0 Daily Drivel

It's hard to believe that the Wall Street Journal fancies itself a national newspaper while publishing this largely baseless, political clap-trap on its editorial page:

But national standards are no substitute for school choice and accountability, which are proving to be the most effective drivers of academic improvement.

First of all, to frame education reform as pitting national standards against choice/accountability is ridiculous on its face. It is a false choice. Plus, the Obama Administration's reform blueprint is so much more broad than that. About the only thing that the WSJ editorial gets right is in saying that national standards "won't magically boost learning" by themselves.

Secondly, the WSJ appears to be falling into the "silver bullet" mentality all too prevalent among simplistic education reformers. "Just run schools like a business!" Or, "[INSERT pet approach] is the answer." Yes, we've been down that road before .... small schools, merit pay, open classrooms. The WSJ apparently wants to contribute choice and accountability to the junkyard of spent shell casings.

Third, where is the research evidence to suggest that school choice and accountability should be in the driver's seat? The editorial offers no evidence. The presence of publicly funded vouchers is no panacea. Just look at Milwaukee's experience (here and here). At the recent meeting of the American Education Finance Association, the U.S. Department of Education's senior adviser Marshall 'Mike' Smith offered evidence that rates of gain in student test scores were lower after No Child Left Behind became law than before. We chided Margaret Spellings last year for touting the successes of NCLB on similar grounds. So much for bare-bones accountability.

Does the Wall Street Journal have any editorial standards? Or any shame?

UPDATE: Read Claus von Zastrow's take on this editorial on Public School Insights: "It doesn't pass the laugh test."

0 When Pigs Fly

It's not often I agree with the Wall Street Journal editorial page, but I guess pigs are flying today. The WSJ's take, in today's editorial ("Race To The Middle?"), on how the Race to the Top selection process should occur is on the mark:

To qualify, Mr. Duncan said states had to, among other things, lift caps on charter schools and remove barriers to using student records to identify good teachers and reward them. He's also said that "there will be a lot more losers than winners."

That's a good sign, but Mr. Duncan will be tempted to give more states less money in order to minimize political blow back and in the name of getting all states to make at least some, minimal progress. This is the Lake Wobegon school of education reform, where every state is above average....

But Race to the Top shouldn't be about rewarding a state for its grant-writing. It should use federal leverage to help remove barriers that stand in the way of state and local problem solvers.

The leading reform states are well known. Florida has superior data systems, thanks to reforms under former Governor Jeb Bush, and is upending collective bargaining provisions that prevent merit pay for teachers. Colorado has excelled at creating quality charter schools, while Massachusetts's academic standards are a national model. If states like these get Race to the Top cash, it will send a signal to the rest that they need to do more than mouth the right sentiments or pass a bill. They need to be break political china.

But as long as Race to the Top exists, Mr. Duncan ought to use it to reward only the very best reform states that want the money, perhaps only two or three in the first round.

Hat tip: This Week in Education

Speaking of Mr. Russo, he has provided an excellent resource for those of you who want to dive deep into the state RttT applications. His post provides a link to 22 (and counting!) of the 40 RttT applications filed on Tuesday.