Prepared Remarks by U.S. Education Secretary Betsy
DeVos to the American Enterprise Institute
Following
are the prepared remarks by U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos to the American
Enterprise Institute conference, "Bush-Obama School Reform: Lessons Learned," today in Washington.
Thank
you, Rick, for that kind introduction. Who would’ve thought that after we were
last together on a panel in Grand Rapids a couple of years ago, I’d be here in
this capacity today?
It’s
an honor to be with all of you at an organization I have long appreciated. AEI
is now in its 80th year and in that near century, the Institute’s
scholars have influenced and shaped the way Americans think about so many
issues in the public square. AEI has been – and will continue to be – a treasured
constant in this town of transition. And it should be noted that’s due in no
small part to the leadership of Arthur Brooks, who brings a unique and
compelling perspective. I’m grateful to call him a friend.
I’d
like to especially thank Rick and Michael for putting this volume together and for
hosting today’s important discussions. Both of you have contributed significantly
to the policy debates in American education, and, importantly, you’ve put your distinct
perspectives and experience to work with the goal of improving education for
all. You both left the classroom out of frustration, and there are still far too
many teachers who share that experience today.
My
work over thirty years has revolved around time spent on the outside, looking
in. Outside Washington. Outside the LBJ building. Outside “the system.” Some
have questioned the presence of an outsider in the Department of Education, but,
as it’s been said before, maybe what students need is someone who doesn’t yet
know all the things you “can’t do.”
To
a casual observer, a classroom today looks scarcely different than what one looked
like when I entered the public policy debate thirty years ago. Worse, most
classrooms today look remarkably similar to those of 1938 when AEI was founded.
Take a look at this! These two operating rooms look starkly different, as does
this general store and this website. But these two classrooms look almost
identical.
The
vast majority of learning environments have remained the same since the
industrial revolution, because they were made in its image. Think of your own
experience: sit down; don’t talk; eyes front. Wait for the bell. Walk to the
next class. Repeat. Students were trained for the assembly line then, and they
still are today.
Our
societies and economies have moved beyond the industrial era. But the data tell
us education hasn’t.
The
most recent Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA, report, with
which you are all familiar, has the U.S. ranked 23rd in reading, 25th
in science and 40th in math. And, you know this too: it’s not for a lack of funding. The fact is the
United States spends more per pupil than most other developed countries, many
of which perform better than us in the same surveys.
I
know that hard truth touches a nerve for everyone in this room. It does so for
educators who try to help their students realize their potential. For employers
who seek prepared employees. And, most importantly, for parents who only want the
best for their children.
Of
course there have been many attempts to change the status quo. We’ve seen valiant
efforts to improve education from Republicans and Democrats, liberals,
conservatives and everyone in between.
That’s
because everyone is aiming for the same result.
Everyone
wants students to be prepared
and to lead successful lives.
We
can’t say that sort of public harmony exists in other policy
arenas. Not everyone agrees about the outcome or goal of tax policy or energy
policy or immigration policy.
Our
unity of purpose here presents an opportunity.
But
while we’ve changed some aspects of education, the results we all work for and
desire haven’t been achieved.
The
bottom line is simple: federal education reform efforts have not worked as hoped.
That’s
not a point I make lightly or joyfully. Yes, there have been some minor
improvements in a few areas. But we’re far from where we need to be. We need to
be honest with ourselves. The purpose of today’s conversation is to look at the
past with 20/20 hindsight, examine what we have done and where it has – or hasn’t – led us.
First,
let me be clear that I’m not here to impugn anyone’s motives. Every one of us wants
better for students. We want better for our own children. We want better for
our communities and our country. We won’t solve any problems through
finger-pointing.
I
also don’t intend to criticize the goals
of previous administrations’ education initiatives. In the end, every
administration has tried to
improve education for students and grow the number who are learning valuable
skills.
We
should hope – no, we should commit – that we as a country will not rest until every
single child has equal access to the quality education they deserve. Secretary
Spellings was right to ask “whose child do you
want to leave behind?”
But
the question remains: why, after all the good intentions, the worthwhile goals,
the wealth of expertise mustered, and the billions and billions of dollars
spent, are students still
unprepared?
With
No Child Left Behind, the general consensus among federal policymakers was that
greater accountability would lead to better schools. Highlighting America’s
education woes had become an American pastime, and, they thought, surely if schools were forced to answer
for their failures, students would ultimately be better off.
