Lou Gerstner: Nationalize education
Former IBM head Lou Gerstner, no doubt building off his appearance at the Wall Street Journal’s CEO Forum, argues in today’s Journal that we should, basically, nationalize k-12 education.
I recommend that President-elect Barack Obama convene a meeting of our nation’s governors and seek agreement to the following:
- Abolish all local school districts, save 70 (50 states; 20 largest cities). Some states may choose to leave some of the rest as community service organizations, but they would have no direct involvement in the critical task of establishing standards, selecting teachers, and developing curricula.
- Establish a set of national standards for a core curriculum. I would suggest we start with four subjects: reading, math, science and social studies.
- Establish a National Skills Day on which every third, sixth, ninth and 12th-grader would be tested against the national standards. Results would be published nationwide for every school in America.
- Establish national standards for teacher certification and require regular re-evaluations of teacher skills. Increase teacher compensation to permit the best teachers (as measured by advances in student learning) to earn well in excess of $100,000 per year, and allow school leaders to remove underperforming teachers.
- Extend the school day and the school year to effectively add 20 more days of schooling for all K-12 students.
Over at the Bridging Differences blog, Deborah Meier argues that such an approach would take the public out of public education; she thinks we’re better off when “the people making decisions about the minds and hearts of our children should be those most directly impacted by them and responsible for implementing them.” But couldn’t a system of charter schools bridge this divide between Meier and Gerstner? These schools would be held accountable to the national standards, but run day-to-day by the most local of educators (and parents), free from the meddling of district bureaucracies or school boards.
Still, it probably doesn’t do the national standards movement any favors to have Gerstner equating that sensible approach with abolishing local control, and not just because it will give Neal McCluskey another chance to take a whack at the idea.
Lou Gerstner photograph from Washington Speakers Bureau website
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Until parents have a vote, public schools will not improve.
Here’s Joe Williams:
One of the most overlooked tools of modern school reform is the concept of power—who has it, who wants it, and who needs it. One reason so little changes in education is because the people who hold the cards are always the same, no matter what the popular reforms of the day involve. We have tried centralization of decision-making power and decentralization of decision-making power. We’ve raised standards and enacted zero-tolerance policies. We’ve beaten into the ground such catch phrases as “lifelong learners” and “capacity building.” Yet, in all these reform efforts, parents have never really been allowed to be the ones who get to make the ultimate decision: choosing their child’s school. Bureaucrats and politicians always seem to get the last word, even though parents have the best odds of making decisions that put their kids first.
Cheating Our Kids
p. 214-215
I’m pretty sure that if you looked back through the past 150 years of education history, you’d find that parents as a group have consistently made better decisions than educators where curriculum and teaching are concerned.
Not that we’ve ever been allowed to make decisions.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Am reading Rudolf Flesch’ Why Johnny Can’t Read.
Parents: phonics
Educators: the word method
December 1st, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I do agree with nationalizing teacher certification - assuming that means a teacher, once certified, would be able to move from state to state and retain his or her certification. As a former teacher who moved from the East Coast to the West Coast (and back again), the state-by-state teacher credentialing was a major (and unnecessary) obstacle. I always thought, if a teacher is qualified to teacher high school biology or English in State A, why would they need to repeat the credentialing process to teach the same subject in State B? An unnecessary obstacle that just serves to force teachers out of the profession. Especially in this age of national companies and frequent relocations, I wonder how married teachers cope with moves dictated by a spouse’s career. My guess is that they just teach in private schools (where credentials are not required) or find another job.
December 1st, 2008 at 6:18 pm
The ship sailed long ago when it came to the public having a meaningful impact on “public” schools.
I prefer the much more accurate term “government-run” schools...
December 1st, 2008 at 8:11 pm
I manage interactive projects at The Washington Speakers Bureau. Thanks for the photo credit.
washingtonspeakers.com
December 1st, 2008 at 9:34 pm
OK, the feds as alternative authorizer for all charter schools in the country would be a very cool idea.
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:16 am
I wonder where the teachers’ unions fit into this nationalization proposal.
They’re the 10,000 pound gorilla in the room when it comes to any meaningful proposals to change the public school systems.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
I completely agree with the nationalization of education and teacher certification. Having a national curriculum would be helpful to establish less competitive and more regulated college standards. The raise in teacher compensation is completely necessary also. Teachers mold students’ lives, most of the time both in and outside of the classroom and should be rewarded for their efforts. Assuming that the teachers have been properly and well educated and have achieved their required license, a pay raise is compeletely appropriate.
I also agree that the four core subjects should be the focus of the nationalized model, but what about the arts? Art and music classes should be offered at every school and become nationally included in a well rounded curriculum. As students get higher in their education, they should be provided more specific choices in their classes. Advanced placement classes should also be nationalized but I think the elective classes can be diverse and unique to the school district. Overall, I am looking forward to the changes that our new president will put in place. Thank you for your informational post!
April 15th, 2009 at 11:02 am
I read your blog for quite a long time and should tell that your posts are always valuable to readers.