<p>Being able to dismiss teachers was a small aspect of this report, which for the most part avoided making specific recommendations and put the focus on research-backed conclusions about the problems. </p>
<p>Funding was the main problem – not just how much, but how it’s distributed. There are schools that serve the same populations that get vastly different amounts of money, and there are schools that serve populations that have a lot of parental and community resources that get more than schools dealing with much needier kids. The report found no rhyme or reason to the way funding formulas have developed.</p>
<p>Another major conclusion: administrators are drowning in state requirements, or “regulationitis”, that take so much time and paper work that prinicipals do not have time to do what they should be doing, overseeing curriculum and classrooms.</p>
<p>In terms of teaching, besides the ability to fire ineffective teachers more easily, the report called for rewarding effective teachers – not just based on a few points up or down the testing scale. This is probably the most difficult issue, judging what makes a most effective teacher.</p>
<p>In my view, the real value of this report is that it restarts the discussion based on evidence, and gets away from the issue of who is most to blame: parents, teachers, administrators, or kids. Sure, some parents do a poor job, but we all pay for it when kids drop out of school or don’t have the skills to get jobs that support families. So, let’s work on doing something about it.</p>