Regarding last week's editorial ("The case against comparability") by Kate Walsh: The perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Comparability requirements are flawed. But they are no more flawed than Title I's somewhat arbitrary system of formulas for distributing intradistrict funds, or the use of single measures for accountability (i.e., using proficiency only, as opposed to using both proficiency and excellence, or proficiency and failure, or some other set of measures). The question should not be whether comparability is perfect, but whether it is better than the current system and whether the costs associated with the change are greater than those imposed by the status quo.
A very strong argument says that in large districts with significant middle-class components--i.e., most of them--comparability reforms will help move better- qualified teachers into the lowest-performing schools. Teacher quality is particularly important for struggling students. While experience is not a perfect proxy for teacher quality, plenty of evidence demonstrates that experienced teachers are better than new graduates and are far better than certificate-waiver teachers that populate many classrooms serving economically disadvantaged children.
Most higher-paid teachers are classroom veterans or teachers with special skills, and moving them to the schools of greatest need will help those schools' students. For every Baltimore, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and Detroit school district cited by Walsh to prove her point that large urban districts are uniformly economically disadvantaged, there are the economically diverse and large Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Albuquerque, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Fairfax County, Austin, Houston, Minneapolis, and Seattle districts where teacher assignment would matter.
Moreover, if moving teachers from schools with some economically disadvantaged children to buildings with mostly such children will not make a difference, then the entire justification for targeting Title I funds (or any other funds) falls by the wayside. I would be surprised if Walsh's organization, the National Council on Teacher Quality, would make such an argument. The Miller-McKeon proposal is a good starting point.
C. Todd Jones
Former associate deputy secretary for budget and deputy assistant secretary for civil rights enforcement
U.S. Department of Education