateschools already administer standardized tests,and many choose others than state tests, allowingthem to continue using the ones they nd the bestt for their students preserves their freedom anddistinctness.

Most Americans are familiar and comfortablewith the concept of a public safety net, a minimum

standard of sustenance beneath which citizensguarantee no neighbor will fall. School choiceprograms should also provide a “safety net,” ora bare minimum of academic performance andnancial transparency that a school or educationprovider must exhibit to continue receiving taxpayerfunds. Such measures should take into accountwhether students are learning a year’s worth ofmaterial each year, and whether they started behind

When parents can vote withtheir feet and their dollars,schools will become moreresponsive to the needs anddesires of their customers.


16/4416

their peers, to avoid penalizing schools for servingdisadvantaged students. One emerging model ishow the tax-credit scholarship program in Florida,noted above, allows private schools to pick froma variety of state-approved tests and requiresthem to publicly report the results in a way that is

comparable and easy to understand for parents. Asstates experiment, we will learn more and betterways to let individual accountability replace centralmandates.

CUT PRIVATE-SCHOOL REGULATIONSStates should also cut back on the many regulationsfor private schools that aren’t part of these publiclyfunded choice programs.55 Some, such as buildingcodes or basic health and safety standards, areperfectly reasonable.Te worst push privateschools to look and perform like public schoolseven without added regulations under scholarshipprograms, such as forty states’ requirements for

private teachers to be trained and certied liketheir public-school counterparts, either directly orthrough state accreditation mandates.56

States should immediately release private schoolsfrom burdensome requirements related to teachertraining or experience, given that research showsthese do little to increase teacher quality in publicor private schools.Tey should also allow privateschools to be accredited through one of the many

well-regarded private accreditation agencies, ratherthan only through government. States should alsolif instruction-time mandates, such as those thatrequire 180 days of instruction. We no longer live inan agrarian society that requires students be homefor harvest time, and many schools are moving tomastery-based instruction that prioritizes resultsover seat time. Lawmakers should periodicallyreview school regulations with an eye towards

eliminating all that are not absolutely necessary andhave been proven benecial to students.

PUT PARENTS IN CHARGE OF SPECIAL-

NEEDS CHILDRENAmerica’s current special-education system distills

the problems with federal micromanagement ineducation. Despite major federal laws intendingto assist special-needs children—notably, the 1975Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act(IDEA) and 2001’s No Child Lef Behind (NCLB)—and billions of dollars spent both as a result of andin addition to these laws, the achievement andpotential of special-needs children are routinelyignored or under-addressed. Federal data showthat states held 34.5 percent of schools to accountfor the academic performance of special-needschildren in the 2009-10 school year,57 eight yearsafer federal law ostensibly required states to holdall schools accountable for the performance of allstudents under their care. When parentsght withtheir school district over the care their special-needschild should receive, school districts win 62 percentof the time.58

Part of federal ineff ectiveness in this area is thesame as it is in others: a preference for remote,bureaucratic decision-making over local, exibledecision-making. IDEA funds, like NCLB’s, are nottied directly to individual children, but rather to aRubik’s-cube-esque formula based on the moneystates received 15 years ago, combined with a state’sproportion of both children within a certain agerange and poor children within a certain age range.59

“Over time, the share of the annual appropriationeach state receives relates less and less to the actualnumber of students with disabilities,”60 notes theNew America Foundation.

Congress should move towards block-granting thefunds it intends for special-needs children directly

to states based on the number of specic children soidentied. States should, in turn, move that moneydirectly into parents’ hands by establishing special-needs education savings accounts.Tis gives parentsthe ability to access a wider variety of services, suchas therapies that occur outside the school setting,and combine public and private funds to mosteff ectively serve their child. Combining parentchoice with transparent funding systems will benet

Congress should move towardsblock-granting the funds itintends for special-needschildren directly to states basedon the number of specificchildren so identified.


17/4417

special-needs children and the public in manyways, including the tendency of school districts toover-label children as special-needs61 in fundingsystems that include extra money for children sodesignated.62 For a special-needs child, therapy ormedical treatment and education are inextricably

intertwined, so parents should be given the freedomto choose between an array of both types ofproviders with the public money elected lawmakersintend for their child’s care.

