Andy Smarick has a good short paper out where he gives advice to the new Trump administration.
He proposes a $250 million program that would fund “high-quality, high demand, highly accountable programs.”
In short, Andy proposes a federal fun to increase the supply of things like course choice, education savings accounts providers, voucher-based private schools – as well as the creation of innovative regulatory regimes that can monitor the performance of these entities.
I really like Andy’s suggestion that the federal government continue to invest in the creation of great providers for the following reasons:
Launching new schools and courses costs money, and given that most providers are non-profit organizations, they need funding in advance of receiving regular per-pupil revenue.
The federal government lacks knowledge of what local communities need; by funding entrepreneurs, the feds are backing those who can only succeed if they meet local demand, thereby reducing the risk that funds will work against local needs.
Innovation has positive externalities: it’s well known that, in the private sector, entrepreneurs rarely capture the full value of their innovations. The same holds true in the public sector: great non-profits do not capture all of the social good they create; rather, it leaks into the full system over time (i.e., Teach Like a Champion).
I’m a little more skeptical that the government should incentivize the creation of new accountability policies. Whatever you think of Common Core or teacher evaluations, it’s unclear that the federal governments involvement has been a long-term net benefit for the sustainability or effectiveness of these policies.
Yes, Andy’s suggestion is much less heavy-handed. He’s only arguing that the federal government should fund accountability pilots.
But I worry that this is simply reinforcing a bad habit.
My current thinking is that the federal government should focus solely on research, information transparency, supply, and civil rights.
Of these four, supply is currently the most under-appreciated and underfunded, and Andy is right to call for an increase in funding here.