Editing Education reform (section)

==Contemporary issues (United States)==

{{see also|Standards-based education reform in the United States}}
{{Education in USA}}

===Overview===
In the first decade of the 21st century, several issues are salient in debates over further education reform:<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.uschamber.com/NR/rdonlyres/eguedi4ugpgi5lshzvgvskrgiqw6xeaiiqj5fmtimjwy2xmnknavlu5mngsviu4uhgo3xjb7nmluvqqz54bit7yg5ve/070227jointplatform.pdf |title=A Joint Platform for Education Reform |work=The Center for American Progress |publisher=[[United States Chamber of Commerce]] |archive-date=4 November 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081104082039/http://www.uschamber.com/NR/rdonlyres/eguedi4ugpgi5lshzvgvskrgiqw6xeaiiqj5fmtimjwy2xmnknavlu5mngsviu4uhgo3xjb7nmluvqqz54bit7yg5ve/070227jointplatform.pdf|access-date=2012-09-07}}</ref>

* Longer school day or [[Year-round school|school year]]
* [[After-school activity|After-school]] tutoring
* [[Charter school]]s, [[school choice]], or [[school voucher]]s
* Smaller [[class size]]s<ref>[https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113176988 Professor: Smaller Class Sizes Optimal For Kids]. All Things Considered, National Public Radio. 24 September 2009.</ref>
* Improved teacher quality
** Improved training
** Higher credential standards
** Generally higher pay to attract more qualified applicants
** Performance bonuses ("[[merit pay]]")
** Firing low-performing teachers
* [[Internet]] and computer access in schools
* Track and reduce [[Dropping out|drop-out rate]]
* Track and reduce [[absenteeism]]
* [[English-only education|English-only]] vs. [[bilingual education]]
* [[Mainstreaming (education)|Mainstreaming]] or [[Inclusion (education)|fully including]] students with [[special educational needs]], rather than placing them in separate [[special school]]s
* Content of [[curriculum standard]]s and [[textbook]]s
** What to teach, at what age, and to which students. Discussion points include the age at which children should learn to read, and the primary mathematical subject that is taught to adolescents – algebra, or statistics or personal finances.
* Funding, neglected infrastructure, and adequacy of educational supplies
* [[Student rights]]
*Education inequalities facing students of color

=== Private interest in American charter schools ===
Charter schools public independent institutions in which both the cost and risk are fully funded by the taxpayers. Some charter schools are nonprofit in name only and are structured in ways that individuals and private enterprises connected to them can make money. Other charter schools are for-profit. In many cases, the public is largely unaware of this rapidly changing educational landscape, the debate between public and private/market approaches, and the decisions that are being made that affect their children and communities.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Dingerson |first1=Leigh |display-authors=et al. |title=Keeping the Promise? The Debate Over Charter Schools |date=2008 |publisher=Rethinking Schools |location=Madison, WI}}</ref> Critics have accused for-profit entities, ([[education management organization]]s, EMOs) and private foundations such as the [[Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation]], the [[Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation]], and the [[Walton Family Foundation]] of funding Charter school initiatives to undermine public education and turn education into a "Business Model" which can make a profit.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Schneider |first1=Jack |last2=Berkshire |first2=Jennifer |title=A Wolf at the Schoolhouse Door: The Dismantling of Public Education and the Future of School |date=2020 |publisher=The New Press |location=New York}}</ref> In some cases a school's charter is held by a non-profit that chooses to contract all of the school's operations to a third party, often a for-profit, [[Charter management organization|CMO]]. This arrangement is defined as a ''vendor-operated school'', (''VOS'').<ref>{{cite web |url=http://credo.stanford.edu/pdfs/CMO%20FINAL.pdf |title=Archived copy |website=credo.stanford.edu |access-date=11 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180117200122/http://credo.stanford.edu/pdfs/CMO%20FINAL.pdf |archive-date=17 January 2018 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

===School choice===
Economists, such as the late Nobel laureate [[Milton Friedman]], advocate for [[school choice]] to promote excellence in education through competition and choice.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010692249/OVIC?u=txshracd2560&xid=9264c583|title=School Vouchers Are a Good Way to Promote School Choice|last=Given|first=Casey|date=27 January 2014|access-date=10 December 2017}}</ref> Proponents claim that a competitive market for schooling provides a workable method of accountability for results. Public [[School voucher|education vouchers]] permit guardians to select and pay any school, public or private, with public funds that were formerly allocated directly to local public schools. The theory is that children's guardians will naturally shop for the best schools for their children, much as is already done at college level.

