Pennsylvania, like so many other states, is struggling with significant revenue shortfalls and rising expenditures for entitlement programs such as government worker pensions and health care. An area of considerable debate during current budgetary negotiations is how to proceed with educational funding. In the past, blocks of money were funneled to local school systems based on formulas that had little or no connection to school performance or school improvement results. A seemingly radical new plan is being proposed to tie funding to school choice. Unfortunately the change with school funding is being associated with an offensive term – vouchers.
Vouchers have come to mean stripping money away from public schools. But vouchers are simply having funding follow the student and their family’s choice of school. So students who are better served by an art curriculum could choose to go to a school with a specialty in art. Or a student who thrives in a mix of on-line and face to face instruction could choose a customized school to best meet their need.
Expecting every student to thrive in schools that hardly vary from system to system takes away opportunities for students to identify and nurture their strengths. So many students get stifled by this lack of choice. In our dynamic economy where so many new opportunities are being developed at a fast pace, stifling students’ strengths stifles our ability as a state and a country to compete globally.
But republicans proudly use the word vouchers to draw a politically charged line in the sand. Democrats embrace the same contentious word. The results are a polarized debate with little connection to the real need for school systems which is measurable and continuous improvement; improvement with measurable results as compared to not just local or state standards but national and even international standards. Rather than relegating the debate to a simplistic battle over the limited scope offered by the concept of vouchers, let’s examine how the scope of the debate could be expanded to include the very important concept of school improvement.
While the idea of implementing vouchers stirs a hornet’s nest of debate, the idea of creating schools that truly engage learners and fully prepares them for a competitive, global economy stirs an emotive connection in anyone who has, had, or will have a student involved in the K-12 educational system. The drive for global preparedness has led to some admirable achievements and cooperation among divergent groups.
· The National Common Core Standards were developed by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, the Council of Chief State School Officers, teachers, post-secondary educators, and civil rights groups. These national standards were formally adopted by forty seven states and US territories. Efforts are underway to develop a rigorous national assessment based on the Common Core Standards. This collaborative effort sharply hones the idea of making educational standards and accountability efforts universal so educational improvement can be a shared goal among states rather than a disjointed effort between them.
· The federal government’s Race to the Top initiative has led to unprecedented cooperation among teacher unions, school administrators, and state legislatures because school systems must earn funding by developing innovative plans with measurable improvement outcomes. Clearly this level of collaboration among divergent groups with varying interests indicates how emotionally connected we are as a country to the idea of school improvement.
Why in an era where so many groups and leaders are focused on collaborative school improvement efforts are Pennsylvanians getting mired in a contentious debate about vouchers? Perhaps the contention relates to misunderstandings about how vouchers and its ancillary effect of school choice would shift the paradigm in the state and actually lead to a statewide cascade of school improvement. By suspending the contention of vouchers and shifting the paradigm, we can discuss to how a funding change can effect school improvement.
There are at least three effects that have been proven to improve schools and school systems that would be spurred by a funding change that leads to school choice:
· Choice leverages change – I recently saw a bumper sticker that said “If nothing changes, nothing changes.” Our educational system has not significantly changed since the wide spread adoption of the Germanic factory school model over a century ago. Even charter schools that have deemed themselves innovative have made little real progress in improvement outcomes or influencing neighboring schools. However, in many systems with choice, where funding money follows the student, choice has leveraged school improvement.
A local example is the Carlisle Area School District (CASD). Parents in CASD can send their students to any of the seven elementary schools and have a choice between two middle schools. While many parents stay with their assigned schools, the element of choice among the elementary schools in particular leads to a healthy dose of competition. While certainly not cut throat in nature, the pressure of choice leads to a sense of ownership among school leadership teams to have innovative and effective programs that met the needs of all students.
An even more prominent example is the Hawaii school system. Throughout Hawaii parents have the choice of any public school for their child. Since Hawaii is a state wide system, a parent who works thirty miles from home could enroll their child in a better performing school close to their work. If a school’s enrollment increases based on reputation and achievement results the school has more funding to develop innovative programs, hire staff, and provide top quality professional development. Strong leadership teams in Hawaii schools that understand and embrace this dynamic see themselves as not only competing with other public schools but also nationally ranked private schools in Hawaii and even international schools.
A prime example is James Campbell High School (http://campbellhigh.org). In one of the poorest areas of Oahu, Campbell High recognized the importance of going beyond standards and accountability and became competitive at an international level. They were the first public school in Hawaii and one of the first in the whole western US region to gain International Baccalaureate (IB) Accreditation. Students with an IB high school diploma are heavily recruited by colleges and universities because the IB curriculum is steeped in the examination of big questions, quality writing ability, an interconnected curriculum, and a deep understanding of how to best learn.