CELEBRATE PUBLIC SCHOOLS PARENTS’

CHOICES

School choice should not and will not eliminatetraditional public schools. Where traditionalschools meet the needs of their communities,lawmakers should not disrupt them. As notedearlier, a sizeable number of parents prefer theirtraditional schools, and they should be free to enjoythem. Parents demand other options when they aredissatised with the ones they have, and it’s unfairto expect every single public school to cater to thewidely varying needs and wishes of every familynearby. Even rural families believe they can benetfrom school choice, and have nearby or onlineprivate options they currently cannot access.63

Private school scholarships unequivocally benetsociety, schools, families, and children. It’s timefor lawmakers to respond to the large numbers of

Americans who support this common-sense idea.64

ENCOURAGE CHARTER SCHOOLS

Charter schools are public schools run by privateorganizations through a contract with a public entity.Tey receive public dollars just like traditionalschools. Charters also must accept any studentwho applies, and conduct a random lottery toaward seats if more apply than their facilities canaccommodate. But charters do not have enrollmentzones, meaning that all students in the county, city,or even state where they are located may apply for

admission.

Perhaps the greatest benet of charter schools—besides that they must earn their students ratherthan receive enrollment automatically—is thatscores of studies have found charters educatechildren better, on average, than traditionalpublic schools:

Sixteen academic studies have been published

on charter school performance since 2010…Fifeen of the 16 found that students in charterschools do better in school than their traditionalschool peers. One study found mixed results.Te most recent of those studies, by the Centerfor Research on Educational Outcomes at

Stanford University, found that charter schoolsdo a better job teaching low income students,minority students, and students who are stilllearning English than traditional schools.65

Charter schools’ authorizing contract gives themgreater exibility than traditional public schools inother ways.Tey can, for example, alter the lengthof their school day, redesign teacher pay, and maketheir own personnel decisions. In other words,charters receive exemptions from many restrictivestate laws, but if they fail to perform well for a fewyears, they can be shut down or given to another

operator. Most importantly, parents can vote withtheir feet and choose another school. Charters areaccountable directly to individual parents, not tofreedom-resistant local or state school boards.

Charter schools work. Charter school networkssuch as the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP),Achievement First, and FirstLine have managed todo what the system as a whole has failed to do fordecades: narrow the achievement gap and graduate

poor, minority students with a high-school diplomaand an admissions letter to college. One of the fewhigh-quality, randomized studies of charter schoolsavailable, on students in New York, found that “forevery year they spend in a charter school, studentsmake up 12 percent of the distance from failing toprocient in math,” compared to their public-schoolpeers. Charter-school applicants were also morelikely to be black and low-income, compared to

Sixteen academic studies havebeen published on charterschool performance since2010… Fifteen of the 16 foundthat students in charter schoolsdo better in school than their

traditional school peers.


18/4418

regular public-school students66—something alsotrue of charter students nationwide.67

LIFT CHARTER SCHOOL CAPS

When it comes to charter school policy, theestablishment again actively works to thwart what

parents want, even though freeing parents wouldsave taxpayer money and increase academicachievement. In 2014, the number of childrenon charter school waitlists nationwide topped 1million68—meaning one in every 50 K-12 studentsin America wanted to get into a charter school,but couldn’t. Charter schools average 36 percentless funding than regular public schools and theirstudents are poorer on average, yet their studentsachieve at least at the same level as their traditional-school peers.69

Yet seven states lack charter school laws, and 21states still arbitrarily cap the number of charterschools that can operate in their respective states.70 Tese caps exist because the reigning education

establishment hates and fears competition. Whilecharter schools vary in quality, just like traditionalschools, the diff erence is that oversight agenciesclose charters when they perform poorly—a fatethat practically never happens to traditional publicschools. Saint Louis schools, for example, nally losttheir state accreditation afer decades of horricallylow performance.71 Yet state lawmakers keep

dithering about whether they will let thousandsof children leave a school district that cannot givethem a valid high-school diploma. Saint Louisschools are not only still open for business, childrenare required to attend them—an unconscionablebetrayal of parents and students alike.

DIVERSIFY CHARTER AUTHORIZERS AND

REDUCE CHARTER REGULATIONSPreserving the autonomy and exibility on whichcharter schools are built is a constant battle. Itis easy to let charter school regulations encrustover time. Conversely, making tough decisions

about shuttering low-performing schools can bepolitically risky and unpopular, although it is keyto ensuring that charter schools maintain qualityand expand. States should remove caps on charter-school enrollment and numbers, and enshrine strictmeasures for shutting down poor-performing ones,along with other ways to make their laws as friendlyas possible to high-quality charters, such as:

States should streamline applicationprocesses and let charters apply formore than one school in the sameapplication cycle, to allow operators toachieve economies of scale. Louisiana,for example, allows a performance-based contract where charters canreceive authorization to open severalschools, with each subsequent school’sauthorization triggered by meetingacademic goals at existing schools.72

State laws and rules should considerprevious performance in other states foroperators with schools across state lines.

Charter laws should allow for multipleentities to authorize charter schools, not

just local school districts—especiallybecause districts ofen see charters ascompetition to eliminate. States shouldalso have fair appeals processes that giveoperators more than one pathway toauthorization, while maintaining a highstandard for authorizing new schools andrenewing existing contracts.

When a charter comes up forreauthorization, high performanceshould trigger longer contracts to rewardperformance, while untested schoolsshould receive shorter contracts until theydemonstrate their strength.

Charter schools average 36 percentless funding than regular publicschools and their students arepoorer on average, yet their studentsachieve at least at the same level astheir traditional-school peers.


19/4419

Tese changes would help good operators ourishand states to move low-performing operators out ofthe market.

BLEND LEARNING WITH TECHNOLOGY

If school choice personalizes school choices, digital

learning personalizes student choices. Onlinelearning can redene not only where and whenlearning takes place, but also the pace, content, andmethod of instruction.73 For example, RocketshipEducation, a charter organization, uses apps andsofware to gure out which content each studenthas mastered. If it discovers Peter hasn’t masteredtriangles but John is struggling with fractions, theteacher can focus specically where each child needshelp, rather than spending time with the whole classgoing over the same content, or re-teaching thecourse.74

Technology also gives teachers more exibilityto use diff erent teaching methods with diff erentchildren in the same classroom. One group ofstudents could play an individualized math gameon a computer while the teacher gives intensiveinstruction to a small group. It also allows schoolsto hasten or slow teaching to match the pace of achild’s learning. Instead of keeping the entire classon the same content when some students havealready mastered it, teachers can advance studentsto new content or slow them down to go over atricky topic again. Students remain more engagedwhen they are not relearning content they alreadyknow or feeling overwhelmed by content they donot. In 2013, 132 digital learning bills were signedinto law, of nearly 400 debated by state legislatures.75

States should authorize online charter schools andcourse providers, while removing legal impedimentsthat block traditional schools from using technology.For example, online schools do not have schoolbuildings; school-specic re codes and square-

footage requirements should not apply. In addition,an online course can serve more students at the sametime, suggesting that states should waive or modifythe mandatory student-teacher ratios for these typesof courses and reexamine them in general.

TAKE AN ‘ALL OF THE ABOVE’ APPROACHAn “all of the above” approach allows many choiceswithout preferring one type over another: public-

school choice, private-school choice, virtualeducation, mix-and-match classes, and business andindustry-led instruction.Tis diversity is especiallyimportant because research and experience showthat just allowing charter schools without alsofacilitating private-school access reduces the

variety of education options available to parentsby eroding private-school enrollment.76 In otherwords, expanding the government sector crowdsout the private sector. Anyone who genuinely wantsa vibrant education ecosystem should supportequal access for all children to all forms of schools—not just charter schools, although they play animportant role. A system of full and genuine parentchoice empowers parents to make high-qualitychoices for their children, regardless of their ZIPcode, and brings natural, market-style accountability

to education instead of outside, government-led “accountability” that is highly susceptible tomanipulation and cronyism.

Many politicians say they support schoolchoice—but only the “right” kind. For instance,

President Obama’s budget proposed defunding theWashington DC Opportunity Scholarship Program,even though that program improved studentgraduation rates by 12 percentage points and more

than 90 percent of its participants come from black,low-income, single-parent households.77 (Congress,in a moment of clarity, restored the funding.)

Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) attemptedto block Louisiana’s Scholarship for EducationalExcellence, which off ers private school scholarshipsto low-income students at failing schools.78 DOJasserted the program violates federal desegregation

An “all of the above” approachallows many choices withoutpreferring one type over

another: public-school choice,private-school choice, virtualeducation, mix-and-matchclasses, and business andindustry-led instruction.


20/44


21/4421

Te purpose of public education is to help parentscultivate citizens able and willing to governthemselves and join the rest of us in national, state,

and local civic life. Take the Constitution of Virginia,for example, which explained the establishment of apublic education system like this:

No free government, nor the blessings of liberty,can be preserved to any people, but by a rmadherence to justice, moderation, temperance,frugality, and virtue; by frequent recurrence tofundamental principles; and by the recognitionby all citizens that they have duties as well asrights… [and] free government rests, as does allprogress, upon the broadest possible diff usion

of knowledge...82

Many people in the education-industrial complexspeak of education in a much more attened way, asa merely self-serving means to a high-paying job—as if that’s all there is in life. But even employerswant to hire a person who has more in mind thana paycheck.Tey want a person who nds intrinsicmotivation in work, eagerly seeks answers to

difficult questions, cheerfully shows up on time,communicates well with coworkers and customers,and works hard.Tese are all intangible items thatindicate character and acculturation, not years spentdrilling menial workforce tasks such as compilingPowerPoint presentations or lling out forms—and,by the way, mimic exactly what parents want fortheir children. Ask mothers and fathers what theywant for their children, and their answer will besome variation on the one found in our Declarationof Independence: the freedom to pursue happiness.Participating in our system of government toorequires an educated electorate.