Many reforms based on school choice have led to slight to moderate improvements.  Some teachers' union members see those improvements as insufficient to offset the decreased teacher pay and job security.<ref>Whelan, Lessons Learned: How good policies produce better schools (2009)</ref> For instance, [[New Zealand]]'s landmark reform in 1989, during which schools were granted substantial autonomy, funding was devolved to schools, and parents were given a free choice of which school their children would attend, led to moderate improvements in most schools.  It was argued that the associated increases in inequity and greater racial stratification in schools nullified the educational gains. Others, however, argued that the original system created more inequity, due to lower income students being required to attend poorer performing inner city schools and not being allowed school choice or better educations that are available to higher income inhabitants of suburbs. Thus, it was argued that school choice promoted social mobility and increased test scores, especially in the cases of low income students. Similar results have been found in other jurisdictions. The small improvements produced by some school choice policies seem to reflect weaknesses in the ways that choice is implemented, rather than a failure of the basic principle itself.<ref>Whelan, Lessons Learned: How good policies produce better schools (2009). Fiske, Ladd, When Schools Compete (2000)</ref>

===Teacher tenure===
Critics of teacher tenure claim that the laws protect ineffective teachers from being fired, which can be detrimental to student success. Tenure laws vary from state to state, but generally they set a probationary period during which the teacher proves themselves worthy of the lifelong position. Probationary periods range from one to three years.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/mbquestRTL?rep=TT01|title=Teacher Tenure - Requirements for earning nonprobationary status|website=ecs.force.com|access-date=2017-11-30}}</ref> Advocates for tenure reform often consider these periods too short to make such an important decision; especially when that decision is exceptionally hard to revoke.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Coleman|first1=Julianne|last2=Schroth|first2=Stephen T.|last3=Molinaro|first3=Lisa|last4=Green|first4=Mark|date=2005-09-01|title=Tenure: An Important Due Process Right or a Hindrance to Change in the Schools? |journal=Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education|language=en|volume=18|issue=3|pages=219|doi=10.1007/s11092-006-9020-5|s2cid=145182500|issn=0920-525X}}</ref> Due process restriction protect tenured teachers from being wrongfully fired; however these restrictions can also prevent administrators from removing ineffective or inappropriate teachers.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2010/03/pdf/teacher_dismissal.pdf|title=Removing Chronically Ineffective Teachers|last=Chait|first=Robin|date=2010-03-07|access-date=2017-11-29}}</ref> A 2008 survey conducted by the US Department of Education found that, on average, only 2.1% of teachers are dismissed each year for poor performance.<ref name=":1" />

In October 2010 [[Apple Inc.]] CEO [[Steve Jobs]] had a consequential meeting with U.S. President [[Barack Obama]] to discuss U.S. competitiveness and the nation's [[Education in the United States|education system]]. During the meeting Jobs recommended pursuing policies that would make it easier for school principals to hire and fire teachers based on merit.<ref>{{Citation | last = Isaacson | first = Walter | author-link = Walter Isaacson | title = Steve Jobs | publisher = [[Simon & Schuster]] | year = 2011 | pages = 544–45 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=6e4cDvhrKhgC | isbn = 9781451648539}}</ref>

In 2012 tenure for school teachers was challenged in a California lawsuit called ''[[Vergara v. California]]''. The primary issue in the case was the impact of tenure on student outcomes and on equity in education.  On June 10, 2014, the trial judge ruled that California's teacher tenure statute produced disparities that "[[Shocks the conscience|shock the conscience]]"<ref>{{cite court |litigants = Vergara v. California - Judgment |pinpoint = page 7, line 21 | court = Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles |date = August 27, 2014 |url= http://studentsmatter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/SM_Final-Judgment_08.28.14.pdf}}</ref> and violate the equal protection clause of the [[Constitution of California|California Constitution]].<ref>{{cite court |litigants = Vergara (2014) - Judgment |pinpoint = page 3, lines 19-27 |url= http://studentsmatter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/SM_Final-Judgment_08.28.14.pdf}}</ref>

===Funding levels===
According to a 2005 report from the [[OECD]], the United States is tied for first place with [[Switzerland]] when it comes to annual spending per student on its public schools, with each of those two countries spending more than $11,000 (in U.S.&nbsp;currency).<ref>[http://www.oecd.org/general/oecdcallsforbroaderaccesstopost-schooleducationandtraining.htm OECD calls for broader access to post-school education and training], OECD, September 13, 2005</ref>
Despite this high level of funding, U.S.&nbsp;public schools lag behind the schools of other rich countries in the areas of reading, math, and science.<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/snapshot/sf011210.htm| title = Who's No.&nbsp;1? Finland, Japan, and Korea, Says OECD}}</ref> A further analysis of developed countries shows no correlation between per student spending and student performance, suggesting that there are other factors influencing education. Top performers include [[Singapore]], [[Finland]] and [[Korea]], all with relatively low spending on education, while high spenders including [[Norway]] and [[Luxembourg]] have relatively low performance.<ref>OECD, PISA 2006. Whelan, Lessons Learned: How Good Policies Produce Better Schools, 2009. See also [[Eric Hanushek]] and Ludger Woessmann, "The economics of international differences in educational achievement," in Eric A. Hanushek, Stephen Machin, and Ludger Woessmann (eds.), ''Handbook of the Economics of Education,'' Vol.&nbsp;3 (Amsterdam: North Holland, 2011): 89-200.</ref> One possible factor is the distribution of the funding.

