What a tantalizing footnote 10! I'm with you that there's a dearth of fresh ideas (other than maybe HSAs, but that's not really a new idea), and that we can do much better as a sector.
Education reform has lost steam, in part, because after decades of investment the returns have been modest and too often unsustained. Billions were poured into big bets that showed early promise but faded over time and often faced real community pushback in the process.
I saw this firsthand working in New York City during the Klein–Bloomberg years. Test scores and graduation rates rose, but not to the level many hoped would be transformational. The Gates Foundation’s Measures of Effective Teaching project produced important insights, but it failed to shift teacher practice or policy at scale. Mark Zuckerberg’s $100 million investment in Newark promised a national model, yet the gains were limited and uneven once the spotlight moved on.
These high-profile efforts illustrate a recurring pattern: ambitious initiatives that briefly move the needle, then slide back because they weren’t built to last within the systems they aimed to transform. That history has made funders, policymakers, and the general public far more skittish about reinvesting in the current system and helps explain why more people are now embracing alternatives like school choice, vouchers, and ESAs.
Like you said, traditional public education can’t just be a safety net, it needs to be a high quality service going forward.
I submit that the best way to build support for education is to show confidently and credibly that it is good. Effective. It deserves our trust as an institution because it delivers. It converts dollars into happy outcomes for kids efficiently. It is accountable for doing its job. It fixes problems quickly when they arise. It is a service that understands our shared priorities and is focused on them.
But it is wrong in its emphasis - The problem isn’t the showing, it’s the being. Public schools need to BE effective. To Deliver. To convert dollars (and the energy of the many excellent dedicated teachers) into happy outcomes for kids - efficiently. Etc
I think a focus on the product is more important than a focus on the messaging/selling. Education is a “product” that a huge number of people “use” on a daily basis. They have direct, personal experience with it. They will form their own opinions on it no matter how slick, smart, beautiful the marketing.
It’s like trying to tell people there is no inflation when THEY GO TO THE GROCERY STORY EVERY WEEK - they care what the number is when it’s rung up. People (certainly the “normies” but I’m convinced basically everyone) CARE A LOT about what their children are getting/experiencing at school. They interact with their kids every single day. Trying to get them to ignore what they directly experience is hopeless. If the product is good, they will notice and support the organization that delivers it. If the product is bad, they’ll notice that too - if they hate it, but are trapped - they hunt for a way out of the trap.
Sorry for the rant - a good article - lots to unpack :-)
I submit that the best way to build support for education is to show confidently and credibly that it is good. Effective. It deserves our trust as an institution because it delivers. It converts dollars into happy outcomes for kids efficiently. It is accountable for doing its job. It fixes problems quickly when they arise. It is a service that understands our shared priorities and is focused on them.”
What a tantalizing footnote 10! I'm with you that there's a dearth of fresh ideas (other than maybe HSAs, but that's not really a new idea), and that we can do much better as a sector.
Really comprehensive and thought-provoking analysis - thank you, Tim!
Education reform has lost steam, in part, because after decades of investment the returns have been modest and too often unsustained. Billions were poured into big bets that showed early promise but faded over time and often faced real community pushback in the process.
I saw this firsthand working in New York City during the Klein–Bloomberg years. Test scores and graduation rates rose, but not to the level many hoped would be transformational. The Gates Foundation’s Measures of Effective Teaching project produced important insights, but it failed to shift teacher practice or policy at scale. Mark Zuckerberg’s $100 million investment in Newark promised a national model, yet the gains were limited and uneven once the spotlight moved on.
These high-profile efforts illustrate a recurring pattern: ambitious initiatives that briefly move the needle, then slide back because they weren’t built to last within the systems they aimed to transform. That history has made funders, policymakers, and the general public far more skittish about reinvesting in the current system and helps explain why more people are now embracing alternatives like school choice, vouchers, and ESAs.
Like you said, traditional public education can’t just be a safety net, it needs to be a high quality service going forward.
Sorry darn Substack
I was very struck by this paragraph:
I submit that the best way to build support for education is to show confidently and credibly that it is good. Effective. It deserves our trust as an institution because it delivers. It converts dollars into happy outcomes for kids efficiently. It is accountable for doing its job. It fixes problems quickly when they arise. It is a service that understands our shared priorities and is focused on them.
But it is wrong in its emphasis - The problem isn’t the showing, it’s the being. Public schools need to BE effective. To Deliver. To convert dollars (and the energy of the many excellent dedicated teachers) into happy outcomes for kids - efficiently. Etc
I think a focus on the product is more important than a focus on the messaging/selling. Education is a “product” that a huge number of people “use” on a daily basis. They have direct, personal experience with it. They will form their own opinions on it no matter how slick, smart, beautiful the marketing.
It’s like trying to tell people there is no inflation when THEY GO TO THE GROCERY STORY EVERY WEEK - they care what the number is when it’s rung up. People (certainly the “normies” but I’m convinced basically everyone) CARE A LOT about what their children are getting/experiencing at school. They interact with their kids every single day. Trying to get them to ignore what they directly experience is hopeless. If the product is good, they will notice and support the organization that delivers it. If the product is bad, they’ll notice that too - if they hate it, but are trapped - they hunt for a way out of the trap.
Sorry for the rant - a good article - lots to unpack :-)
I was very struck by this paragraph:
I submit that the best way to build support for education is to show confidently and credibly that it is good. Effective. It deserves our trust as an institution because it delivers. It converts dollars into happy outcomes for kids efficiently. It is accountable for doing its job. It fixes problems quickly when they arise. It is a service that understands our shared priorities and is focused on them.”
Excellent. Perhaps notable that Colbert, Stewart, and Time Magazine itself are barely on the radar.