Marc Tucker, of the National Center on Education and the Economy, was recently commissioned by the Center for American Progress to write a report in which he would outline his plans for education reform in the United States. Tucker, a veteran voice in American education debates, has long studied the similarities and differences between the education systems in the United States and those of other top-performing countries around the world, such as Australia, Canada (Ontario), China (Hong Kong and Shanghai), Finland, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Singapore – all among the countries with the highest student achievement and greatest equity as reported by PISA.
Tucker hopes that taking some well-placed pointers from the way that these countries have constructed their education systems might successfully reform an American education system that over “the last three decades [has] seen very little improvement in American students’ achievement, at the same time that [it has] seen enormous increases in real costs of the system.”
In his new report, “Governing American Education: Why This Dry Subject May Hold the Key to Advances in American Education”, Tucker outlines the failures that he has seen in the way that the American education system is run as well as his proposals for how change should take place. Tucker places the largest portion of the blame squarely on the fact that the governance of American education is extremely convoluted, which essentially prevents reform from ever truly getting off the ground.
Tucker pulls no punches:
“We can no longer afford a system in which no one is in charge and no one can be held accountable for the performance of the system. We can no longer afford a system that cannot possibly become coherent in design, because no one is in a position to design it. We can no longer afford a system in which no one is in a position to design an implementation plan for the new design we do not have. We cannot afford a system that is not a system. We got here because of our deep distrust of government. But government is the only tool we have to coordinate, plan and execute our strategies for improving our education system at scale. If we fail to enable government to do the job, it will not get done. It is as simple as that.”
In order to accomplish the reforms, Tucker would first and foremost consolidate education authority with state governments under governors and with local governments under mayors. State and local education boards would be abolished in the hope that the governors and mayors would redistribute tax money more equitably across their states and municipalities.
Second, the federal government’s role would be restricted to funding research and monitoring what is taking place on the state level. Furthermore, “A new intergovernmental agency should be established at which the top officials of the federal education department and the top education officials of the states meet together to agree on certain national functions that need to be carried out, such as the development and revision of national standards for student achievement; the development and maintenance of a national system for accountability in the schools and a national system for reporting student and school accomplishment. Under this arrangement, the current contention for dominance in this arena between the states and the federal government would come to an end, for both would have to agree for any proposal to succeed.”
Even this cursory summary of his comprehensive plans is likely to elicit sharp reactions. Tucker fully recognizes that many of those reactions will be very negative. But his hope is that his report will stimulate a debate that might play some part in bringing more comprehensive reform.
For more details about his detailed findings and suggestions, please visit the following links:
