WASHINGTON COMMENTARY: Unwrapping Teaching

THE FELINE friends I share a house with know how separate the important from the unimportant in their lives. Watching them plow through mounds of Christmas paper, ribbons, and glitter find their catnip-laced presents was a case in point. All the glitzy wrappings did not divert them from the essentials that would make their holidays very happy. This observation about focus and diligence serves well when I ponder the current debate over the funding of public education. There is a lot of glitz in the mandates now confronting states -- especially because of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) -- that distracts policy makers and the public from focusing on what is essential for student success. Heretical as it may seem in today's environment, the federal government should have a limited, though crucial, role in increasing the academic achievement of students. All the wrappings conceal the root issue in American public education. For example, the current criticism of the Bush Administration budgets for failing match the funding expectations under NCLB is somewhat specious. Appropriation levels never match authorization levels for education -- or for most federal programs. The argument that NCLB places extra burdens on states is certainly true, but a large percentage of the additional costs are for initiatives and processes that states ought be pursuing anyway, such as collecting data and investing in good assessment systems. The central issue is how the federal dollars are being spent, and this question trickles down as an important one for states, districts, and schools ask -- and answer. If NCLB were be redesigned fund what ought be federal priorities, the list would be reduced two entries: 1) support the development of excellent teaching and the equitable placement of the best teachers and 2) support research on and dissemination of measures of how well teachers know and use effective teaching practices. Accountability systems at all levels, along with their incentives and penalties, ought be based on how successfully teachers and their supervisors implement what is known about highly successful teaching. Granted, these recommendations plow right through innumerable reports on the intricacies of school funding and pluck little from them. They also ignore the current emphasis on such initiatives as choice and supplemental services and elevate data on what teachers do at least the same level as how well students score on tests. If the whole purpose of school reforms, however, is quickly raise the American education system several notches higher, then we need focus on the basics. And the basics of school improvement begin with teaching. Many of the studies on what makes a difference in student achieve-ment eventually conclude that the most important school-based factor is the quality of teaching. Not that small class sizes or stimulating and coherent curricula aren't important. Rather, the success of these and other interventions and investments ultimately depends on how skillfully teachers use them. Compared teachers in other advanced countries, teachers in the United States spend much more time with students in classes, but that extra time does not yield better results or provide deeper learning opportunities for students -- mostly it just makes for a lot of repetition. For almost 40 years, federal involvement in education has essentially let the public off the hook. Beginning with the first version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, federal funding has sought to level the playing field -- that is, give under-resourced districts and states the financial means make their education systems more equitable. …