Commenting on the Department of Education's May 24 approval of  Adequate Yearly Progress systems based on growth models in Ohio and Indiana, the American Federation of Teachers' NCLBlog, Let's Get It Right, has a "gripe" (their word). The Department decided to include two representatives from an education policy group on the fifteen member review panel recommending the Secretary's decision - but no one who actually works in schools.

Your editor is inclined to agree with this critique of the peer review system. All the major stakeholder groups in k-12 should be represented in all of these review panels. That includes the unions, state and local education agencies, academia and the think tanks, k-12 interest groups, AND school improvement providers. Not every organization, but every segment of this social space.

Why?

First: Stakeholder positions should stand or fall as policy based on the merits of a case made in the open, rather than as a special pleading by one or more groups to some Department official in private.

Second: Every stakeholder group needs to develop some empathy with the legitimate perspectives of every other stakeholder group. Those working on a panel with their "opposites" will inevitably take back their understanding of the other groups to their own decisionmaking circles. It did not hurt the cause of world peace for American and Soviet negotiators to respect each other and even become friends.

Third: If we move our de facto policy forum from never-ending cross-town "consequence-free" debates in the media over general ideas where the prime objective seems to scoring points against opponents and reassuring one's base, to the conference table and real decisions with real consequences that must be made today, we will move public education forward at a much faster rate.

The Secretary ought to have some kind of public list to draw from for assignment to these review panels. Individuals and institutions on the list should be appointed by the Secretary on some rational basis reduced to writing. Organizations should have the right to petition to be placed on the list and provided with reasons if they are rejected.

The rational basis test is a very low regulatory bar, and the primary purpose of the list is to support public understanding and Congressional oversight by setting expectations of broad representation in department decisionmaking.

When the Department appoints a review panel, the rule of should be roughly equal representation across the stakeholder groups, although the Secretarary should be permitted to weight the group in any direction - if there is an explanation in writing. This announcement should be placed in the Federal Register, with perhaps seven day's notice, allowing time for comment and protest before the final decision. Interest groups will have to watch the Register; there are simply too many of these panels to draw the process out for each.

Many do not like "regulation," but public education is in a state of great flux, and too much of it is negative. Your editor firmly believes that once people are faced with real decisions rather than vaguely implied scenarios, most want to solve the problem in front pf them in ways that accomodate most interests most of the time. Better review panels are a step in that direction.