The everyman

Education polls

[You can view the PDF here.]

Each year, for thirty-eight years, Phi Delta Kappa, an education journal and Gallup, a pollster, have sought to capture a “continuing analysis of public opinion in American education” since its first poll in 1968. The findings offer a unique perspective on education and the everyman.[1] An analysis:

No problem here
One of the most striking results is the disparity between the perception of local schools and the nation. Forty-nine percent of parents give their local schools a rating of an A or B, but nationally only twenty-one percent of parents concur. The national majority of fifty-one percent is inclined heavily towards a C. Parents attribute the largest problem facing public schools to a lack of funding (24%), trailed by overcrowded schools (13%), and lack of discipline (11%).

The conclusion, captured by Time, is that more than 55% of the public is dissatisfied with the nation’s schools; a sobering 61% believe schools are in crisis – with 52% believing that schools are worse than they were twenty years ago.[2] When asked where the United States ranks internationally, the response was uncharacteristically unsettled (see chart).

The achievement gap
A resounding 88% of respondents agree that closing the minority achievement gap is very or somewhat important, and 81% agree that the gap can be narrowed “substantially” while keeping high standards in place. Fifty-seven percent of respondents believe that it is the responsibility of public schools to close the achievement gap. The results on this front are rather disconcerting: only 49% of public school parents agree whereas 60% of adults with no children in school do. Among parents with children in school, those who believe that it is the responsibility of schools to close the gap, their 49% is nearly balanced by the 46% of parents who disagree.
Who’s the boss, boss?

Fifty-eight percent of respondents believe that the local school board should have the greatest influence, followed by 26% in favor of state, and 14% in favor of the federal government. Incidentally, when asked of the biggest impetus for teachers leaving their profession: 96% believe that the lack of parental support is very or somewhat important, a sentiment shared by teachers in Joel Spring’s analysis of American education.[3]

Teaching and testing
In terms of curriculum, 58% of respondents (a 31% increase over 44% in 1979) believe that a wide variety of courses should be available. Respondents are nearly split, by 47-44% in believing that the curriculum needs to be changed to meet “today’s needs” and those who believe it already meets those needs respectively. The percentage who agree that the school curriculum needs to be changed, has increased a striking 51% from 31% in 1970.

When asked of testing, 39% of respondents believed that there was too much emphasis on achievement testing in public schools, an emphasis that 67% of those who agree believe will encourage teachers to teach to the test, of which 75% believe is a bad thing. All the same, 63% of respondents are in favor of a mandatory high-school exit exam.

Thinking about reform
Revealingly, Time respondents split evenly on the effect of the No Child Left Behind Act – 35% each viewing the law’s impact as positive or minimal. Twenty-three percent viewed the act’s impact negatively. Phi Delta Kappa’s findings on school reform are rather ambiguous: 71% of respondents support reforming the existing education system, whereas 24% support finding an “alternative” system. The distinction between “reform” and “alternative” is distressingly unclear to draw any decisive conclusions. Kansas would describe its proposal as reform within the existing system – preserving the ideal of empowering public schooling by reforming the means by which it is realized through enhanced autonomy.

All the same, it would appear to be a difficult argument to make: 60% of PDK respondents oppose voucher programs, and only a slim majority of 53% support charter schooling. Kansas stresses that the opposition is directed towards a two-tier system of public and private schooling, an opposition that is shared by this paper. Kansas stridently defines public education as free – in cost and autonomy, meritocratic, and equal. These ideals are the heart of the paper’s proposals. The apparent hostility to reform is nonexistent and muddled inferences irrelevant.

Doing something
Forty-nine percent of respondents agree that preschool programs for children from low-income and poverty-level households would do a great deal of benefit. Crucially, sixty-six percent would agree to more taxes to such programs, a sentiment that is echoed broadly in Time’s general measure of support by a margin of 59-38 percent.

Some fifty-seven and 73% of respondents believe that elementary and high school students are not working hard enough. Forty-nine versus 48% oppose increasing the amount of the school day. Of those who support increasing the school day, 66% over 31% support increasing the school year over the school day, but 67% would support increasing the school day by one hour.

[1] PDK/Gallup Polls of the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools. http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kpollpdf.htm.
[2] Time-Oprah Winfrey Show Poll. March 2006. http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/200604/tows_past_20060411_c.jhtml
[3] The Rewards of Teaching. The Profession of Teaching. American Education. Joel Spring. Tenth Edition. McGrawHill. 2002. Page 40.

