Washington Post education columnist Jay Mathews has done it again: lifted my hopes up just to drop them right back down.
In November, you might recall, Mathews called for the elimination of the office of U.S. Secretary of Education. There just isn't evidence that the Ed Sec has done much good, he wrote.
My reaction to that, of course: "Right on!"
Only sentences later, however, Mathews went on to declare that we should keep the U.S. Department of Education.
Today, Mathews is calling for the eradication of something else that has done little demonstrable good -- and has likely been a big loss -- for American education: the No Child Left Behind Act. Mathews thinks that the law has run its course, and laments that under NCLB state tests -- which are crucial to standards-and-accountability-based reforms -- "started soft and have gotten softer."
The reason for this ever-squishier trend, of course, is that under NCLB states and schools are judged by test results, leading state politicians and educrats to do all they can to make good results as easy to get as possible. And no, that has not meant educating kids better -- it's meant making the tests easier to pass.
Unfortunately, despite again seeing its major failures, Mathews still can't let go of federal education involvement. After calling for NCLB's end, he declares that we instead need a national, federal test to judge how all states and schools are doing.
To his credit, Mathews does not propose that the feds write in-depth standards in multiple subjects, and he explicitly states that Washington should not be in the business of punishing or rewarding schools for test performance.
"Let's let the states decide what do to with struggling schools," he writes.
What's especially important about this is that when there's no money attached to test performance there's little reason for teachers unions, administrators associations, and myriad other education interests to expend political capital gaming the tests, a major problem under NCLB.
But here's the thing: While Mathews' approach would do less harm than NCLB, it wouldn't do much good. Mathews suggests that just having the feds "shame" states with bad national scores would force improvement, but we've seen public schools repeatedly shrug off massive ignominy since at least the 1983 publication of A Nation at Risk. As long as they keep getting their money, they couldn't care much less.
So neither tough standards nor shaming have led to much improvement. Why?
As I've laid out before, it's a simple matter of incentives.
With punitive accountability, the special interests that would be held to high standards have strong motivation -- and usually the power -- to demand dumbed-down tests, lowered minimum scores, or many other accountability dodges. The result: Little or no improvement.
What if there are no serious ramifications?
Then the system gets its money no matter what and again there is little or no improvement.
It's damned if you do, damned if you don't!
So what are reformers to do? One thing: Take government -- which will almost always be dominated by the people it employs -- out of the accountability equation completely. Give parents control of education funds and make educators earn their pay by having to attract and satisfy customers.
Unfortunately, that still seems to be too great a leap for Jay Mathews. But one of these days, I'm certain, he'll go all the way!