Educational Entrepreneurship
At just 26, my wife is a brilliant, talented, and credentialed educator. After completing her degree at Kansas State University, she served as a Teach for America corps member at a middle school in Houston where she taught math. While there, she earned a teaching certification through the state of Texas. Next, she obtained a Master’s degree in journalism from the University of Maryland. This fall, she will teach high school math at a private Christian school in southeast D.C. In her nearly two decades of education, my wife has never earned less than an ‘A’ in any course. Though she was majored in journalism, she took Calculus III in college to keep her skills sharp.
Someday, our family hopes to return to Kansas. Unfortunately, when we arrive, my wife will not be allowed to teach math or journalism in Kansas’ public schools. State regulations require her to receive a Kansas-specific credential, which would require her to take a semester worth of coursework.
There was much to agree with in the essays by Amy Black and Paul Brink and my co-respondent Stephen Monsma. I was heartened to see unanimous recognition of the cultural complications limiting student achievement, and Monsma’s honest assessment that if we wait for government to solve the problems of poverty and parenting, we may be waiting a long time. Black offered a few concrete proposals – such as expanding the availability of before and after-school programs – that have proven effective. I like that Brink is thinking creatively about breaking down barriers to school funding, though eliminating the “public-private” distinction is something advocates of private education – especially religious – would find problematic.
Too little attention has been paid in the discussion thus far to the topic of choice. Black warns against market-based approaches to education, fearing that students with the greatest needs will be left behind. On the other hand, Monsma argues that voucher and voucher-like programs put the locus of power back in the hands of parents.
Vouchers are a good start, but neither vouchers, nor charter schools, fellowships, nor innovative programs like Teach for America are a silver bullet. Research has demonstrated that educational entrepreneurship is the key to improvement. The one-size-fits-all pedagogies deployed by the education establishment for the last few decades are insufficient to meet the challenges and demands of a globalized economy and an increasingly diverse society. Imagine if the landscape of American education featured thousands of localized laboratories of innovation competing to find the best practices for solving the many challenges we face. States and local communities could adopt and adapt programs according to their specific needs. Parents would be able to choose the most appropriate pathway for their child.
This will not happen so long as teachers unions retain monopolistic power over elected officials at every level of government. Unions exist to protect teachers, not to serve students. My wife’s scenario illustrates just one of the many ways union power has crippled education quality in America. The inability of school leaders to hire good teachers and fire bad ones, rigid policies regarding classroom time, and the ballooning costs of salaries, benefits, and pensions are three major problems advocates of student learning must beat unions in order to overcome.
Union power is not the only problem. My colleagues have enumerated many of the other important challenges America faces. In education, as in everything, the freer we are the better we are. Solving the full spectrum of issues facing American education starts with tearing down the powers and principalities hindering educational entrepreneurship.
As an underemployed educator, I think that you also hit on another solution when you noted that your wife will be unable to teach in Kansas without coursework. I've been limited in where I can teach by the fact that I'm only credentialed in Idaho and Utah, and thus only have reciprocity to Alaska, New Mexico, Colorado and Arkansas. I can't teach in any other states besides these (and getting credentials in these states costs money too). A national credential that all states have to recognize would provide for a greater diversity of teachers, and thus effective teaching methods.
As an underemployed educator, I think that you also hit on another solution when you noted that your wife will be unable to teach in Kansas without coursework. I've been limited in where I can teach by the fact that I'm only credentialed in Idaho and Utah, and thus only have reciprocity to Alaska, New Mexico, Colorado and Arkansas. I can't teach in any other states besides these (and getting credentials in these states costs money too). A national credential that all states have to recognize would provide for a greater diversity of teachers, and thus effective teaching methods.
As an underemployed educator, I think that you also hit on another solution when you noted that your wife will be unable to teach in Kansas without coursework. I've been limited in where I can teach by the fact that I'm only credentialed in Idaho and Utah, and thus only have reciprocity to Alaska, New Mexico, Colorado and Arkansas. I can't teach in any other states besides these (and getting credentials in these states costs money too). A national credential that all states have to recognize would provide for a greater diversity of teachers, and thus effective teaching methods.
Eric – thanks for the post. As a TFA alumni, education entrepreneur, and consultant working on innovation and education policy, this conversation is near and dear to my heart.
