Petrilli: Can Conservatives Back Both Public And Choice Schools

In the National Review, Michael Petrilli, Thomas Fordham Institute honcho and long-time reformster, poses the argument that folks on the right don't need to choose "between expanding parental options and improving traditional public schools." Instead, he asserts, they "can and should do both."

On the one hand, it's a welcome argument these days when the culture panic crowd has settled on a scorched earth option for public schools. As Kevin Roberts, Heritage Foundation president, put it in his now-delayed-until-after-it-can't-hurt-Trump-election-prospects book, "We don’t merely seek an exit from the system; we are coming for the curriculums and classrooms of the remaining public schools, too." For many on the right, the education policy goal is to obliterate public schools and/or force them to closely resemble the private christianist schools that culture panickers favor. 

Pertrilli is sympathetic to the "let's just give parents the money and be done with it" crowd. 

We’ve inherited a “system” that is 150 years old and is saddled with layers upon layers of previous reforms, regulations, overlapping and calcified bureaucracies, and a massive power imbalance between employees and constituents, thanks to the almighty teachers unions.

Sigh. Reforms and regulations, sure, though it would be nice for Petrilli to acknowledge that for the last forty-ish years, those have mostly come from his own reformster crowd. And I am deeply tired of the old "almighty teachers unions" trope, which is some serious baloney. But his audience thinks it's true, so let's move on. 

Petrilli's point is that conservatives should not be focusing on "school choice" alone, but should embrace an "all of the above" approach. Petrilli dismisses Democrats as "none of the above" because of their "fealty to the unions," which is, again, baloney. Democrats have spent a couple of decades as willing collaborators with the GOP ; if they are "none of the above" it's because they've lost both the ability and authority to pretend to be public education supporters. The nomination of Tim Walz has given them a chance to get on the public education team, but let's wait and see--there's no ball that the Democratic Party can't drop.

Petrilli sits on a practical point here (one that Robert Pondiscio has made repeatedly over the years)-- public schools are a) beloved by many voters, b) not going away, and c) still educate the vast, vast majority of U.S. students. Therefore, folks should care about the quality of public education.

Petrilli then floats some ideas, all while missing the major obstacle to his idea. There are, he claims, many reforms that haven't been tried yet, "including in red states where the teachers unions don't have veto power." I believe the actual number of states where the union doesn't have veto power is fifty. But I do appreciate his backhanded acknowledgement that many states have dis-empowered their teachers unions and still haven't accomplished diddly or squat. It's almost as if the unions are not the real obstacle to progress.

His ideas? Well, there's ending teacher tenure, a dog that will neither hunt nor lie down and die. First of all, there is no teacher tenure. What there is is policy that requires school districts to follow a procedure to get rid of bad teachers. Behind every teacher who shouldn't still have a job is an administrator who isn't doing theirs. 

Tenure and LIFO (Last In First Out) interfere with the reformster model of Genius CEO school management, in which the Genius CEO should be able to fire anyone he wants to for any reason he conceives of, including having become too expensive or so experienced they start getting uppity. 

The theory behind much of education reform has been that all educational shortfalls have been caused by Bad Teachers, and so the focus has been on catching them (with value-added processing of Big Standardized Test scores), firing them, and replacing them with super-duper teachers from the magical super-duper teacher tree. Meanwhile, other teachers would find this new threatening environment inspirational, and they would suddenly unleash the secrets of student achievement that they always had tucked away in their file cabinet, but simply hadn't implemented.

This is a bad model, a non-sensical model, a model that has had a few decades to prove itself, and has not. Nor has Petrilli's other idea-- merit pay has been tried, and there are few signs that it even sort of works, particularly since schools can't do a true merit pay system and also it's often meant as a cost-saving technique (Let's lower base pay and let teachers battle each other to win "merit" bonuses that will make up the difference).

Petrilli also argues against increased pay for teacher masters degrees because those degrees "add no value in terms of quality of teaching and learning" aka they don't make BS Test scores go up. He suggests moving that extra money to create incentives for teachers to move to the toughest schools. 

Petrilli gets well into weeds in his big finish, in which he cites the "wisdom of former Florida governor Jeb Bush" and the golden of state of Florida as if it's a model for all-of-the-above reform and not a state that has steadily degraded and undercut public schools in order to boost charter and private operations, with results that only look great if you squint hard and ignore certain parts (Look at 4th grade scores, but be sure to ignore 8th and 12th grade results). And if you believe that test results are the only true measure of educational excellence.

So, in sum, Petrilli's notion that GOP state leaders should support public education is a good point. What is working against it?

One is that his list is lacking. Part of the reform movement's trouble at this point is that many of its original ideas were aimed primarily at discrediting public education. The remaining core-- use standardized tests to identify and remove bad teachers-- is weak sauce. Even if you believe (wrongly) that the core problem of public education is bad teaching, this is no way to address that issue. 

Beyond bad teachers, the modern reform movement hasn't had a new idea to offer for a couple of decades. 

Petrilli also overlooks a major challenge in the "all of the above approach," a challenge that reformsters and choicers have steadfastly ignored for decades.

You cannot run multiple parallel school systems for the same cost as a single system. 

If you want to pay for public schools and charter schools and vouchers, it is going to cost more money. "School choice" is a misnomer, because school choice has always been available. Choicers are not arguing for school choice--they're arguing for taxpayer funded school choice. That will require more taxpayer funds. 

You can't have six school systems for the price of one. So legislators have been left with a choice. On the one hand, they can tell taxpayers "We think school choice is so important that we are going to raise your taxes to pay for it." On the other hand, they can drain money from the public system to pay for charters and vouchers all while making noises about how the public system is totes overfunded and can spare the money easy peasy. 

I can offer a suggestion for conservatives who want to help public schools improve.

Get over your anti-union selves.

I have a close friend who worked in management in the manufacturing sector for his whole adult life. He liked the union, because he found they made excellent partners in solving problems in the business. They brought a perspective to the problems that was helpful, and while it was sometimes still a challenge to hammer out agreements, the resulting policies were solid and useful. 

Union leaders can be excellent points of contact for management looking to communicate with the staff and coming up with a meaningful list of problems and actionable solutions. School districts can work like that, too. I know that places like New York City and Chicago are tangled political messes, but there are over 13,000 school districts in the country. I often suspect that much over-heated rhetoric about schools and unions is the direct result of most pundits being located in New York and DC. 

It's baffling that so much rhetoric about teachers and unions seems based on the assumption that teachers and their union leaders got into education because they hate children and want to ruin their lives. Conservatives sincerely interested in making schools work a little better in this country would do well to assume that teachers are there on the ground in classrooms because they are committed to education. Conservatives interested in using schools as political fodder are never going to be "all of the above."