Our state and national constitutions limitedgovernment so it could not impede individuals’freedom to pursue their own happiness in

their own ways. In the decades since, however,government has earnestly sought to removethese limits on its ability to impede and redirectindividual choices. Public schooling is noexception. It is increasingly unresponsive to parentand family needs and desires, and responsiveinstead to the dictates of unelected bureaucrats.

REPEAL COMMON CORE AND RESTORE

STATE AND LOCAL STANDARDSPerhaps no better example of this kind ofunrepresentative government exists in education

than Common Core national curriculum mandates.Tis national initiative has faced a rising tideof parent condemnation, yet, similar to parents’inability to access private-school choice, so farremains largely operative—because parent choicedoes not have much inuence on educationpolicy. While states can and should raise academicexpectations for students, the rollout and unravelingof this national initiative has made it abundantlyclear that the U.S. education establishment tooofen does not respond to parents and local voters.Instead, federal mandates, money, and threats bendofficials’ necks stiffly towards Washington.

Indeed, awed federal mandates set the stage forCommon Core in the rst place: NCLB requiredstates to have all students score procient on statetests, then allowed states to determine the meaningof “procient.” Not surprisingly, states decided tomurder prociency quietly.Teir varying levels ofhonesty, combined with the poor results of previouscentral planning, led to the much-ballyhooedstagnation in and variation between state tests thatpropelled central planners to resurface one of theirold ideas: National tests and a de facto nationalcurriculum. Common Core may be “standards” inname, but the reality is that what’s tested is what’staught. Federally funded Common Core tests driveclassroom practice.

Eff orts at establishing a national curriculum underpresidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush meterce resistance. So the central planners decided to

PRINCIPLE #2: LIMITED GOVERNMENT

Common Core may be

“standards” in name, but thereality is that what’s tested iswhat’s taught. Federally fundedCommon Core tests driveclassroom practice.


22/4422

accomplish their goal through deception,83 taskingtwo federally-funded nonprots to create a setof common curriculum mandates and, later, twofederally funded national tests. Before CommonCore was even published, the National GovernorsAssociation asked the federal government to be

involved by funding national tests and giving states“incentives” to use Common Core.84

When the Obama administration came to power,it happily obliged—not once, but twice. First, itrequired states to commit to curriculum mandatescommon to a majority of states (a criteria that thenand today only ts Common Core) for a shot at apiece of $4.35 billion during the Great Recessionas part of the Race to the Top program (RTTT).And states had to sign on that dotted line beforethe Common Core standards were nalized. LikeObamacare, states had to adopt Common Coreto nd out what was in it. Second, the Obamaadministration required states that wanted to escapeNCLB’s consequences to meet the same criteria—again placing Washington diktats over local control.Even Virginia, which does not use Common Core,alluded heavily to how closely its standards alignedto Common Core in its ESEA Waiver application.85

Common Core advocates have relentlessly peddledthe false and simplistic notion that anyone whoopposes Common Core is therefore against highstandards in education. Nothing could be furtherfrom the truth. Even before Common Core, stateslike Massachusetts, California, and Indiana hadadopted some of the nation’s highest standards.

Common Core disenfranchises parents in twomain ways. First, because private organizationscreated the document, citizens had no real voicein the process, either themselves or throughtheir elected representatives.Tey cannot leopen-records requests on this transformational

education policy shif

. Neither can citizensconvene any representative organization to alterone word of Common Core, since no publicbody has full control over it and the document iscopyrighted. Second, Common Core inserts itselfbetween parents and children by promoting badinstructional practices—particularly convolutedmath. Experimental math that frustrates children

while even parents with math PhDs stand byhelplessly uplifs neither intellects nor families.

If parents had genuine school choice, they could vote for or against Common Core by putting theirchildren in a school whose curriculum matches

their family goals, and the vote they lacked instatehouses would be restored to them in theirneighborhoods. Yet, central curriculum mandatesare even more consequential in a monopolisticeducation system—if children must be forced toattend traditional schools, their parents and thepublic at large should know what they are learningand have an opportunity to shape it. Because

centralized power attracts special-interest pressure,curricular and testing monopolies off er few options

for school leaders and state bureaucrats to purchaseand are inevitably much lower quality than theoff erings available within a free market.Tis isundoubtedly true of Common Core, as all theindependent analyses available conclude it does notlive up to its promise of internationally competitiveacademics86 and school leaders are boxed intopurchasing off -the-shelf curricula of dubious quality.