A category of schools which have chosen to change are frequently termed 90/90/90 schools. These are mostly urban schools whose history of failure was exposed with the institution of state assessments. Their choice after No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was similar to a patient visiting a doctor to deal with a significant weight problem. Their level of failure was so pervasive it was like going to a doctor and having the doctor say, “if you don’t lose 150 pounds you will die soon”.
Faced with the ominous choice of closure or significant funding cuts, these schools embraced change efforts which focused on school level autonomous decision making, rigorous learning expectations, consistent school wide implementation of best instructional practices, and customized learning opportunities for students. These schools are called 90/90/90 schools because their populations are 90% socioeconomically disadvantaged, 90% minority, and have achievement rates 90% or higher. Among educational leaders, the question frequently asked in relation to these shining examples of change through choice is “If this high level of improvement can happen in five schools, why not 5,000?”.
The 90/90/90 schools were at distinct advantage because of the early urgency of their diagnosis. Schools with historic levels of achievement around 60% to 70% received a dissimilar diagnosis from NCLB accountability. Their diagnosis was akin to the metaphorical doctor saying, “You should lose 15 to 20 pounds so you look and feel a bit better”. Fortunately, with the rising accountability expectations coming in 2012, 2013, and 2014 all schools will need to take a hard look at their past and embrace changes to improve outcomes.
By instituting choice statewide, Pennsylvania could promote the same type of urgency towards action found in school systems and organizations with a history of being subject to the influence of choice. Even industry darlings like Microsoft and Google become complacent when a lack of choice fails to spur improvements. Microsoft’s monopoly with Windows led to a laggard entry into both search and social media technologies. Now with the recent purchase of Skype and the introduction of Bing, Microsoft’s level of innovativeness in the marketplace is gaining respect. Even Google has had to increase its innovative efforts because of the infusion of choice brought on by Facebook.
For so long, schools have been mired in a comfortable monopoly with the effect of stifled improvement. Infusing of the power of choice would jump start improvement efforts statewide.
· Improved efficiencies – During a recent conversation with a state legislator I was corrected for saying Pennsylvania had 501 school districts. Over the last year two small rural districts consolidated and now, after decades, Pennsylvania has shrunk its number of districts by one. Five hundred school districts now populate the state. With 500 superintendents, 500 business managers, 500 human resource departments, 500 school boards, and many other examples of inefficient duplication.
The effect of this duplication is wide spread inefficiencies which disproportionately take from what affects student learning the most- the interactions and relationships among a teacher and their students. Research from many states shows the percentage of school funding actually tangibly tied to classrooms is often 50% or less. Schools systems are masterful at creating overhead costs not remotely associated with student learning.
Budgetary efficiencies could be realized by infusing money at the level where it most affects student learning. Stripping away duplicated overhead costs and moving budgetary power to each individual school would lead to more money being infused into the classroom. Empowering principals, school leadership teams, and teachers with more budgetary power would promote intrinsic improvements and lessen the onerous burden of extrinsic mandates from bloated bureaucratic structures.
Since the start of the technological revolution organizations have shifted from hierarchical structures where individual workers have little input to more streamlined flat structures which more effectively engage workers in improvement efforts. Students and families would be well served if schools did the same.
There are too many examples of expensive school district employees doing menial tasks to fill their time. Six figure salaried employees rearranging curricular materials in a closet, organizing testing materials, or drafting lengthy memos which go unread are not uncommon. If those costly hours could be spent directly supporting classroom instruction or school level improvement efforts, efficiencies and student learning gains would increase exponentially.
England adopted a standards and accountability movement similar to No Child Left Behind called Every Child Matters in 2003. Like many US states, England noticed achievement levels flattened after some initial improvement. Taking a cue from 90/90/90 and international schools, England revamped its principal training program to include a heavy emphasis on autonomous and transformational leadership.
No longer were principals expected to be middle managers following a list of directives from above. They were empowered to develop leadership teams so decision making could occur closer to the classroom level. Teams of teacher leaders were charged with ensuring improvements at the school. What resulted were achievement gains and the unforeseen dynamic of principals being recruited by corporations outside of the school system, a true testament to their valued leadership skills.
Similar dynamics are being documented in developing countries. Failed state school systems in Indian, parts of China, and West Africa are being outperformed by small autonomous private schools where budgetary power and decision making is set firmly at the individual school level. James Tooley has documented numerous cases where the poorest students are making significant gains because of dynamic private schools that can operate efficiently, provide reduced tuition, and respond quickly to the needs of the surrounding community.
