Easy to answer that one. You can’t. Just like communism, you can’t make the school systems work well no matter what you do. Changing the system is the only solution.

Offer the $10,000 we pay for each of these students to get a terrible education to the free market, with no strings attached or district rules. No teaching certificate required for teachers. We merely set the learning requirements for each year and test for performance. If you show no improvement or miss the standards, you lose your students.

You would have teachers showing up fast, as they could make $50k per year with only 5 kids to teach them out of their house, which would cut out the admin and building costs. The improvement for students would be rapid and massive.

And the teachers would show up.

District of Columbia Public Schools Chancellor, Michelle Rhee, spoke on the future of urban school reform at the American Enterprise Institute Wednesday, February 13, 2008. The following is Michelle Rhee in her own words:

I’m going to tell you a couple stories. The other day, I met with some students from a high school, one of our failing high schools in Anacostia. One of them emailed me and said they wanted me to come out and meet with some of the students. I went out. A group of students were there. They were incredibly prepared. They had their list all typed up, of the things that they wanted to talk to me about. The things ranged from them saying, you know, “We have on average about 15 teachers absent a day. How can you expect us to learn when the teachers aren’t actually showing up to teach us?” Have a good answer for that one. When I asked them, “What is it that I could do, that you believe would have the biggest impact on the education that you’re getting everyday?” The first thing out of their mouths was, “Bring us more great teachers.” They didn’t say, “Put Pizza Hut in the school,” and that sort of thing. They were saying, “Great teachers.”

Tell me these kids are not hungry to learn.

Because they're not hungry.

We don’t do exit surveys with struggling and out of school youth. If we did we might learn things we do not want to acknowledge. For example, are we losing these kids at sixteen years of age, or at twelve, when we allow them to graduate out of the elementary system unable to read, write, or perform basic math function at the level required for high school work? Do we really know that these kids are giving up on their education — or just giving up on their high school? Did their high school test them upon entry to discover and remediate deficiencies? How quick is the school’s response to academic failure; perhaps the last semester of high school when the student hears from their counselor, “Well, you’re obviously not college material.” (In fact, this may be a message they’ve been receiving since kindergarten, depending on their circumstances.) Being academically “off-track” during the first year of high school is a strong predictor of school dropout. Off track becomes derailed without intervention.
However, in a stronger 9-14 system — yes, 9-14 — there are solutions to the problem of derailing. Accurate testing, remedial treatment, meaningful classes that award credits toward a degree or credential (certificate) that allows entry into skilled work, are all worthy policy and practice provisions for the under-educated and under-motivated potential dropout.
Having said all of that, I am reminded of the death of a (former) friend’s cat. The cat was old and decrepit, and spent most of his time curled up by the water heater. For some unfathomable reason this (former) friend would allow the cat to run outside. The cat was killed by a coyote. “Ah, but at least he died free.” said my (former) friend. “No, he died scared and in severe pain!” I replied. The idea that a 16 year old for whom someone is still legally responsible, who cannot legally have a checking account or sign a rental agreement or contract, is going to successfully “kick around and learn about life” before defying the odds and returning to complete his education is both incredibly short-sighted and, frankly, as cruel as turning a helpless animal out to the wolves and coyotes.
For a better understanding of the problem and solutions in action I recommend “Minding the Gap; Why Integrating High School with College Makes Sense and How to Do It,” by Nancy Hoffman, et. al. To see these solutions in action take a look at the Bridge Program, Victor Valley College, Victorville, California.

One minor quibble: many people who make good money with their hands (plumbers, mechanics, etc.) need very little schooling, and they won’t be back. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Not everyone was meant to work with their head.

On the other hand, people who work with knowledge must educate themselves forever. There is no “diploma” (who cares about high school?), only a relentless push forward into more knowledge. Institutional school that necessarily treats everyone the same (like Finland does to get good “average” scores on international tests) is pretty much a waste of time for people who will be competing in a flat world. Competition is global, knowledge (and jobs) are transmitted at the speed of light over the internet, and there is no mercy. A billion Chinese and Indians entering the free market workforce right now; this gives them more cognitive elite greater than our entire population, and many of our best knowledge jobs can be done anywhere an internet connection exists. Soft America had better toughen up, and Goldstein is on the right track.