A Fresh Approach to School Improvement
A Fresh Approach to School Improvement
The 100% Solution, a bold new approach to education policy that was launched with a June 26 op-ed by former education secretary Rod Paige in the New York Times, brought together an unusual coalition of sponsors from across the political spectrum. When the combative conservative William Bennett and former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta occupy common ground, it should attract some attention.
Education policy has become a prominent concern for U.S. voters, and the quality of science and math education has attracted particular attention. Everyone who has tried to improve U.S. public education had discovered the difficulty of introducing change and ensuring quality. The 100% Solution does not provide a recipe for the perfect school; it proposes a radically different way of funding schools designed to make them more responsive to student needs and more capable of adopting new practices that have been proven successful. The underlying principle is simple: Fund students, not schools.
The total amount of funding allocated to educating a student would follow that student to whatever public school, charter or traditional, the student chooses to attend. Under a weighted student funding formula, low-income students and those with special needs would be allocated more money because it requires more to give them an adequate education. Conservatives like the plan because it gives students and families more freedom in choosing a school, and liberals like the recognition that disadvantaged students deserve more resources.
As Fordham Institute president Chester E. Finn, Jr. (one of the forces behind the proposal) remarked, “Weighted student funding isn’t a complete answer to every challenge that public schools face but it will eliminate the biggest funding disparities, foster equity, empower school leaders, and catalyze school choice.” It will also irritate teachers unions, many school board members, current public school administrators, powerful legislators, and a host of others whose personal interests are often in conflict with the best interests of students.
In spite of its bipartisan imprimatur, the proposal might be a political flop. The inertial of the education industry is a formidable obstacle. But the impetus behind the proposal deserves to be understood. See for yourself at:
www.100percentsolution.org
The 100% Solution, a bold new approach to education policy that was launched with a June 26 op-ed by former education secretary Rod Paige in the New York Times, brought together an unusual coalition of sponsors from across the political spectrum. When the combative conservative William Bennett and former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta occupy common ground, it should attract some attention.
Education policy has become a prominent concern for U.S. voters, and the quality of science and math education has attracted particular attention. Everyone who has tried to improve U.S. public education had discovered the difficulty of introducing change and ensuring quality. The 100% Solution does not provide a recipe for the perfect school; it proposes a radically different way of funding schools designed to make them more responsive to student needs and more capable of adopting new practices that have been proven successful. The underlying principle is simple: Fund students, not schools.
The total amount of funding allocated to educating a student would follow that student to whatever public school, charter or traditional, the student chooses to attend. Under a weighted student funding formula, low-income students and those with special needs would be allocated more money because it requires more to give them an adequate education. Conservatives like the plan because it gives students and families more freedom in choosing a school, and liberals like the recognition that disadvantaged students deserve more resources.
As Fordham Institute president Chester E. Finn, Jr. (one of the forces behind the proposal) remarked, “Weighted student funding isn’t a complete answer to every challenge that public schools face but it will eliminate the biggest funding disparities, foster equity, empower school leaders, and catalyze school choice.” It will also irritate teachers unions, many school board members, current public school administrators, powerful legislators, and a host of others whose personal interests are often in conflict with the best interests of students.
In spite of its bipartisan imprimatur, the proposal might be a political flop. The inertial of the education industry is a formidable obstacle. But the impetus behind the proposal deserves to be understood. See for yourself at:
www.100percentsolution.org
posted by Kevin Finneran at
10:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home