A Response to “Breaking the Mold”

By and 04/16/2015 0 Comments

Paul Hill and Ashley Jochim respond to a book review by Michael Kirst.

Mike Kirst’s review of our book, A Democratic Constitution for Public Education, is insightful and constructive and raises important questions about how our proposal would work in practice.

He correctly points out that public school principals are not trained for the roles we propose — setting priorities, making hiring decisions and budget tradeoffs (e.g. between salaries and purchase of on-line instruction), making the school attractive to families and teachers, and leading continuous improvement. But, as we argue, principals and potential principals won’t ever have these capacities unless and until the job changes, so that people wanting to take full responsibility seek it, and people wanting to avoid full responsibility avoid it. The same is true with pre-service training: it won’t cover a more ambitious set of skills until the job requires them.

When the school job changes (as it did in England where school heads got hiring and budget authority, and in New York City under Joel Klein’s school autonomy policy) the principal pool changes. Some school leaders use capacities they always had but couldn’t use, others learn what they need, and others quit and are replaced by people attracted to the new, more demanding job. This isn’t instantaneous but natural turnover allows steady replacement of people who don’t want to or can’t adapt. The system we have proposed also relieves principals of a lot of burdens, e.g., the many central office demand to attend meetings and be “trained” (or arrange staff training) in whatever the central office is peddling. How to prepare/retrain/select school leaders requires careful analysis, and happily there are exemplars in the places above.

True, changes in principal capacity will require new forms of training and support. But, these needs are finite, and they will be met only if the job changes.

Mike’s comments on the theory of action for school change under decentralization, and the need for attention to micropolitics, are great. There is an underlying theory of action, that schools whose existence depends on attracting parents and demonstrating performance will be more able to unify the work of staff, and more likely to search for effective methods and adapt to evidence, than schools where adults are free to do as they like and no one’s job is at risk. As we propose, there can be many forms of school organization, including teacher co-operatives and principal-dominated, and they can all work if disciplined by the need to improve results, not just keep peace among adults. We are more skeptical about parent-led governance because of the possibility of factionalization and dominance of short-term issues. But it will surely work in some cases. The work of the Chicago Consortium in Tony Bryk’s day is valuable here.

We already have a rich soup of internal governance models, in portfolio cities like NYC and Denver, and need to learn more about how they do and don’t work. Also big differences among CMOs, some of which are as centralized as traditional districts but others that offer varying mixes of freedom, control, and external help.

Finally, Mike notes that voters will be reluctant to think every single school should create its own curriculum. We agree, but that’s not likely to happen. It is much more likely that schools will attach to networks and take advantage of branding. This can buttress school leadership, make replication of good schools easier, and help schools to attract and inform parents and teachers. Also make it possible for teacher and principal training institutions to meet schools’ needs.

With Mike, we think our book opens up many new questions and suggests ways states, localities, and scholars can try out, learn from, and improve upon our basic conception of constitutional governance — limited powers and checks and balances among schools, local government, states, and the feds.

- Paul T. Hill and Ashley E. Jochim

Paul T. Hill is Founder of the Center on Reinventing Public Education and Research Professor at the University of Washington Bothell. Ashley Jochim is a Research Analyst at the Center on Reinventing Public Education.

Behind the Headline: This Viral Math Problem Shows What American Schools Could Learn From Singapore

By 04/16/2015 0 Comments

“A headache-inducing logic problem from Singapore’s Math Olympiad went viral this week, sparking online debates, a Twitter hashtag, and even a song that mimics the process of elimination that leads to the correct answer,” notes Libby Nelson in Vox.

The Great Achievements of the Every Child Achieves Act

By 04/15/2015 0 Comments

The bipartisan ESEA reauthorization bill crafted by Senators Alexander and Murray represents a very smart compromise on the key issue of accountability

Opt-Out Movement Likely Inconsequential for Teacher Evaluations

In the majority of classrooms, where opt-out appears likely to remain at low levels, the data strongly suggest that students sitting out of standardized testing will have only a trivial impact on the ratings received by their teachers.

Behind the Headline: Fixing Failing Schools

By 04/15/2015 1 Comment

The state of Massachusetts is poised to take over the schools in Holyoke, after taking over the schools in Lawrence four years ago.

Patty Murray and the Return of Wishful Thinking

The bipartisan bill to update the No Child Left Behind Act requires states to pledge that they will get all of their students to college or career readiness, and build those expectations into their accountability systems.

Behind the Headline: Is Education Technology Where Women Are Starting To Buck The Tech World’s Sexist Trends?

By 04/14/2015 0 Comments

“In the geeky boys’ club of tech, education tech may be one of the few slightly more bright spots where female founders and CEOs are showing up—and staying the course—in greater numbers,” writes Tony Wan in Fast Company.


The Every Child Achieves Act of 2015, unveiled a few days back by Senators Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray and scheduled for HELP Committee mark-up on April 14, is a remarkable piece of work.

Alexander-Murray: This Is What Compromise Looks Like, in a Single Table

The language in the Alexander-Murray compromise is much less prescriptive than No Child Left Behind’s “adequate yearly progress” concoction, but it’s fairly prescriptive nonetheless.

Behind the Headline: Study of Black and Latino Boys Excludes Charter Success

By 04/13/2015 0 Comments

When the Boston Public Schools commissioned a study to identify schools that are helping black and Latino boys close the achievement gap, they were unable to find any traditional district schools where black and Latino boys were achieving at levels that matched or exceeded state averages, writes Michael Jonas in Commonwealth magazine.

Posts by Authors

  • Mark Bauerlein
  • John Chubb
  • Martha Derthick
  • A. Graham Down
  • Joshua Dunn
  • Education Next
  • Williamson Evers
  • Chester E. Finn, Jr.
  • Jay P. Greene
  • James Guthrie
  • Eric Hanushek
  • Bryan Hassel
  • Emily Ayscue Hassel
  • Frederick Hess
  • Paul Hill
  • Michael Horn
  • William Howell
  • Marci Kanstoroom
  • Peter Meyer
  • George Mitchell
  • Paul E. Peterson
  • Michael Petrilli
  • Michael Podgursky
  • Andy Smarick
  • Bill Tucker
  • Herbert Walberg
  • Martin West
  • Blogs

  • Organizations

    Sponsored Results
    About the Blog

    The Ed Next blog aims to provide lively commentary on education news and research and to bring evidence to bear on current education policy debates.

    Our bloggers include editors at Education Next magazine and others who have written for the magazine. Education Next is a quarterly journal of opinion and research about education policy published by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and additionally sponsored by the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University and the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

    The opinions expressed by the Ed Next bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of Educationnext.org, Education Next magazine, or its sponsors. Educationnext.org is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by the bloggers.


    The Hoover Institution at Stanford University - Ideas Defining a Free Society

    Harvard Kennedy School Program on Educational Policy and Governance

    Thomas Fordham Institute - Advancing Educational Excellence and Education Reform