There is something devilishly delightful about using a red pencil to slash through errata, bad grammar, or puffed-up sentences. So, when President-elect Barack Obama talks about going through the federal budget line-by-line to eliminate what's not working, I get inspired to think about what one could do to the federal budget for education. I know we are in an era of thinking ahead and being positive, but the temptation is too great. Almost immediately, however, one runs into a couple of dilemmas. Education programs, first of all, are particularly difficult to label as working or not working, due not only to the great diversity of needs and situations across the education spectrum but also to a weak tradition of using research. Consider the federal What Works Clearinghouse's attempt to impose strict evidence criteria on programs. The process has yielded so few candidates that Clearinghouse developers are changing names and procedures to try to make it more useful. On the other hand, when the evaluation criteria are so loose, the term successful has no meaning. Look at the highly qualified teacher/principal supports under Title II, Part A of the No Child Left Behind Act that is giving states almost $3 billion this year to provide grants for professional development and other activities. In the first place, the feds don't have a clear picture of how states are spending this money. The U.S. Department of Education web site says only 18 states submitted the required reports on this program, and a spot check shows that most are out of compliance in several features. However, the federal summary says professional development funding is doing what it is supposed to because more than 90% of teachers have participated in full-day workshops or after-school professional development. Some of these experiences undoubtedly were useful. Yet, most studies of professional development tell us that programs are embedded in everyday classroom practice, often through collaborative learning communities, and that workshops and after-school events aren't the best way to improve instruction. Another problem with deciding what isn't working in federal education funding is that often the program is the ultimate product of a flawed policy and wouldn't work well no matter how good the design. In a sense, this is the problem with a traditional view of professional development. The billions of dollars spent on Title II over the past six years ignores the research and common sense that is moving policy and practice toward improving quality rather than teachers. What is needed are high-quality management practices and supports for ordinary teachers. That means professional development for the system, such as good induction programs, challenging curriculum standards, ongoing mentoring, and the creation of collaborative responsibility for all students. Not your one-off solution. Diverting federal funding to bad solutions certainly was evident in the Reading First controversy. Every time in my memory that the federal government has entered into direct support for a curriculum, it has encountered political problems. No matter how beneficial the intervention may be--and for school systems that lacked a cohesive approach to teaching reading, Reading First was an improvement--it's going to get into hot water with politicians. …
Read full abstract