Creating high-quality standards is critical to theeducation of our children. Repealing and replacingCommon Core is, however, only a temporary patch

for the deeper problem of monopoly education.Unless lawmakers also address the monopolisticsystem that generated and rammed it through, ina few more years families will face a resurrected

version.Tis is why parent choice is a precursor toand partner with repealing Common Core.

Common Core advocateshave relentlessly peddled thefalse and simplistic notion thatanyone who opposes CommonCore is therefore against highstandards in education. Nothingcould be further from the truth.


23/4423

DON’T LOSE SIGHT OF THE FOREST FORTHE TREES

Common Core denes the end goal of publiceducation as “college- and career-readiness”—anarrow and self-serving goal for public education.Improving education is not just about minimum

workplace competencies, but about preserving ourrepublic by ensuring that every child’s educationhelps form him or her into a contributing memberof society. In a seminal article, Nobel Prize-winningeconomist Milton Friedman discussed the role andfunding of education in our democratic republic. “Astable and democratic society is impossible withoutwidespread acceptance of some common set of values and without a minimum degree of literacyand knowledge on the part of most citizens,” he

wrote in his introduction. “Education contributes toboth. In consequence, the gain from the educationof a child accrues not only to the child or to hisparents but to other members of the society…”87

Because of America’s unique form of government—self-government under the law—every citizenbenets from having educated peers, andeducating everyone helps cultivate leaders. Tisis why education justies government subsidiesat all, Friedman wrote.Te societal benets ofuniversal education “do not justify subsidizingpurely vocational education which increases theeconomic productivity of the student but doesnot train him for either citizenship or leadership.[However,] it is clearly extremely difficult to draw a

sharp line between these two types of education.”88 Obviously, teaching a child to read will benethim his entire life, both in the marketplace and athome. Its immense personal benets incorporatesocietal benets, just as a public education thatappropriately prioritizes citizenship will also havegreat personal and economic benets. A youngperson prepared to think and lead in social aff airsis also well-equipped to think and lead in his or herbusiness and personal lives.

Nowadays, however, the education-industrialcomplex typically strips the civic purpose of publiceducation and speaks of it in entirely self-centeredterms. We must shuffle children through factory-style education so they can be shuffled off through afactory-style economy. But neither our economy nor

our society is or should be regimented, one-size-ts-all, or centrally managed. Our young people deservean education that bets citizens who live in a self-governing, civic-minded nation: Dynamic, sensitiveto individual liberties, tailored to individual needs,and driven by the spontaneous and even joyfulcooperation that arises within a free-enterprisesystem. Today, young Americans typically do notreceive this kind of education.

THE AMERICAN EXPERIMENT

WILL PERISH WITHOUT

CIVIC-MINDED EDUCATIONA series of prominent and research-heavy bookshave discussed the decline of civic participationin American life.Teir ndings would bemerely academic if the increasing isolationamong Americans didn’t have real and negativeconsequences for us all. Social capital, for example,ofen lls in where money isn’t available or can’tsubstitute for a loved one sitting at your side whileyou’re sick or giving birth to a baby.

Emerging demographic data is depicting a “nationwhere millions of people are losing touch with thefounding virtues that have long lent Americanlives purpose, direction, and happiness.”89 Tesecore civic virtues are hard work, honesty, maritalcommitment, and religious commitments. W.Bradford Wilcox continues:

Te economic and political success of theAmerican experiment has depended in largepart on the health of these founding virtues.Businesses cannot ourish if ordinary workers

are not industrious.T

e scope and cost ofgovernment grows, and liberty withers, whenthe family breaks down. As James Madisonwrote: ‘To suppose that any form of governmentwill secure liberty or happiness without any

virtue in the people is a chimerical idea.’

Since schools are deeply involved with raising U.S.citizens, they have a civic responsibility to pass on tochildren the knowledge and behavior that serve toguard our liberties.

A young person preparedto think and lead in socialaffairs is also well-equippedto think and lead in his or herbusiness and personal lives.


24/44


25/4425

local communities and school administrators arebetter-situated to run on their own terms. Stateoversight is no silver bullet, but the closer the dollarsare to students, the better.

