Are the four million women and men in the K–12 classrooms of the United States professional educators or working teachers?
That question hovered over conversations at the provocative education summit held last week at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Its task force, the Education Futures Council, has just released a report calling for a restructuring of the educational system that places schools, not districts, states or the federal government, at its apex. “[O]nly teachers and principals have . . . the local knowledge of their students . . . and the ability to shape the classroom experience to create learning. . . . Most teachers and principals today are highly committed to their roles.” If they are given the necessary resources and recognition, it will enhance “the occupations’ professional status” and produce “outcomes our students and our nation desire.”
The report resembles the original proposal to create charter schools issued in 1988 by little-known education professor Roy Budde. Districts should “grant charters to teachers at individual schools” who “have the autonomy to manage their affairs,” if they live up to commitments. Budde’s suggestion won the blessing of legendary union leader, Al Shanker, on the grounds that it gave schools autonomy from mindless bureaucrats: “One of the things that discourages people from bringing about change in schools is the experience of having that effort stopped for no good reason.”
In the Hoover conference’s opening session, scholar Eric Hanushek highlighted the teacher as the school’s single most important resource. Variation in teacher quality, more than any other school factor, affects what happens to a young person’s future in the job market and their social life. Patrick Kelly, a teacher from South Carolina, gave life to these numbers by sharing ideas previously expressed in the South Carolina Daily Gazette. There he recalls two of his high school teachers who “were artists, not robots. And their ability to exercise their artistic license in their classrooms created rich, engaging, and transformative learning experiences.” Kelly objects to the claim that “all schools can achieve outstanding results if educators simply follow, with fidelity, the precise steps necessary to implement the latest . . . ‘research-based’ curriculum” and notes, “The only thing my best teachers followed with ‘fidelity’ was their commitment to meeting their student where they were to help them get to where they wanted to go.” Judging from his convincing presence on the stage, it’s likely Kelly himself is a stimulating professional in the classroom.
But the conversation turned testy when Houston’s superintendent, Mike Miles, lifted his eyebrows. The Texas Department of Education declared Houston a failed school system and replaced the district’s elected school board with a state-appointed board of managers, who appointed Miles, known for his successes in nearby Dallas. Texas plans to retain control until every Houston school reaches state expectations in math and reading.
At the conference, and in my post-conference podcast with the superintendent, Miles expressed doubt about handing control over to teachers and principals. That had been the previous practice in Houston, where each school was operating more or less on its own. Some schools succeeded, but the majority were failing to meet state standards.
As a remedy, Miles instituted the “New Education System (NES)” for failing schools. The central office tells teachers and principals at each grade level what is to be taught in reading and math and what pedagogical techniques are to be faithfully followed. After visiting Houston schools, Robert Pondiscio wrote in Education Next (see “The Last Hurrah,” features, Fall 2024) that “the pace of instruction is tightly managed. The first 45 minutes of an NES lesson is teacher-led direct instruction, followed by a 10-minute mini-assessment, or ‘demonstration of learning’.” A number of teachers complained they are being asked to stop instruction every four minutes for discussions of the material among small groups of students. Miles does not deny the practice, but he says this is just one of multiple approaches designed to stir student engagement.