In New York City, a school of choice called The Equity Project or TEP opened last year. Teachers were paid $125,000. The flood of highly qualified applicants was so overwhelming that a high G.R.E. score was required to even be considered. TEP paid the principal like a professional sports coach – less than the players. And the school had a streamlined structure with very little overhead. The rationale being getting resources to the heart of where student learning is affected most, the classroom. While first year state assessment results where marginal at TEP, most students showed years of growth from where they started the school year. Efficiencies were achieved even though the school’s operations were funding solely from the per pupil rate set for New York City students.
The common denominator in all of the cases of improved efficiency is choice driving funding closer and closer to the classroom. If Pennsylvania adopts a funding system where the money follows the students, school systems may not quickly consolidate because of the inherent pride of a local school. But they may realize the value of empowering schools to be more innovative, dynamic, and focused on improvement as a way to attract not only students but as a way to build revenue to attract the best school leaders and classroom teachers.
In the long term, school systems could further their efficiencies through consolidation of operational costs especially once individual schools become more precisely empowered to concentrate on student learning. Operational costs like human resource management and purchasing could be combined to better spend per pupil funding tied to school choice. Regional collectives and cooperatives could bring economies of scale found in states with larger county wide school systems. Imagine the savings in health care costs when a school system with 400 employees (about the size of York City) is combined with other areas districts to triple or quadruple the size of their purchasing power.
· Multiplier effect – An argument against choice relies on the age old notion of geography determining school engagement and learning. While overwhelming evidence ties student achievement levels to the socioeconomic level of the family and some recent studies have even hinted at a “motivational gap” in certain geographical areas, one study even suggesting the whole of the United States suffering from a motivational gap, it is impossible to ignore the multiplier effect several positive and influential leaders can have on a community.
While a significant amount of students from low performing schools may not choose to attend schools outside of their locale, it may only take a handful of determined students and families to make a significant difference in their community. The movie “Waiting for Superman” chronicles the efforts of several families in large urban areas to get their children into innovative charter schools. Tragically only a few of the students are lucky enough to be selected in lotteries to attend the alternative schools. Imagine the multiplier effect of those few students getting a quality education and becoming leaders in the same communities where they were raised.
Paul Tough writes about the effect of just one such student in his book Whatever it Takes. Geoffrey Canada grew up in a dilapidated community in Harlem but through a persistent push from his family, he earned a college degree and dedicated himself to improving his community. He now leads the Harlem Children’s Zone, a ninety-seven-block laboratory in central Harlem where he is testing new ideas about poverty in America. His conclusion: if you want poor kids to be able to compete with their middle-class peers, you need to change everything in their lives, their schools, their neighborhoods, even the child-rearing practices of their parents.
Geoffrey Canada was changed because he chose to get a quality education and now he is influencing thousands. Similar zones are being developed in other urban areas. Hawaii’s winning Race to the Top application included developing similar zones in the poorest regions of Oahu.
Geoffrey Canada is just one example of the multiplier effect. Consider your own community and identify those influential individuals. Recent research has suggested that in small to medium size cities ten such individuals can make a considerable difference. Conversely, influential individuals who don’t have the choice of a quality education can still be influential but in a negative way – crime, graft, and corruption may be their only understanding if not given the opportunity to choose a different path through educational opportunity.
Pennsylvania has an opportunity to apply the multiplier effect through school choice and influence improvement efforts not just in schools but in whole communities. The power of several individuals to change a community is real, but if we languish in the argument that not enough members of poor communities will make a choice we basically keep the multiplier effect at zero.
While three potential effects of school choice are described, they are not exclusive. Others effects would surely result as well. Students who need to travel by public transportation would gain confidence and maturity. Specialized programs to attract students and associated funding would surely grow. Hybrid schools combining on-line and face to face learning would help meet the growing demand of customized choices. Attracting top talent would be a priority; teacher and administrative salaries could grow based on performance and the recognition of how important their contributions are to an outstanding school.
All of these potential opportunities to focus on what all Pennsylvanians desire, improving our educational system, become limited and stifled when we narrowly focus the debate on vouchers. Broadening the scope of the dialogue to include the potential effects on overall school improvement will help erase the lines in the sand and hopefully stop the contentiousness.
If nothing changes, nothing changes - is an unacceptable alternative. Too much locally, nationally, and internationally is at stake. Our students are growing up in a technological revolution that demands nimble, dynamic, engaging, uplifting and responsive organizations. Public education in Pennsylvania has done an impressive job through the industrial revolution, several wars, the space race, the fall of communism, and the rise of developing economies around the world.
But if Pennsylvania schools are going to meet and exceed international standards and truly set a course for measurable improvement, something must change. Piecemeal change has resulted in marginal gains. A wholesale funding shift has the potential to spark real change, innovation, and ensure significant improvements for schools by affording families the choice to seek and demand excellence.
No comments:
Post a Comment