The following editorial appeared recently in the Boston Globe:
At this time last year, the Legislature handed Gov. Deval Patrick powerful tools to convince federal funders that the state could lead the way in education reform. A few months later, Massachusetts emerged from a competitive field with a $250 million Race to the Top education grant. That, it turns out, was the easy part. Now the Patrick administration must use the new law and funds to close the achievement gap between low-income and middle-class students, redeem underachieving schools, and expand school choice in Massachusetts.
That's an ambitious agenda. But it's only part of what state education officials are promoting. State education Secretary Paul Reville wants community colleges to match their programs to the needs of local employers, a goal that has yielded much more talk than action in recent years. There's a big push on to ensure that all third graders are reading at grade level — a major predictor of future academic success. New teacher evaluation methods, including the use of student MCAS scores, are on tap. Meanwhile, state education officials need to get busy on aligning the state's curriculum in math and English with the national "common core" standards.
The state must pick its priorities carefully. The new Race to the Top funds won't make up for the phase-out of federal stimulus funds. Cities and towns will be fortunate just to maintain current levels of state aid for education. In 2011, doing more with less will be the state mantra in education.
One bright spot should be school choice. Dozens of applications from proven charter school operators flowed in after lawmakers doubled charter school capacity in the state's worst-performing school districts. Come fall, hundreds more urban students should be attending these nimble schools that feature longer school days and little or no interference from teachers unions or downtown bureaucrats. That's sure to be a win for families and the administration.
Less clear is whether districts will embrace so-called "innovation schools," a kind of in-district-charter school that offers similar flexibility without stripping money from local school districts. Only two innovation schools have formed since last year's legislative authorization. If school districts and teachers' unions reject this "put-up-or-shut-up exercise," as Reville calls it, they will have only themselves to blame if lawmakers raise the charter cap again.
Also unclear is how many, if any, schools will be placed on the underperforming list. So far, state officials have designated 35 "turn-around schools" — mostly in cities — where superintendents receive greater leeway to reallocate funds within the school budget, expand the school day, and even require teachers to reapply for their jobs. Some administration officials may be satisfied to spend the next year tracking improvement at these schools. But the Legislature, which authorized this aggressive approach to underperforming schools, will be looking for an equally aggressive approach from the Patrick administration. A failure to hold underperforming schools accountable or identify additional ones in the year ahead will be a sign that the Patrick administration has been talking a better game than it plays on education.