In the US, schools in wealthy areas tend to be over-funded while schools in poorer areas tend to be underfunded.<ref>{{cite web|date=November 30, 2011|title=More Than 40% of Low-Income Schools Don't Get a Fair Share of State and Local Funds, Department of Education Research Finds|url=http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/more-40-low-income-schools-dont-get-fair-share-state-and-local-funds-department-|access-date=6 September 2012|publisher=Ed.gov}}</ref> These differences in spending between schools or districts may accentuate inequalities, if they result in the best teachers moving to teach in the most wealthy areas.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n26_v33/ai_19389741 |title = National Catholic Reporter, May 2, 1997, by John Allen |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120711201306/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n26_v33/ai_19389741 |archive-date=11 July 2012 |url-status=dead}}</ref>  The inequality between districts and schools led to 23 states instituting school finance reform based on adequacy standards that aim to increase funding to low-income districts. A 2018 study found that between 1990 and 2012, these finance reforms led to an increase in funding and test scores in the low income districts; which suggests finance reform is effective at bridging inter-district performance inequalities.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Lafortune|first1=Julien|last2=Rothstein|first2=Jesse|last3=Schanzenbach|first3=Diane Whitmore|year=2018|title=School Finance Reform and the Distribution of Student Achievement|url=http://www.nber.org/papers/w22011.pdf|journal=American Economic Journal: Applied Economics|volume=10|issue=2|pages=1–26|doi=10.1257/app.20160567|doi-access=free|s2cid=155374343}}</ref> It has also been shown that the socioeconomic situation of the students family has the most influence in determining success; suggesting that even if increased funds in a low income area increase performance, they may still perform worse than their peers from wealthier districts.

Starting in the early 1980s, a series of analyses by [[Eric Hanushek]] indicated that the amount spent on schools bore little relationship to student learning.<ref>See [[Eric Hanushek]], "Throwing money at schools", ''Journal of Policy Analysis and Management'' 1, no.&nbsp;1 (Fall 1981): 19-41; [[Eric Hanushek]], "The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools," ''Journal of Economic Literature'' 24, no. 3 (September 1986): 1141–1177; Eric Hanushek, "The failure of input-based schooling policies", ''Economic Journal'' 113, no. 485 (February): F64-F98.</ref> This controversial argument, which focused attention on how money was spent instead of how much was spent, led to lengthy scholarly exchanges.<ref>For example, see Gary Burtless (ed.), ''Does money matter? The effect of school resources on student achievement and adult success'' (Washington, DC: Brookings, 1996) or [[Alan B. Krueger]], "Reassessing the view that American schools are broken." ''FRBNY Economic Policy Review'', 1998</ref> In part the arguments fed into the [[class size]] debates and other discussions of "input policies."<ref>[[Alan B. Krueger]], "Experimental estimates of education production functions," ''Quarterly Journal of Economics'' 114, no. 2 (May 1999): 497–532; [[Eric Hanushek]] "The evidence on class size", in Susan E. Mayer and Paul E. Peterson(eds.), ''Earning and learning: How schools matter'' (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1999): 131–168; Lawrence Mishel and Richard Rothstein (eds.), ''The class size debate'' (Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute, 2002).</ref> It also moved reform efforts towards issues of school accountability (including [[No Child Left Behind]]) and the use of [[merit pay]] and other incentives.

There have been studies that show smaller class sizes<ref>{{Cite news|date=July 1, 2011|title=Class Size|url=http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/class-size/|access-date=2013-07-10|work=Education Week}}</ref> and newer buildings<ref>{{Cite web|author=Elizabeth Jago and Ken Tanner|date=April 1999|title=Influence of the School Facility on Student Achievement|url=http://sdpl.coe.uga.edu/researchabstracts/age.html|access-date=2013-07-10|work=University of Georgia}}</ref> (both of which require higher funding to implement) lead to academic improvements. It should also be noted that many of the reform ideas that stray from the traditional format require greater funding.

According to a 1999 article, [[William J. Bennett]], former [[U.S.&nbsp;Secretary of Education]], argued that increased levels of spending on public education have not made the schools better, citing the following statistics:<ref>[http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/1999/10/01/20-troubling-facts-about-american-education 20 Troubling Facts about American Education] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120927214742/http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/1999/10/01/20-troubling-facts-about-american-education |date=2012-09-27 }}, William J. Bennett, October 1999</ref>