President
Bush, the “compassionate conservative,” and Senator Kennedy, the “liberal
lion,” both worked together on the law. It said that schools had to meet
ambitious goals… or else. Lawmakers mandated that 100 percent of students attain
proficiency by 2014. This approach would keep schools accountable and
ultimately graduate more and better-educated students, they believed.
Turns
out, it didn’t. Indeed, as has been detailed today, NCLB did little to spark higher
scores. Universal proficiency, touted at the law’s passage, was not achieved. As states and
districts scrambled to avoid the law’s sanctions and maintain their federal
funding, some resorted to focusing specifically on math and reading at the
expense of other subjects. Others simply inflated scores or lowered standards.
The
trend line remains troubling today. According to the most recent National
Assessment of Educational Progress data, two-thirds of American fourth graders still can’t read at the level
they should. And since 2013, our 8th grade reading scores have declined.
Where
the Bush administration emphasized NCLB’s stick, the Obama administration focused
on carrots. They recognized that states would not be able to legitimately meet
the NCLB’s strict standards. Secretary Duncan testified that 82 percent of the
nation’s schools would likely fail
to meet the law’s requirements -- thus subjecting them to crippling sanctions.
The
Obama administration dangled billions of dollars through the “Race to the Top”
competition, and the grant-making process not so subtly encouraged states to adopt
the Common Core State Standards. With a price tag of nearly four and a half
billion dollars, it was billed as the “largest-ever federal investment in
school reform.” Later, the Department would give states a waiver from NCLB’s
requirements so long as they adopted the Obama administration’s preferred
policies — essentially making law while Congress negotiated the reauthorization
of ESEA.
Unsurprisingly,
nearly every state accepted Common Core standards and applied for hundreds of
millions of dollars in “Race to the Top” funds. But despite this change, the
United States’ PISA performance did not improve in reading and science, and it dropped in math from 2012 to 2015.
Then,
rightly, came the public backlash to federally imposed tests and the Common
Core. I agree – and have always
agreed – with President Trump on this: “Common Core is a disaster.” And at the
U.S. Department of Education, Common Core is dead.
On
a parallel track, the Obama administration’s School Improvement Grants sought
to fix targeted schools by injecting them with cash. The total cost of that effort was seven billion dollars.
One
year ago this week, the Department’s Institute of Education Sciences released a
report on what came of all that spending. It said: “Overall, across all grades,
we found that implementing any SIG-funded model had no significant impacts on
math or reading test scores, high school graduation, or college enrollment.”
There
we have it: billions of dollars directed at low-performing schools had no significant impact on student
achievement.
These
investments were meant to spark
meaningful reforms. Schools were encouraged to significantly alter their
teaching staffs, fire the principal or change the structure and model of the
school. But most glossed over those recommendations. They simply took the federal
money and ran the school the same
old way.
So
where does that leave us? We saw two presidents from different political
parties and philosophies take two different approaches.
Federally
mandated assessments. Federal money. Federal standards. All originated in Washington, and none solved the problem. Too many of America’s students are still unprepared.
Perhaps
the lesson lies not in what made the approaches different, but in what made them the same: the federal government. Both approaches had the same
Washington “experts” telling educators how to behave.
The
lesson is in the false premise: that Washington knows what’s best for educators,
parents and students.
Rick,
you’ve rightly pointed out that the federal government is good at making
states, districts, and schools do
something, but it’s not good
at making them do it well. Getting real results for students hinges on how that “something” is done.
That’s
because when it comes to education – and any other issue in public life – those
closest to the problem are always
better able to solve it. Washington bureaucrats and self-styled education “experts”
are about as far removed from students as you can get.
Yet
under both Republican and Democratic administrations, Washington overextended
itself time and time again.
Educators
don’t need engineering from Washington. Parents don’t need prescriptions from
Washington. Students don’t need standards from Washington.
Throughout
both initiatives, the result was a further damaged classroom dynamic between
teacher and student, as the focus shifted from comprehension to test-passing.
This sadly has taken root, with the American Federation of Teachers recently
finding that 60 percent of its teachers reported having moderate to no influence over the content and
skills taught in their own
classrooms.
Let
that sink in. Most teachers feel
they have little – if any -- say in their own
classrooms.
That
statistic should shock even the most ardent sycophant of “the system.” It’s yet
another reason why we should shift power over classrooms from Washington back
to teachers who know their students well.
Federal
mandates distort what education ought to be: a trusting relationship between teacher,
parent and student.