SEVERELY LIMIT FEDERAL CONTROL

OVER LOCAL SCHOOLSPublic school enrollment has increased about 10percent since 1970, while public school employmenthas doubled.Te greatest growth has been in non-teaching school staff , who now equal the number ofteachers in public schools.94 A signicant reason forthis bureaucratic bulge is the explosion in ineff ective,

coercive central mandates from WashingtonDC. In 2005, for example, the Connecticut StateDepartment of Education found that the statereceived $70.6 million for low-income childrenthrough NCLB, but the law’s implementation and

administrative costs totaled $112.2 million.95

Federal spending on K-12 education has increasedby nearly 400 percent since 1970,96 yet federalreviews of essentially every major federal educationinitiative—including School Improvement Grants,school turnarounds, and the Highly QualiedTeacher provision of NCLB—conclude they haveno lasting positive eff ect on student achievement.Federal policy has also failed to contribute toits major goals of improving math and scienceknowledge and education outcomes for poor and

minority children.97

Despite such evidence, theObama administration recently emphasized itsunshakeable belief in the superiority of federalcontrol over education: “We do not believe thatstates generally possess the capacity or expertiseneeded to meet this responsibility [of improvinglow-performing schools] with the amount of rigorexpected by Congress.”98 Tis federal arrogancewould all matter little if it had not cost citizens so

much, both in wasted tax dollars and in the timeand eff orts of teachers and school leaders attemptingto fulll useless federal mandates.

As have all federal agencies, the U.S. Departmentof Education (USDOE) has experienced signicant

mission creep.Te federal government should havenothing to do, for example, with setting studentbehavior or expulsion policies. It should havenothing to do with teacher training or curriculum,as its authorizing law states. It should certainly notbreak three federal laws to fund Common Core testsand corresponding curriculum materials.99 Becauseit has broken and bent laws to do all of these things,USDOE must be restrained by specic legislation tocarefully dened responsibilities—largely civil rightsenforcement, enforcing transparency, facilitatingclear information, and deregulation100—and its

budget slashed so it does not have the capacity tooverreach even when it wants. Its myriad fundingstreams and programs should be consolidated andstreamlined, and ineff ective programs eliminated.101

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND’S LEGACY

2001’s No Child Lef Behind iteration of theElementary and Secondary Education Act wasan unprecedented expansion of the federal rolein education. It fundamentally misunderstandsthe capacity of the federal government and theAmerican commitment to local governance. It hasled to a dramatic growth of non-teaching staff inschool districts—from 3.4 million to 6.2 million, an

84 percent increase, while the number of studentsgrew just 8.6 percent. In other words, the adult-to-child ratio shrank from 14:1 to 8:1.102 A studyof Virginia school districts found that NCLBimplementation cost nearly $40 million per year,money that could and should have been redirectedinto the classroom.103 It is no small wonder that thislegislative quagmire led to a system of waivers in an

Federal policy has also failedto contribute to its major

goals of improving mathand science knowledge andeducation outcomes for poorand minority children.

A study of Virginia schooldistricts found that NCLBimplementation cost nearly $40million per year, money thatcould and should have beenredirected into the classroom.


26/4426

attempt to provide relief from its strangulation ofthe American education system.

States like Louisiana received exibility fromUSDOE to mesh their own more rigorousaccountability systems with the federal denitions

and requirements under the George W. Bushadministration. In fact, almost recognizing themonster they had created, Congress ensured thatESEA always allowed USDOE to give districts andstates more exibility to pool federal funds, spendSES dollars on other reforms, eliminate the HighlyQualied Teacher mandates, allow “school-wide”Title I programming, and off er nancial rewardsfor high performers—all of which were includedin President Obama’s waivers. Unfortunately, thepresident managed to make the situation even

worse by turning it into a coercive stick that waivedthe law’s teeth and mandated the president’s visionof education reform in exchange for a pass onaccountability—as outlined in USDOE’s policydocument of waiver qualications.104

Sanity demands that Congress roll back thisexpensive failure, now nearly 7 years past due to bereauthorized.

ELIMINATE DUPLICATIVE AND COERCIVE

FEDERAL PROGRAMS

Between scal years 1980 and 2014, funding forNCLB’s signature program for low-income students,Title I, jumped from $2.7 billion to $14.4 billion.105 Funding for the law as a whole jumped from $6.9billion to $23.3 billion.106

NCLB authorizes the bloated bureaucracy that is

the federal Department of Education (USDOE),which runs more than 200 diff erent elementary,secondary, and post-secondary educationprograms.107 USDOE’s programs even overlap withother agencies. According to a 2012 GovernmentAccountability Office report, 13 agencies fund 209

diff erent science, technology, engineering, and matheducation programs, 173 of which overlap with atleast one other program.108 Yet these myriad federalprograms have failed to achieve results; since theearly 1970s, the NAEP Long Term Trends showsthat overall student achievement for seventeen-year-olds has remained at.109 President Obamahas simply expanded this failed strategy withunprecedented executive action to exert even morecontrol over American schools via pet programssuch as Race to the Top.Tis bureaucracy run amok

needs a massive consolidation if not much more.REDUCE GOVERNMENT DATA

COLLECTION

Parents and lawmakers need good informationto make good choices. A genuine and difficulttension exists, however, between data qualityand individual rights. Current federal, state, andlocal policies do little to protect students, and theabsence of lawmaker action is leading to a worldthat few people want, where governments andbusinesses prey on this captive audience in the hope

that collecting mounds of data will enable centralplanners to nally succeed at managing everyoneelse’s lives. It’s high time for lawmakers to get aheadof the curve and reject this false mentality.