I want to respond by saying that I think we've managed to mix a few different issues here and in doing so oversimplified the need, or lack thereof, for government intervention. Like any sector, education is an ecosystem with complex, interrelated parts that undoubtedly affect each another. Interestingly, education is an issue where different levels of government intervention are necessary to address certain challenges. At times, deregulation and openness will drive innovation; conversely, a lack of regulation and intervention can also stymie new developments.
There are a couple of issues where leadership by the federal government is necessary. Take the issue of your wife's certification. States have little incentive to open the doors to teachers from other states. Native regulations and expectations ensure that incoming teachers meet the particular needs and goals of that particular state's education system. Take my home state of Texas, for example. As evidenced by the history of decisions made about curriculum by the State Board of Education, the state is very concerned with controlling the "messages" education sends. They have chosen to emphasize certain ideas about the origins of humanity, the reasons for the Civil War, etc. I don't make any claims here about what those ideas should/should not be. However, it is the state's interest to ensure that the educators teaching their students are, to the extent they can control it, "in line" with those messages. Additionally, different states could have different certification standards, making reciprocity unfair for states forced to hire lowly-qualified teachers from other states.
In the above scenarios, federal policies establishing minimum requirements for teacher certification would be helpful. Moreover, the debate and current process surrounding Common Core standards highlight the same advantages of federal leadership. While CCSS were developed by a consortium of state governors, their nationwide implementation appears to require additional support from the Dept. of Education. And having a "common language" about student learning for states to talk is highly advantageous for innovation. If I'm a learning company that produces content for classrooms, I've had to re-create my product in 50 different ways to meet the needs of my "customers." This environment creates inefficiencies that inhibit the ability of entrepreneurs to scale their companies as they become overloaded with the amount of content they need to create. Again, federal leadership would help to drive innovation.
Freedom at the level of schools I find entirely compelling. To your point about freedom and innovation, I think it's true that schools/districts are so tied down by regulation that they cannot make the purchasing decisions to procure the right tools for effective classroom instruction in their context. We've seen that in states with a low view of beaureaucratic red tape, great innovation has taken root. To use my home state of Texas again, there is a reason that arguably the most successful charter schools, KIPP and YES! Prep, were started there – namely, the state has a favorable regulatory environment of innovation.
Quickly – I'd like to say that I appreciate your skepticism of vouchers as a silver bullet. While a free market environment will spur innovation in education, market also inevitably create winners and losers. Education cannot allow "losers" to exist. While we should pursue openness for the sake of improving the product of public education, we must also be careful to ensure that innovation reaches everyone in the market, not just those who can afford the best in education.
In sum, I'd like to say that education is unique in that it requires a mix of openness and regulation to create the environment for innovation to happen. We must examine each opportunity on a case by case basis.
As for unions, well, if you don't do your job, you shouldn't get to keep it. Read into that whatever policies you will.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Take care,
Austin
Eric – thanks for the post. As a TFA alumni, education entrepreneur, and consultant working on innovation and education policy, this conversation is near and dear to my heart.
I want to respond by saying that I think we've managed to mix a few different issues here and in doing so oversimplified the need, or lack thereof, for government intervention. Like any sector, education is an ecosystem with complex, interrelated parts that undoubtedly affect each another. Interestingly, education is an issue where different levels of government intervention are necessary to address certain challenges. At times, deregulation and openness will drive innovation; conversely, a lack of regulation and intervention can also stymie new developments.
There are a couple of issues where leadership by the federal government is necessary. Take the issue of your wife's certification. States have little incentive to open the doors to teachers from other states. Native regulations and expectations ensure that incoming teachers meet the particular needs and goals of that particular state's education system. Take my home state of Texas, for example. As evidenced by the history of decisions made about curriculum by the State Board of Education, the state is very concerned with controlling the "messages" education sends. They have chosen to emphasize certain ideas about the origins of humanity, the reasons for the Civil War, etc. I don't make any claims here about what those ideas should/should not be. However, it is the state's interest to ensure that the educators teaching their students are, to the extent they can control it, "in line" with those messages. Additionally, different states could have different certification standards, making reciprocity unfair for states forced to hire lowly-qualified teachers from other states.
In the above scenarios, federal policies establishing minimum requirements for teacher certification would be helpful. Moreover, the debate and current process surrounding Common Core standards highlight the same advantages of federal leadership. While CCSS were developed by a consortium of state governors, their nationwide implementation appears to require additional support from the Dept. of Education. And having a "common language" about student learning for states to talk is highly advantageous for innovation. If I'm a learning company that produces content for classrooms, I've had to re-create my product in 50 different ways to meet the needs of my "customers." This environment creates inefficiencies that inhibit the ability of entrepreneurs to scale their companies as they become overloaded with the amount of content they need to create. Again, federal leadership would help to drive innovation.
