Governance of Steel and Kryptonite Politics in Contemporary Public Education Reform
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2016 Governance of Steel and Kryptonite Politics in Contemporary Public Education Reform James S. Liebman Columbia Law School, [email protected] Christina C. Ma [email protected] Elizabeth R. Cruikshank Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Education Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, and the Law and Society Commons Recommended Citation James S. Liebman, Christina C. Ma & Elizabeth R. Cruikshank, Governance of Steel and Kryptonite Politics in Contemporary Public Education Reform, (2016). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/1950 This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Governance of Steel and Kryptonite Politics in Contemporary Public Education Reform James S. Liebman, Elizabeth R. Cruikshank, Christina C. Ma* © ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Abstract Public education in the United States has been crippled by a combination of entrenched bureaucratic governance and special-interest politics. To remedy these failings, school districts, states, and the federal Education Department have adopted education reforms characterized by rigorous outcome-focused standards and assessments and the empowering of public schools, charter or otherwise, to meet the standards. Despite promising initial results, however, the reforms have been widely criticized, including by the populations they most seek to help. To explain this paradox, this Article first tries to assimilate the new education reforms to the most frequently proposed alternatives to bureaucratic governance—marketization, managerialism, professionalism and craft. It concludes, however, that none of these models adequately elucidates the reforms or provides an attractive alternative to special-interest politics, a crucial concomitant of bureaucracy. The Article claims that another governance model, democratic experimentalism, better explains the recent reforms and provides a richly participatory alternative to special-interest politics, which directly engages stakeholders—families and teachers, in this case—into its collaborative governance mechanisms. The Article finds, however, that the new education reforms have largely omitted the “democratic” part of experimentalism, resulting in the backlash by special interest groups and the constituents the reforms help the most, parents and students. The Article concludes by proposing a more fully democratic version of the reforms designed to improve student outcomes, powerfully engage key stakeholders, and diminish objections. ________________________ * James S. Liebman, Simon H. Rifkind Professor, Columbia Law School; Elizabeth R. Cruikshank, J.D., Columbia Law School, 2015; Christina C. Ma, J.D., Columbia Law School 2012, Associate, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. We are grateful to a number of Columbia Law students who contributed substantially to the writing of this Essay: Anoushka Asgari, Brian Campbell, Caleb Deats, Levi Downing, Peter Fountain, Mark Goldberg, Simon Greenberg, Remy Grosbard, Daniel Hamburg, Kelsey Hogan, Ryan Johansen, Tara Raam, Gautam Rao, Jason Schnier, Prateek Vasireddy, and Jamie Wolfe. 1 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2739734 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION I. K-12 Bureaucracy and its Discontents A. Governance B. Politics C. The “Education Reform” Response to Bureaucracy 1. Education reform in general 2. Education reform examples a. Moderate steps: Houston, Boston, Charlotte-Mecklenberg, and Denver b. All-out reform: Chicago, Washington, D.C. and New York City c. Collaborative reform in Baltimore d. U.S. federal policy 3. Two puzzles II. The Inability of Prominent Alternatives to Bureaucracy to Explain or Sustain the K- 12 Reforms A. Marketization B. Managerialism C. Professionalism/Craft D. Defects Common to the Contending Alternatives III. Democratic Experimentalism as an Antidote to Bureaucracy and Special-Interest Politics A. Promise, in Theory 1. Governance 2. Politics B. Concerns, in Theory C. Promise, in Practice 1. Toyota 2. Drug courts 3. Child welfare services 4. Chicago community policing 5. Land use, forestry, and ecosystem-wide water pollution control 6. Infant and maternal health 7. Finland special education D. Concerns, in Practice: Lessons from DE Implementation IV. Democratic Experimentalism in—and Not in—Action in Public Education Today 2 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2739734 A. Experimentalist Governance and the Promise of the New Education Reforms B. The Absence of Experimentalist Politics and Risk of the Reforms’ Demise 1. A new vision of public education politics 2. The sobering reality of public education politics 