Choice AND Tenure Reform: But Could I Skip School with Reformer's Disease?
The always smart Dr. Jay Greene makes an important observation today about the tendency of some to catch “Reformer’s Disease”:
Yes, schools need to get rid of bad teachers and the tenure that protects them. Yes, schools need solid standards and curricula. But people need to avoid Reformer’s Disease and remember that they can’t simply impose solutions on an unwilling system governed by perverse incentives. Choice and competition are not at odds with tenure reform or standards reform. Competition is a necessary part of how one actually accomplishes and sustains those other reforms.
I’m not a hypochondriac or anything, but you’ll forgive me if I had to run to the mirror to see if my tongue was coated or there were any spots breaking out on my face. Nope. No fever, either. I think I’m for the most part free and clear of “Reformer’s Disease.”
As good as it is, we are wise to remember that Senator Johnson’s widely–supported tenure reform bill SB 191 will not be a magical silver bullet to end all the woes of Colorado public education. To be fair, no one claims that it will. But it’s also crucial to note that the good SB 191 can accomplish will be limited to some extent by some of the continuing incentives in the system.
That’s why my friends in the Education Policy Center continue the battle for consumer-empowering school choice at the same time they support reforms to enhance the quality delivery of education. The two go hand in hand.
And I stay healthy. (But is that a good thing? Does “Reformer’s Disease” count as a reason to stay home from school and
play with Legos lie in bed and rest?)