I agree with many others who have posted: this education reform bill is based on a premise that’s entirely unproven: that charter schools create innovation or improve outcomes for students. 26 years ago education reform got started with “A Nation At Risk,” a report that skirted the fundamental issue of the achievement gap. 26 years later the gap’s still there and may be widening. Students from strong districts still succeed and students from stressed districts still struggle. The vast dollars poured into standardized testing have proved this over and over and over.

So how do charter schools and greater powers for superintendents address the societal stresses that leave school officials in some districts worrying about effective college placement, while those in other districts grapple, literally, with multiple shootings on school grounds and a thousand less dramatic woes? I’m not saying we should just give up on our struggling school districts, but I really wonder whether a change in school governance and the powers of the superintendent can be very effective.

I appreciate the provisions that propose not to tinker with districts that have good outcomes (though I think standardized tests in 10th grade are an abysmally limiting way of measuring outcomes). But is this structural reform overall really going to change anything that matters for the students who most need change?

And, like so many others, I appreciate your clear communication and openness to posts – even rambling ones like this. I look forward to learning more as you help us follow this issue.

- Dan

I think it’s worth bearing in mind that most of the districts that would be subject to increased state control are districts that receive most or a substantial portion of their funding from the state. This is not about the state taking control of locally raised money.

I don’t think I agree with you about the role of standardized tests, but I would agree that the present bill is not about that and is relatively narrow.

I will urge you limit the ability of superintendents to assault the existing teachers teacher’s unions, as well as the ability of superintendents to prevent the formation of new teachers’ unions.

I am also not impressed with the Obama/Patrick plan to push for charter schools. Funding schools with public money while removing the ability of the paying public to control the said schools is profoundly undemocratic.

The role of schools is to nurture and develop the independence, talents, and interests of children, not to turn them into obedient workers. Maybe if we concentrated on the needs of children and stopped obsessing about meaningless standardized tests and obscure performance ratings, we will be really reforming the schools. Let’s start by paying teachers well, and letting them unionize.

Sincerely,
Alexi