3. Isolated stirrings of experimentalist school politics a. Revamping and creating schools b. New York City school surveys c. Bridgeport parent working teams V. A Fully Democratic, Experimentalist Regime for Public Education A. The Difficulty of Implementing Democratic Experimentalism in Public Education B. Steps Center and Schools Can Take to Create a New Politics 1. Creating authentic stakeholder-engagement structures 2. Building parent capacity 3. Integrating stakeholders into the new governance: a menu of options CONCLUSION 3 INTRODUCTION Since the turn of the century, a public education “reform” movement has taken shape in states such as Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, and Tennessee,1 and in some of the nation’s largest schools districts, including Camden, Charlotte, Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, Hartford, Houston, Long Beach, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Newark, New Haven, New York City, Oakland, Sacramento, and Washington, D.C.2 Steps taken—emphasizing student 1 See, e.g., THE BROAD PRIZE, UNCOMMON SCHOOLS (Spring 2014), available at www.broadeducation.org/asset/1852-uncommonschoolswhitepaper.pdf (illustrating “successful college preparatory practices of . 38 public charter schools in New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts” serving low-income students); Patrick McGuinn, The State of Teacher Evaluation Reform, CTR. FOR AM. PROGRESS 11-35, Nov. 13, 2012, available at www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2012/11/13/44494/the- state-of-teacher-evaluation-reform/ (evaluating and describing teacher evaluation reforms in Colorado, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee); Stimulating Innovation with a 'Race to the Top', NPR STATEIMPACT FLORIDA, available at https://stateimpact.npr.org/florida/tag/race-to-the-top/ (detailing Florida’s plan to use Race to the Top funds on a new evaluation system for teachers and principals, programs using data to improve instruction and performance, and Common Core implementation); U.S. DEPT. OF EDUC., LOUISIANA STATE-REPORTED APR: SY 2012-2013, COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO EDUCATION REFORM, https://www.rtt-apr.us/state/louisiana/2012-2013/caer (last visited Apr. 1, 2014) (cataloguing Louisiana’s Race to the Top initiatives, including “network teams,” “data systems to support instruction,” and “fresh start and turnaround charter schools”); TENN. DEPT. OF EDUC., FIRST TO THE TOP, June 3, 2014, http://www.tn.gov/education/about/fttt.shtml (describing the reform strategy that earned Tennessee the first Race to the Top grant including “large scale training,” “actionable data in the hands of educators,” and a “statewide educator evaluation system”). 2 See, e.g., Emma Brown, Chancellor Kaya Henderson Names 15 D.C. Schools on Closure List, WASH. POST, Jan. 17, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/chancellor-kaya-henderson-names-15-dc- schools-on-closure-list/2013/01/17/e04202fa-6023-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_story.html (detailing a “fundamental remaking” of public education in Washington, D.C., with the city “at the leading edge of a national movement toward charters”); Kristen L. Buras, New Orleans Education Reform: A Guide for Cities or a Warning for Communities?, 4 BERKELEY REV. OF EDUC. 123, 128-30 (2013) (describing mass transition of traditional public schools to charger schools in New Orleans); The Road to Reform, CHARLOTTE- MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS (Oct. 2010), available at www.cms.k12.nc.us/mediaroom/Documents/The%20Road%20to%20Reform.PDF; Christine Campbell & Betheny Gross, Improving Student Opportunities and Outcomes in Hartford Public Schools, CTR. ON REINVENTING PUB. EDUC. 3 (June 2013), available at http://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/Pub_EvidenceProject_Hartford_jul13.pdf.pdf (analyzing Hartford’s strategy of “portfolio management,” including “closing and redesigning chronically low-performing schools, opening new schools, and using data to guide these decisions”); Editorial, School Reform in Newark, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 15, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/opinion/school-reform-in-newark-with-a-new- teachers-contract.html?_r=0 (describing reforms in Newark, New Jersey, including a “a rigorous [teacher] evaluation process that takes student achievement into account,” performance-based bonuses, and training to support “developing or struggling teachers”); PAUL T. HILL ET AL., STRIFE AND PROGRESS: PORTFOLIO STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING URBAN SCHOOLS 11-15 (2012) (detailing school districts utilizing portfolio strategies to manage their schools, including enhanced school autonomy and accountability,