Ideally,
parent and teacher work together to help a child discover his or her potential
and pursue his or her passions. When we seek to empower teachers, we must empower
parents as well. Parents are too often powerless in deciding what’s best for
their child. The state mandates where to send their child. It mandates what their child learns and how he or she learns it. In the
same way, educators are constrained by state mandates. District mandates.
Building mandates… all kinds of other mandates! Educators don’t need Washington
mandating their teaching on top of everything else.
But
during the years covered in your volume, the focus was the opposite: more federal government intrusion
into relationships between teachers, parents and children.
The
lessons of history should force us to admit that federal action has its limits.
The
federal-first approach did not start with No Child Left Behind. The push for higher
national standards was present in the Clinton administration’s “Goals 2000”
initiative. Before that, we had President George H.W. Bush’s “America 2000,”
also calling for higher national standards. These followed the Reagan
administration’s “Nation at Risk” report, released in 1983. That report gave
dire warnings about the country’s track if education was not reformed. “If an
unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre
educational performance that exists today,” the report warned, “we might well
have viewed it as an act of war.” That came after President Carter’s giant nod
to union bosses: the establishment of the Department of Education, with the
ironic charge to “prohibit federal control of education.”
The
trend is evident. Politicians from both parties just can’t help themselves.
They have talked about painting education in new colors and even broader strokes.
But each time, reform has not fundamentally changed “the system.” Each attempt
has really just been a new coat of paint on the same old wall.
When
we try the same thing over and over again, yet expect different results, that’s
not reform – that’s insanity.
We
will not reach our goal of helping every
child achieve his or her fullest potential until we truly change. Let me offer three ways we can move forward in
that pursuit.
First,
we need to recognize that the federal government’s appropriate role is not to be the nation’s school
board. My role is not to be the national superintendent nor the country’s
“choice chief” – regardless of what the union’s “Chicken Littles” may say! Federal
investments in education, after all, are less than 10 percent of total K-12 expenditures,
but the burdens created by federal regulations in education amount to a much, much larger percentage.
The
Every Student Succeeds Act charted a path in a new direction. ESSA takes
important steps to return power where it belongs by recognizing states – not Washington -- should
shape education policy around their own people. But state lawmakers should also resist the urge to centrally
plan education. “Leave it to the states” may be a compelling campaign-season slogan,
but state capitols aren’t exactly close to every family either. That’s why states should empower teachers and
parents and provide the same
flexibility ESSA allows states.
But
let’s recognize that many states are now struggling with what comes next. State
ESSA plans aren’t the finish line. Those words on paper mean very little if
state and local leaders don’t seize the opportunity to truly transform
education. They must move past a mindset of compliance and embrace individual
empowerment.
Under
ESSA, school leaders, educators and parents have the latitude and freedom to
try new approaches to serve individual students.
My
message to them is simple: do it!
Embrace
the imperative to do something truly bold… to challenge the status quo… to break
the mold.
One
important way to start this process is to make sure that parents get the
information they want and need
about the performance of their
children’s schools and teachers. ESSA encourages states to be transparent about
how money is spent, down to the school-building level.
Some
states have developed information that is truly useful for parents and
teachers. Others have worked just as hard to obfuscate what is really going on at
their schools. To empower parents, policymakers and teachers, we can’t let “the
system” hide behind complexity to escape accountability.
We
must always push for better.
ESSA
is a good step in the right direction. But it’s just that – a step. We still
find ourselves boxed in a “system,” one where we are in a constant battle to
move the ball between the 40-yard lines of a football field. Nobody scores, and
nobody wins. Students are left bored in the bleachers, and many leave, never to
return.
So
why don’t we consider whether we need a new playbook?
That
brings me to point number two. And, to finish the analogy… let’s call a new
play: empowering parents.
Parents
have the greatest stake in the outcome of their child’s education. Accordingly,
they should also have the
power to make sure their child is getting the right education.
As
Deven Carlson points out, there is little constituency in America for the
top-down reforms that have been tried time and again. In order for any reform
to truly work, it must attract and maintain the support of the people.
I
have seen such support for parental empowerment. The more parents exercise it,
the more they like it. This growing support is why states are responding to
that demand one by one. It’s also why sycophants entrenched in and defending
the status quo are terrified. They recoil from relinquishing power and control
to teachers, parents and students.
Well,
I’m not one bit afraid of losing power. Because I trust parents and teachers, and I believe in students.
Equal
access to a quality education should be a right
for every American and every parent should have the
right to choose how their
child is educated. Government exists to protect
those rights, not usurp them.
