I don’t see how we get the educational programs we need to improve student achievement if we leave school improvement to superintendents who seek programs that will work across their districts, and providers able to block all but their sister oligarchs from the marketplace.
There's no state of emergency, no need for dictatorial authority, and no relationship between the real predicament and the requested powers.
Mowing down one set of bureaucrats only to replace them with another performing the same set of control functions won’t get us to better schools.
The process of school support isn’t working in many school districts. The fault lies not with the central office, but with the district leadership that approved the sluggish process.
Adherents to the New Philanthropy believe that public schools need central direction. They just think they could do a better, smarter, cheaper job of it.
Streamlining the central office makes sense, but more often than not central office cuts leave a bureaucracy with the same responsibilities and fewer people, and offers the superintendent a temporary respite from ongoing pressures to reduce classroom expenditures.
Current RFP from the October 8 issue of K-12Leads and Youth Service Markets Report.
Unlike teachers unions, bureaucracies don't block district change strategies as a matter of deliberate policy, individual obstructionism is rare, and incompetent individuals can be removed if their managers make it a priority.
Beyond the Department of Education, the federal government offers a cornucopia of opportunities for school improvement providers.
While there is no greater political sin than attacking teachers as a class, it's entirely acceptable to stereotype and demonize bureaucrats.