No Idea Left Behind

Nothing galvanizes citizens, business leaders, politicians and government officials like public education. The issues inextricably related to it-academic quality, school choice, funding equity, bond issues and tax levies-trigger debate in meeting halls and boardrooms nationwide.

As we inch toward No Child Left Behind as a national policy, we must address the controversy surrounding private management of public education, specifically for-profit businesses that receive tax dollars to provide educational services in charter or conversion schools. In this debate, we cannot afford to leave behind our national leaders either.

The trend toward private management of traditionally public services has increased in many sectors. Schools are no exception, notwithstanding strong resistance among the educational bureaucracy. To help struggling schools improve performance, parents, business and community leaders, and mayors are creating governance structures. In some cases, mayors have taken control of previously independent school systems. In others, school systems have contracted directly with private management companies. One private firm, Edison Schools, operates 130 schools that serve more than 132,000 students. States such as Ohio have privately managed charter and conversion schools that receive public funding.

Merging public and private governance fosters innovation and allows best practices from both sectors to drive service. This nation has a responsibility to provide with children the best education possible, although the means to do so have differed and evolved through the years. The struggle is not whether, but how, to deliver quality education.

This does not mean substituting one system for another. Instead, it involves a parallel organizational opportunity to test new models with public participation and oversight. Healthy competition guided by clear policies and performance expectations can improve achievement. Public-private partnerships have generated greater teacher accountability and responsibility coupled with higher test scores, and we must build on these successes.

There are no quick fixes to improving public education. President Bush has requested $319 million for charter schools in fiscal 2005. Whoever leads the nation next January must advocate funding for such initiatives and demand tangible results from that investment. Shared governance might not emerge as the optimal approach, but we owe it to our students to explore this option.

Managing merged governance must be on the next president's radar screen. Public-private collaboration is critical to accomplishing national goals in education and elsewhere. Democracy demands an educated population. Capital markets require trained and skilled workers to maintain a global edge. Students who are unprepared to meet 21st century challenges are left behind economically, socially and politically.

Neither the public nor private sector has a lock on good ideas. What better way to improve education than to create public-private partnerships? Shared governance in the delivery of taxpayer-funded services carries the promise of improving service, enhancing performance and maintaining competitive prices. We no longer can rely solely on traditional bureaucratic structures. We must experiment with alternative governance structures to achieve continuous improvements in education.