So
let’s face it: the opponents of parents could repeal every voucher law, close every
charter school, and defund every
choice program across the country.
But
school choice still wouldn’t go away. There would still be school choices… for the affluent and the powerful.
Let’s
empower the forgotten parents
to decide where their children go to school. Let’s show some humility and trust
all parents to know their
kids’ needs better than we do.
Let’s
trust teachers, too. Let’s encourage them to innovate, to create new options
for students. Not just with public charter schools or magnet schools or private
schools, but within the traditional “system” and with new approaches yet to be
explored.
What
we’ve been doing isn’t serving all
kids well. Let’s unleash teachers to help solve the problem.
You
know, I’ve never heard it claimed that giving parents more options is bad for
mom and dad. Or for the child. What you hear is that it’s bad for “the system”
– for the school building, the school system, the funding stream.
That
argument speaks volumes about where Chicken Little’s priorities lie.
Our
children deserve better than
the 19th century assembly-line approach. They deserve learning environments
that are agile, relevant, exciting. Every student deserves a customized,
self-paced, and challenging
life-long learning journey. Schools should be open to all students – no matter
where they’re growing up or how much their parents make.
That
means no more discrimination
based upon zip code or socio-economic status. All means all.
It’s
about educational freedom!
Freedom from Washington mandates. Freedom from centralized control. Freedom
from a one-size-fits-all mentality. Freedom from “the system.”
Choice
in education is not when a student picks a different classroom in this building or that building, uses this voucher or that tax-credit scholarship.
Choice in education is bigger than that. Those are just mechanisms.
It’s
about freedom to learn. Freedom to learn differently.
Freedom to explore. Freedom to fail, to learn from falling and to get back up
and try again. It’s freedom to find the best way to learn and grow… to find the
exciting and engaging combination that unlocks individual potential.
Which
leads to my final point: if America’s students are to be prepared, we must rethink school.
What
I propose is not another top-down, federal government policy that promises to
be a silver bullet. No. We need a paradigm shift, a fundamental reorientation…
a rethink.
“Rethink”
means we question everything
to ensure nothing limits a
student from pursuing his or her passion, and achieving his or her potential.
So each student is prepared at
every turn for what comes next.
It’s
past time to ask some of the questions that often get labeled as
“non-negotiable” or just don’t get asked at all:
Why
do we group students by age?
Why
do schools close for the summer?
Why
must the school day start with the rise of the sun?
Why
are schools assigned by your address?
Why
do students have to go to a school building in the first place?
Why
is choice only available to those who can buy their way out? Or buy their way
in?
Why
can’t a student learn at his or her own
pace?
Why
isn’t technology more widely embraced in schools?
Why
do we limit what a student can learn based upon the faculty and facilities
available?
Why?
We
must answer these questions.
We must acknowledge what is
and what is not working for
students.
Now,
I don’t have all the answers or policy prescriptions. No one person does. But people do know how to help their neighbors. People do know how they can help a dozen
students here or 100 there. Because they know
the students. They know their home lives. They know their communities. They
know their parents. They know each
other.
That
means learning can, should, and will look different for each unique child. And
we should celebrate that, not fear it!
I’m
well aware that change -- the unknown – can be scary. That talk of
fundamentally rethinking our approach to education seems impossible, insurmountable.
But
not changing is scarier.
Stagnation creates risks of its own. The reality is…
we
should be horrified of not
changing.
Our
children don’t fear their futures. Think of a newborn, born into hope -- not
fear. They begin life with a clean slate. With a fresh set of eyes to see
things we don’t currently see. That’s
how students begin their
lifelong learning journeys… with unlimited potential… yet with limited time.
Their
dreams, their hopes, their aspirations, their futures can’t
wait, while another wave of
lawmakers puts yet another coat of paint on the broken “system.” One year may
not seem like much to an adult, but it’s much too long for the child who still can’t read “Goodnight
Moon.”
We,
the public, can’t wait either. Education is good for the public.
Everything
else – our health, our economy, our continued security as a nation -- depends
on what we do today for the leaders of tomorrow. It follows, then, that any educator in any learning environment serves
the public good. If the purpose of public education is to educate the public,
then it should... not… matter what word comes before school.
What
matters are the students the school serves. What matters are their futures. We’ve been
entrusted with their futures not because we asked to be, but because it’s a duty
to destiny – theirs… and ours. It all depends on what we do now.
When
our grandchildren tell their children about this moment in history, let them
say we were the ones who finally put students first.
Thank
you, and I look forward to this conversation.
###
|