Freedom at the level of schools I find entirely compelling. To your point about freedom and innovation, I think it's true that schools/districts are so tied down by regulation that they cannot make the purchasing decisions to procure the right tools for effective classroom instruction in their context. We've seen that in states with a low view of beaureaucratic red tape, great innovation has taken root. To use my home state of Texas again, there is a reason that arguably the most successful charter schools, KIPP and YES! Prep, were started there – namely, the state has a favorable regulatory environment of innovation.
Quickly – I'd like to say that I appreciate your skepticism of vouchers as a silver bullet. While a free market environment will spur innovation in education, market also inevitably create winners and losers. Education cannot allow "losers" to exist. While we should pursue openness for the sake of improving the product of public education, we must also be careful to ensure that innovation reaches everyone in the market, not just those who can afford the best in education.
In sum, I'd like to say that education is unique in that it requires a mix of openness and regulation to create the environment for innovation to happen. We must examine each opportunity on a case by case basis.
As for unions, well, if you don't do your job, you shouldn't get to keep it. Read into that whatever policies you will.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Take care,
Austin
Eric – thanks for the post. As a TFA alumni, education entrepreneur, and consultant working on innovation and education policy, this conversation is near and dear to my heart.
I want to respond by saying that I think we've managed to mix a few different issues here and in doing so oversimplified the need, or lack thereof, for government intervention. Like any sector, education is an ecosystem with complex, interrelated parts that undoubtedly affect each another. Interestingly, education is an issue where different levels of government intervention are necessary to address certain challenges. At times, deregulation and openness will drive innovation; conversely, a lack of regulation and intervention can also stymie new developments.
There are a couple of issues where leadership by the federal government is necessary. Take the issue of your wife's certification. States have little incentive to open the doors to teachers from other states. Native regulations and expectations ensure that incoming teachers meet the particular needs and goals of that particular state's education system. Take my home state of Texas, for example. As evidenced by the history of decisions made about curriculum by the State Board of Education, the state is very concerned with controlling the "messages" education sends. They have chosen to emphasize certain ideas about the origins of humanity, the reasons for the Civil War, etc. I don't make any claims here about what those ideas should/should not be. However, it is the state's interest to ensure that the educators teaching their students are, to the extent they can control it, "in line" with those messages. Additionally, different states could have different certification standards, making reciprocity unfair for states forced to hire lowly-qualified teachers from other states.
In the above scenarios, federal policies establishing minimum requirements for teacher certification would be helpful. Moreover, the debate and current process surrounding Common Core standards highlight the same advantages of federal leadership. While CCSS were developed by a consortium of state governors, their nationwide implementation appears to require additional support from the Dept. of Education. And having a "common language" about student learning for states to talk is highly advantageous for innovation. If I'm a learning company that produces content for classrooms, I've had to re-create my product in 50 different ways to meet the needs of my "customers." This environment creates inefficiencies that inhibit the ability of entrepreneurs to scale their companies as they become overloaded with the amount of content they need to create. Again, federal leadership would help to drive innovation.
Freedom at the level of schools I find entirely compelling. To your point about freedom and innovation, I think it's true that schools/districts are so tied down by regulation that they cannot make the purchasing decisions to procure the right tools for effective classroom instruction in their context. We've seen that in states with a low view of beaureaucratic red tape, great innovation has taken root. To use my home state of Texas again, there is a reason that arguably the most successful charter schools, KIPP and YES! Prep, were started there – namely, the state has a favorable regulatory environment of innovation.
Quickly – I'd like to say that I appreciate your skepticism of vouchers as a silver bullet. While a free market environment will spur innovation in education, market also inevitably create winners and losers. Education cannot allow "losers" to exist. While we should pursue openness for the sake of improving the product of public education, we must also be careful to ensure that innovation reaches everyone in the market, not just those who can afford the best in education.
In sum, I'd like to say that education is unique in that it requires a mix of openness and regulation to create the environment for innovation to happen. We must examine each opportunity on a case by case basis.
As for unions, well, if you don't do your job, you shouldn't get to keep it. Read into that whatever policies you will.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Take care,
Austin