Robert Reich on Education Former Secretary of Labor; Democratic Challenger MA Governor

Sub-sections under Education:
• School Choice
• Other issues under Education

Achievement gap from richer districts spending twice as much

Most states do try to give more money to poor districts, but most also cut way back on their spending during the recession and haven't nearly made up for the cutbacks.

As we segregate by income into different communities, schools in lower-income areas have fewer resources than ever. The result is widening disparities in funding per pupil, to the direct disadvantage of poor kids.

The wealthiest, highest-spending districts are now providing about twice as much funding per student as the lowest spending districts.

Progressive vouchers: $14K for poor kids; $2K for rich kids

School vouchers in this progressive form would improve overall school performance by introducing competition into the school system. They would also give lower- and middle-income families more purchasing power in the education market.

Some competitors would be organized as independent, nonprofit "charter" schools. I would also expect wealthy suburban school districts to compete vigorously for lower- and middle-income children and the generous vouchers they would bring. These upscale districts would need the money; they couldn't possibly meet their expenses at $2,000 per student.

Public higher education is waning under budget constraints

Let any school enroll poor kids and funds that go with them

Notice I haven't used the term "voucher." It's become so loaded--like abortion and communism--that you can't talk about vouchers without being tarred as either "for" or "against." Nothing else gets through. In a piece I wrote for the Wall Street Journal, I made a case for "progressive vouchers" and immediately became the liberal poster child for the pro-voucher movement. It was ironic because the whole point of the piece was that vouchers without a lot of extra money behind poorer kids are worse than no vouchers at all

Progressive vouchers: more resources for poorer kids

One big high-stakes test seems grossly unfair

I'm all in favor of making schools more accountable for what they do (or fail to do). By all means let's find out whether schools are doing their job by testing a random sample of kids in the school every year. Publish the test results without naming the kids. This would light a fire under schools that failed to make progress.

But it seems grossly unfair to rely on one big, high-stakes exam to decide whether a child gets promoted to the next grade, and especially unfair to rely on one test to determine whether a kid graduates from high school.

Universal high-quality K-14 education; expand from K-12

In the early 20th century, states pioneered the concept of universal K-12. The 20th century economy and society needed it. For most of the century, education beyond 12th grade was a luxury. In the 21st century most young people also need at least two years of critical skills beyond the typical high school curriculum--technical skills, thinking skills, on-the-job learning skills.

By the same token, any young person who qualifies should be able to get a 4-year college education. Yet for many young people and their families, this dream is becoming unaffordable.

School districts are self-sorting, whether public or private

No one designed the educational system this way. Well-meaning parents think of their reliance on private schools, good public schools in upscale communities, charter schools, or school vouchers as means of obtaining as good an education as they can afford for their kids--not as means of excluding children more costly to education than their own. But in fact, these individual decisions add up to a large-scale sorting mechanism.

Variable vouchers to avoid self-sorting mechanisms

School vouchers might improve the quality of schools, but we would need to guard against the possibility that the poorest children with the biggest learning or behavioral problems would get sorted together into the least desirable schools. One way to avoid this would be to make the size of the voucher proportional to family needs. Children from the very poorest families would have the largest and most valuable vouchers, thereby making the children sufficiently attractive for good schools to want to compete for them.

We must prepare workforce for new economy

Community Colleges are unsung heroes of workers

Combine knowledge (know-how) with wisdom (know-why)

Grant $60,000 nest egg to high school graduates

Standardized tests are too one-size-fits-all for many kids

Uniform tests present clear goals and give students, parents and schools ways to measure progress toward meeting them. But standardized tests are monstrously unfair to many kids. We’re creating a one-size-fits-all system that needlessly brands many young people as failures, when they might thrive if offered a different education whose progress was measured differently.

In our headlong rush toward “accountability,” we seem to be veering toward two extremes-either expecting every child to pass the same test or assuming that they are uneducable, relegating them to a vocational track.

Our challenge is to find different measures of the various skills relevant to the jobs of the new economy. It’s our job not to discourage our children, but to help them find their way.

New economy skills not measured by standardized tests

Give poor kids a choice, but not via vouchers

A: I’m against vouchers for private school but in favor of backing kids from poor communities and giving them a choice of public schools. I don’t want a system that drains from public schools; they need every penny. We need to raise the educational capacity of all schools so children are not sorted any more than they already are by the areas they can afford to live. And these poor children should have choices.

Never supported vouchers, despite interpretation that way

A: I respect local decisions but will make the case for why public school choice is a good thing, especially the extra money it can bring to schools. Poor kids are often trapped in schools with little resources. One way to help them bust out of this cycle is to come back with more funding and allow students to choose the schools best using these funds. And I don’t think everyone who lives in the city wants to go to school in the suburbs. Kids want good schools near their homes.

I wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal that was interpreted as supporting private school vouchers, but then I wrote another piece soon after, explaining that that was not my position.

[Stoneham Independent editor’s note: Massachusetts communities have the option of opting in or out of the public school choice pool. The local School Committees vote. Stoneham, for example, opted out.]

Poorest children should get largest vouchers

The risk of most school voucher proposals is that the poorest children--normally those with the biggest learning or behavioral problems--would be sorted together into the least-desirable schools. One way to avoid this would be to make the size of the voucher proportional to family need. Children from the very poorest families would have the largest and most valuable vouchers, thereby making the children sufficiently attractive for good schools to want to compete for them.

$10,000 vouchers for poor kids in private & charter schools

What would be the likely result of such progressive vouchers? Schools already in easy geographic reach of poor kids would get an immediate infusion of billions of dollars. Wealthier suburban schools would have even greater incentive to compete for students from poor families.