At first, one might not consider
these the relevant metaphors in light of state District Judge Michael Caldwell’s
re-ruling
that the operative piece of legislation that established the main aspects of
this reform – one which makes it easier to hold educators accountable for their
job performance – was unconstitutional. He restated last week a conclusion he
drew last spring that the bill, Act
1 of 2012, did not adhere to the state constitutional requirement that all
bills have but a single object.
But he had to reissue the ruling because
the state’s Supreme Court instructed him to do so, after it had reviewed
another case brought by reform opponents, challenging another reform law dealing
with instituting vouchers in education using the same rationale. That the Court
dismissed
that part of the other challenge, explaining that
the Legislature has large discretion to placing reasonably related items
together in a bill where the presumption is made that such arranging is constitutional
unless there is an obvious mishmash “gravely repugnant to the constitution,”
demonstrates that Caldwell will end up whiffing twice on this, and on appeal
will be reversed again.
And reform opponents know it. After
his ruling became public, instead of statements full of confidence and
rejoicing in the declaration of violation of the single-object rule leading to
the law’s demise, instead they offered up cautious requests to “work with” the
majorities in the Legislature and Gov. Bobby
Jindal to alter the legislation, declaring it a time to “work together” to
come up with something different.
Naturally, these forces never
extended such invitations when they were able to command policy-making
majorities, doing everything they could to stop any meaningful change. They,
who represent a menagerie including ideologues that wish to aggrandize as much
power into government as possible, unions trying to retain their power as
shapers of personnel policy, administrators who want as few constraints as
possible on their power and discretion, politicians who use education
bureaucracies as sinks for patronage and preferments, and underperforming
teachers who wish to continue employment in their current positions with no
additional demands, due to pursuit of these special interests instead of making
their primary purpose providing a quality education for children, had worked
vigorously for decades to stifle any systemic change.
However, the continued
underperformance of the system became too much for the public to stomach and thus
politicians responded. Surely the majorities that put children’s needs ahead of
those of special interests understand nothing good can be gained by doing anything
philosophically different as these interests hope, and that while no complex legislation
comes out perfectly initially, only a continuation of tinkering around the
margins that has been occurring over the past 18 months need happen.
This will produce the final
defeat of the anti-reform elements. They knew they had problems after the 2011
elections sent even more pro-reform legislators, plus a solid majority of reform-oriented
Board of Elementary and Secondary Education members, into office, and after defeat
at the hands of the state’s plenipotentiary organs, they adopted the rearguard
strategy of trying to undo the will of the people in the courts. In meantime,
they hoped their obstructionism would cause such a headache to policy-makers
that the sitzkrieg could get some to
renege on their willingness to progress forward.
Yet that has about run its course,
so Jindal and those legislators who care about improving educational delivery need
to hold fast as the last obstacles get removed. It’s really a simple concept
that they defend: by removing insulation from the consequences of performance,
defined in the main as the learning progress made by students, incentives can
be applied to improve that performance. Breaking apart the ossified structure and
exposing as false the shibboleths that only more money and government control
can improves matters – falsified not just by data from other states that
perform better, but by other countries that spend much less on poorer children
yet still do better – is best accomplished by reform legislation such as this.
Louisiana’s previous reforms
along these lines – most notably charter schools – have begun to pay off as
indicated in the most recent report, Education
Week’s annual Quality Counts,
which showed the state near the top in progress being made in quality
improvement. With the last of the resistance crumbling and the full
implementation of the 2012 reforms coming within the next two years, that increase
in quality will accelerate and be reflected as the state’s children climb in
performance rankings in future years. Implementation quality will be the issue
for decades to come, but at least the leeches trying to hold back policy change
finally soon will be dislodged.
No comments:
Post a Comment