Editor’s Introduction to Volume 14: The End of Ed. Reform?

My colleague Jay Greene points out that in both 2016 and 2020, presidential candidates by and large avoided k-12 school reform. While Democrats call for more money – which is, after all, what Democrats are supposed to do – neither party seems to have much stomach for school reform the way presidential candidates in the 1988–2012 period did. Political entrepreneurs in those times gave us federal charter school grants, school vouchers in the nation’s capital, Goals 2000, NCLB, Race to the Top and Common Core, and like state and local reform efforts.

Recently departed presidential candidate Corey Booker once staked his reputation on remaking his city’s schools, but said relatively little about education while running for president, only in part to avoid bringing up his past association with Betsy DeVos. Reasonable observers disagree about Booker’s education success in Newark, with Barnard (2019) citing solid achievement in the growing charter sector while Morel (2018) sees stagnation in district schools, disrespect for district educators, and stymied demands for local empowerment and employment.

Social science tells us that reform is not easy; yet I believe we should rage against the factory machine. Inherently, any large network of interlocking institutions experiences goal displacement, prioritizing organizational interests over societal interests. Such vested interests can use their reputations and insider knowledge to resist outside reform, as shown by Terry Moe (2019) in his work on New Orleans school reform. As Maranto and Mike McShane (2012) point out, for a century the U.S. tried more money, smaller class size, and a proliferation of bureaucratized and specialized education professions, essentially all the changes endorsed by the educational industrial complex. Yet it is unclear whether this professionalized division of labor helped children over the long run.

In the real world, like other professions, education professions tussle over turf (Levenson, 2012). They also compartmentalize, defining children by their diagnosable parts rather than as unique, whole individuals. Our factory model of schooling weakens relationships with teachers, who emotionally offload challenging students to the relevant special education (SPED), English Language Learner, or counseling professionals (Valle, 2009). As a parent and school board member, I have seen this. Such offloading may explain findings that special education parents transferring from traditional public schools to charter schools, which often have no formal SPED programs, report somewhat better SPED service (O’Brien, Hupfeld, & Teske, 2010). Similarly, Wolf, Witte, and Fleming (2012) find that special education parents who switched from traditional public schools to private schools reported the same levels of service. Other research questions the long-term effectiveness of SPED programs (Kanaya, Wai, & Miranda, 2019). Scholars of convention refuse to acknowledge these findings. As a SPED parent, cofounder of a SPED parents group, and friend of SPED teachers, it brings me no joy to report them. We need SPED services, but need to do them differently, perhaps in part by incorporating SPED training into teacher training generally, making our teachers broader rather than more specialized. The reinventing government movement of the 1990s offers examples of such human capital approaches.

Relatedly, in these pages, Checker Finn (2017) argued that after three decades of presidents attempting federal nudges (and more) toward standards and choice, it might be time to deemphasize education policy, at least on the federal level. To paraphrase Daniel Patrick Moynihan, perhaps k-12 education needs a period of benign neglect.

I have a more nuanced view, related to human capital. As a scholar and a school board member – perhaps a former member after this spring’s election – it strikes me that many of our federal and state efforts at reform are simply beyond the ability of existing staff within existing hierarchical factory systems which evolved in the early 20^th century to conduct routine activities, the education factory model (Mehta, 2013). The current big national reform, individualized instruction, may offer a case in point. This reform is funded in part by the Gates Foundation, though quietly so, contrasting its flashy prior initiatives. Individualized instruction is something Montessori schools have succeeded at for more than a century. Yet successful Montessori programs have an individualized infrastructure traditional public schools lack, since our public schools evolved in the early 20^th century to implement rather than subvert factory models of organization. Montessori infrastructure includes small schools and multi-graded classrooms (having the same teacher multiple years) to facilitate relationships, academically broad teachers who can challenge students at varying levels and who believe in individualized instruction, and parents who support individualization rather than traditional compliance. Administratively, Montessori schools control teachers through values rather than regulations. Teachers have responsibility and autonomy, with few educational administrators and specialists. These aspects define an interlocking Montessori system of organization and thought (Maranto, 2015). Without implementing these sorts of institutional changes first, including improvements in teacher human capital, largescale individualized instruction in traditional public schools seems likely to fail as it did in the past, whatever Gates’ best efforts.

Meanwhile, back at the journal

The Journal of School Choice is not failing. Our impact factor has doubled in the past three years to .65, with an H-index of 12. This is not where we want to be, but does mark steady improvement, thanks to my colleagues, my students, and a fine editorial board. About 14% of our recent articles are international collaborations, a statistic we hope to increase.

In 2019, a prior special issue edited by Patrick Wolf (2019) was republished by Routledge as School Choice: Separating fact from fiction. Just weeks ago, in 2020, another special issue was republished as a Routledge book, Educating Believers: Religion and school choice, coedited by Maranto (me) and Dany Shakeel (2020). Please do order these for your institution library. Currently, we are seeking manuscripts for a special issue on populism and school choice – see the invitation in the following pages.

Finally, I should note that book review editor Eric Wearne has moved across town to join Ben Scafidi’s outstanding team at Kennesaw State University. Please contact Eric ([email protected]) with your ideas for book reviews. That might include your latest book.

With that, enjoy this first issue of Volume 14.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.