Te general principles of data collection should be,rst, less data collection as the people with accessto it get farther and farther away from students and,second, informed consent, meaning that schools,sofware developers, and others may not minea child’s information without his or her parents’knowledge and consent. Data privacy in education

requires more inspection beyond the scope ofthis paper,110 but here we sketch some basic andnecessary policies.

GIVE PARENTS CLEAR INFORMATION

Vast majorities of parents and the public want clear,basic information about school performance. Eachyear for the last three of an annual national poll, for

Yet these myriad federalprograms have failed toachieve results; since theearly 1970s, the NAEP LongTerm Trends shows thatoverall student achievementfor seventeen-year-olds hasremained flat.


27/4427

example, two-thirds of respondents supported thefederal mandate that schools test students annuallyin math and reading.111 Majorities of parents andthe general public support using tests to determinegraduation and moving up into the next grade—although they also clearly feel some ambiguity about

testing, because 68 percent said tests don’t helpteachers know what to teach.112 Tough these testsare imperfect measures at best, they should at leastbe presented to parents and the public promptly,accessibly, and clearly. Strong, easy to understandaccountability systems have been shown to improvestudent achievement.113

States should express their testing and gradingsystems in a language everyone can understand:

letter grades. Everyone understands the diff erencebetween an A and an F. Fourteen states use lettergrades, according to the Education Commissionof the States, including Louisiana, Arizona,and Indiana.114 Data from NAEP can bolsterthis transparency, to help parents, voters, andpolicymakers make sense of diff erent statemeasuring sticks.Te National Center forEducation Statistics benchmarks each state’s testsagainst the NAEP and shows how each state’stests compare to the national test. It could alsoserve curriculum diversity and across-school

comparability by benchmarking to NAEP varioustests private schools use for accountability underschool choice programs.

Tere are caveats to this approach, however, asstates with A-F grading systems have learned.Letting central planners determine whatconstitutes success also allows for politicalmanipulation of grades—schools with friends

in high places can get a thumb placed on thescale for them.115 And say a school has mediocreperformance but is safer than all the otherschools around. Who determines which of thesecharacteristics deserves more weight in a gradingsystem? It should be parents, not bureaucrats.

Citizens deserve to know how their state-runschools perform, and what state test results mean,but in the long run, the best measure of quality ismarket accountability through school choice.

SECURE CHILDREN’S INFORMATION

PROPERTY RIGHTS

Because children in public schools are a captiveaudience, they are ofen subject to the whimsof central planners. See, for example, the statesand national organizations that forced millionsof children to serve as test subjects for trial runsof federally funded Common Core tests. Teirinnocence and vulnerability should not meanschoolchildren are open to anyone who wantsto experiment upon them, even if they come inofficial-looking caravans bearing governmentseals, or with businesses off ering supposedly “free”

sofware—in exchange for the ability to mine

information about every student, and store or sellthat information indenitely.

Likewise, the current need for basic tests shouldnot give government or business license to vacuumup children’s and families’ personal information.Each level of government should collect as littlepersonal data as possible, because studies haveshown that just knowing seven datapoints about

Citizens deserve to knowhow their state-run schools

perform, and what statetest results mean, butin the long run, the bestmeasure of quality is marketaccountability through schoolchoice.


28/4428

a supposedly anonymized student is enough toidentify him or her by name from testing data.116 Te number of students required (“n-sizes”) forcurrent subgroup reporting, and using anonymousstudent ID numbers, are not enough to preservestudent privacy. Congress should examine these

realities and scale back federal data collection.

Test and education sofware or cloudware vendorsshould be required to erase all internal data theyhave collected about children and families afertheir contract terms run out and these data havebeen turned over to the appropriate educationalagencies with whom they have contracted.

RESTORE AND ENHANCE FERPA

In 2011, the Obama administration undertooka regulatory end-run around yet another law—this time the Family Educational Rights andPrivacy Act (FERPA), the largest national studentprivacy law.Trough regulation, it added massiveloopholes, so that any education agency (federal,state, or local) can share a child’s informationwith any outside entity these agencies designate asan “authorized representative”—without parentalknowledge or consent.117

National lawmakers should, rst, reaffirm theoriginal privacy protections of FERPA and,second, seek to strengthen that law with onet for the digital age, which affirms individuals’ownership over their own information. State

lawmakers should follow suit and enact similarprivacy legislation, only requiring public schooldistricts to send them the handful of categoriesrequired about each student to t transparencyrequirements. Private schools that participate inschool-choice programs should only be required

to identify each participating child’s grade, testscore, and randomized ID number. If states chooseto receive federal funds as a block grant, they mayand should be able to further limit what studentdemographics they collect and share.

