Skip to main content

State oversight of educational experimentation in public schools not just an issue in Delaware

In Colorado the issue is not charters, but online schools.  Nonetheless, the issue is almost exactly the same:  the State Department of Education apparently does not follow through with its oversight responsibilities:


DENVER - State auditors delivered a highly critical report on online schools Monday, saying their students perform worse and drop out more often than their counterparts in public schools.
Auditors also said the state Department of Education failed to act against school districts that sponsor underperforming online schools, despite state rules requiring that such districts have their accreditation revoked or be placed on accreditation watch.
The report, presented to the Legislative Audit Committee, said students who get their education online had lower reading, writing and math scores on statewide tests than students in public schools.
This raises an interesting question:  are State Departments of Education the best entities to be supervising experimental education programs like charters or online schools?


Generally organizations like DOE have (a) a great stake in the maintenance of the status quo; (b) are very susceptible to state/local political influences; and (c) have literally no experience and no available staff to do such monitoring.


(Local note:  if you think, as Kilroy does, that DOE is not monitoring charter schools adequately, you should delve into the dirty little world of that office's complete and utter failure to monitor special education programs effectively.  You'd be horrified.  But I digress.)


So what's the alternative?  I do not think it is to abandon educational experimentation.


I'm not sure about the answer, but I know it is not to constantly turn to the agency that has proven habitually unable to manage our public education system.

Comments

Dana Garrett said…
So if the government should not monitor them but yet you have no alternative to the government monitoring them, then who should monitor them? Should they go unmonitored?
Dana,

Possibly I was unclear. I did not mean that "the State" (as in State of Delaware) should not be monitoring public educational experiments.

I meant that DOE is the wrong organization for the task, despite its name.

I did suggest the State Auditors Office, Attorney General's office, or one of the universities.

My point is that DOE has a horrible track record, and organizational disincentives to do the job objectively.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...