What’s next for education?

Opinion: March 11, 2010 at 12:00a.m.

For 25 years, a reform movement has driven education policies around the nation. We saw it take root in Texas with the 1985 no-pass, no-play law, and it has been alive in Washington with efforts like the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act.

These reformers largely focused on students taking core subjects, measuring their proficiency annually and holding schools accountable for students’ success or failure. The reforms have not worked perfectly, and the insurgents have taken some body blows, including from ex-reformers like author Diane Ravitch, who complains the movement is too test-oriented. (Yes, schools get nervous about annual tests, but what are they supposed to do? Not test?)

Fortunately, the reformers keep pushing. In fact, the movement is evolving into a new stage, which is good. Movements that don’t grow become rigid and irrelevant. Two points of emphasis, in particular, lead the evolution:

Students’ progress

First, reformers are pushing schools to use real-time data to evaluate students’ progress. President Barack Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan champion this idea, arguing that it will allow teachers to quickly intervene with struggling students.

Private groups like the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation also are deeply involved. The foundation is putting accessible data systems onto educators’ desks.

Second, reformers are pressing for students to have effective teachers. We all can remember our inspiring ones. Mine was Rutha Coopers, who got my pals and me to love Latin in the ninth and 10th grades. Without Miss Coopers, students can drift into mediocrity. (Think of those teachers who turned off your curiosity.)

The Obama administration is so committed to the effective teacher concept that it won’t give any funds from its Race to the Top program to states that do not use data to evaluate teachers.

And last week, the George W. Bush Institute held a seminar at Southern Methodist University on educational leadership. Dr. James Guthrie, a Bush Institute fellow in education studies, said in an interview the leadership focus should include principals and superintendents, who, after all, must inspire their teachers to become classroom leaders.

So here we are, on the precipice of a second great reform movement. If it works, students will benefit from this stage as they have from the first stage’s emphasis on measuring a child’s proficiency.

But here are a few problems that reformers must confront:

What real-time data do teachers need most? There’s so much information that educators can get lost in it. What should they really concentrate on?

Who will help them weave the best data into their work? Younger teachers may master the data revolution quickly, but what about older instructors who aren’t as skilled in modern technologies? And how do teachers find the time to absorb and make use of the information?

Are states prepared to get their colleges of education to produce more Rutha Coopers who know how to lead classrooms — or even schools and districts? Reid Lyon and his colleagues at SMU’s college of education are studying research about military, business and medical leaders to see if their models apply. Great, because there aren’t enough nonprofits like the New Teacher Project to supply leadership-trained instructors.

How can a superintendent tell if a principal who’s succeeding in one environment can transfer those skills to another? This is a superintendent’s biggest dilemma, since they often move principals. And, sadly, there are numerous examples of principals who led one successful school but failed at another.

Reformers are already pondering these issues, so the movement is evolving fast. And whether we pay school taxes, have kids in school or teach children, we each have a stake in the results. Without strong teachers, kids suffer, and there’s no need to describe what that can mean.

William McKenzie is an editorial columnist for The Dallas Morning News. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.