Te FERPA update should also prohibit federalagencies from demanding or accepting anypersonally identiable student-level data from,or disclosing such data to, any health, labor,workforce, social services, education, or otheragency without a parent’s explicit knowledge andconsent.


29/4429

The top 5 percent of teachers impart a year and ahalf’s worth of learning to their students in oneyear.118 Teachers who raise their students’ test scores

also reduce their teen pregnancy rates, increase theircollege attendance rates, and raise their lifetimeearnings, according to a recent study of 2.5 millionchildren over 20 years.119 One study from two largeTennessee school districts found that studentstaught by effective teachers for three consecutiveyears outperformed students taught by ineffectiveteachers over the same period by as much as 50percentile points. In other words, effective teacherscan make the difference between a student rising tothe top 25 percent of students and being consignedto the bottom 25 percent.120

Studies by Stanford University economist EricHanushek have quantified the impact a highlyeffective teacher can have on a student’s future.Compared to a teacher at the median, or 50thpercentile, of student achievement:

A moderately better teacher, one rankedat the 60th percentile, will raise a student’slifetime earnings by $5,300;

A significantly better teacher, one rankedat the 69th percentile, will raise a student’s

lifetime earnings by $10,600;

And a highly effective teacher, one rankedat the 84th percentile, will raise a student’slifetime earnings by $20,000;

But an ineffective teacher, one ranked atthe 16th percentile, will lower a student’slifetime earnings by $20,000.121

This difference might seem small in the grandscheme of how much one person earns over theirlifetimes, but multiplied over two-dozen students in

a class, year after year, and compounding for eacheffective, highly effective, or ineffective teacher astudent may have during their years in school, ahighly effective, or ineffective, teacher can gain orlose students hundreds of thousands of dollars. Asthis paper noted earlier, teacher quality doesn’t justaffect individual students; it affects the entire U.S.economy, to the tune of trillions of lost dollars anduntold lost opportunities for bountiful lives.

EFFECTIVE TEACHERS ARE PARAMOUNTResearch has established that a highly effective

teacher is the most important in-school determinantof a child’s academic achievement—an impactthat compounds over time.122 Several years in anineffective teacher’s classroom can place a childseveral years behind grade level. For example, a2006 study of the Los Angeles Unified SchoolDistrict (LAUSD) found that students assigned toa top-quartile teacher performed an average of 10percentile points better than students assigned toa bottom-quartile teacher. At the time, the black-white achievement gap was roughly 34 percentilepoints—which means having a top-quartile teacherfor three years in a row instead of a bottom quartileteacher would have closed the performance gap.123 In the recent Vergara v. California case, Judge RolfTreu cited a study concluding that Los Angelesstudents “who are taught by a teacher in the bottom5 percent of competence lose 9.5 months of learningin a single year compared to students with averageteachers.”124

As usual, what hurts all children hurts poor andminority children the most. Despite the manylaudable and high-quality teachers who takethe toughest jobs to serve the neediest children,poor, minority students tend to have less effectiveteachers than white students.125 Economist ThomasKane testified during the Vergara trial that blackstudents in LAUSD are 43 percent more likely andHispanic students are 68 percent more likely thanwhite students to be taught by a teacher in thebottom 5 percent.126 In other words, our education

PRINCIPLE #3: EDUCATOR FREEDOM

Research has established thata highly effective teacher isthe most important in-schooldeterminant of a child’sacademic achievement—animpact that compounds overtime.


30/4430

system often harms kids’ economic prospects, andespecially harms the economic prospects of the poorand minority children who desperately need theopposite.

Parents aren’t the only individuals in education

who deserve choices. Teachers and school leadersalso deserve to control their own destinies. Despitethe critical role teachers play in driving studentachievement and lifelong success, current teacherpolicies prioritize everything except effectiveness,and greatly restrict personal and professionalautonomy. If the U.S. education system treatsparents as expendable, it treats teachers and schoolleaders as interchangeable cogs in a machine. That’sdemeaning and counterproductive.

RAISE ACADEMIC REQUIREMENTS FOR

PROSPECTIVE TEACHERSIn the United States, contrary to the practices ofhigh-achieving countries, prospective teachers toooften hold below-average academic records. TheU.S. has historically recruited its teachers from thebottom one-third of college entrants, although thistrend has slightly improved in the past few years.127

Several studies ha

Documents

Bobby Jindal - K-12 Education Plan