The many faces of education

School formats

5.1 Schools will be divided into several key formats based on the breadth and depth of their curriculum:
5.1.a Traditional schools.
5.1.b Arts schools.
5.1.c Vocational secondary schools.
5.1.d Montessori schools.
5.1.e Focus schools—including science and technology, mathematics, literature, preparatory schools, et al. Additionally, schools may be organized on matters including religious curriculum and gender exclusivity.[i]

Traditional schools would remain most similar to the norm—their offerings would include the arts, but focus more on breadth of studies.

The school curriculum
5.2 Building from the basic, national curriculum of competencies, schools will develop their own comprehensive curriculum consistent with their format and philosophy. These conceptions may include:

5.2.a The traditional measured conceptualization, in which behavioral objectives, sequential learning, skills and content mastery, and teacher accountability are the essential tenants.[1]
5.2.b The academic rationalism conceptualization, which is subject-centered in design.[2]
5.2.c The cognitive processes conceptualization, which emphasizes the “ability to think, reason, and engage in problem-solving activities.”[3]
5.2.d The social reconstruction conceptualization, which believes that the “problems and dilemmas of society are what ought to be studied by students with the intent of creating amore just, equitable and humane society.”[4]
5.2.e The self-actualization conceptualization, in which “students become the curriculum developers, selecting for study what they are interested in, intrigued by, and curious about.”[5]

Such conceptualizations will correlate strongly along a spectrum of “traditional” to “progressive” schooling.

Variations

5.3 Among even schools of the same types, there will be variations of initiatives—some may pursue microsocieties or teaming where others may pursue adherence to a KIPP or International Baccalaureate structure. Schools will also have the option of expanding its market by serving the role of boarding school.

Organizational structure

5.4 School flexibility will enable additional opportunities for implementing divergent approaches on school management. Some schools tied only to one group of grade-levels will maintain a traditional principal and secondary assistant’s role. Other schools that span elementary and secondary levels may group grades under multiple principles.

In fact, it will be encouraged that schools encompass all grades to promote greater investments in primary education.

5.5 The basic support staff for schools will consist of counselor and secretary, expanding as the complexity of the organization grows. To avoid constrictive costs, most schools will effectively utilize teachers to oversee matters of individual school curriculum in coordination with the district versus hiring specialized managers.
5.6 A basic system for oversight will involve a board of parents and teachers, who will oversee the hiring and pay of teachers, pay and bonuses. It is desirable that the role of such systems is to prevent irresponsible management—not manage.
5.7 The government will fully finance home school students’ Advanced Placement and college preparatory assessments.

Home schools

5.8 Home schools will remain subject to individual state standards.
5.9 Once home school students have reached the age of fourteen, students must sit for the national tests of basic mastery tests in reading and mathematics. Parent and student are at liberty to extend the degree of examination to encompass greater difficulty or additional subjects.
5.10 Parents will be encouraged to have their students sit for basic examinations prior to reaching high school age by a reimbursement of $2,500 for exceptional scores (85-100%).

Partnerships

5.11 In a strive for efficiency, schools will be encouraged to collaborate with other schools to assist in providing a full educational experience. Traditional schools collaborating with vocational or arts schools in the latter years of a child’s education would be common.

Encouraging innovation

5.12 The essence of school privatization is the ability for all schools to commit itself to a core set of aims with minimal influence from competing initiatives. It is key that sound, new ideas regarding education continue to be developed and implemented throughout the country.
5.13 Colleges may establish their own schools to perform pilots, which may also be an effective means for preparing new teachers. Passionate groups may do likewise.

A recent report demonstrates the velocity of the diffusion of innovation between schools. The lead author acknowledges, “What schools perceive as good ideas in comprehensive school reform spread quickly to other schools.”[6] The result is that schools need not all be like the Crested Butte Academy, a private high school for snowboarders in Denver, Colorado – simply getting the job done works too.[7]

[1] Alternative Curriculum Conceptions and Designs. M. Frances Klein. Contemporary Issues in Curriculum. Third Edition 2003. Page 21.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid. Page 22.
[4] Ibid. Page 22.
[5] Ibid. Page 23.
[6] In Whole-School Reform, Staying True to Model Matters. Debra Viadero. Education Week. 14 May 2007. http://tinyurl.com/38anl5.
[7] For Snowboarders, A Colorado School Is Just the Ticket. Paul Glader. The Wall Street Journal. 23 February 2007.
[i] While this policy paper does allow for schools organized by religious and gender exclusivity, Kansas does not recommend such formats. Religious exclusivity is the means by which current, private-religious schools integrate into the new national framework. New schools of either theme, however, can be established if approved by the district’s approval process. This paper is confident that the tenants of market forces will effectively limit any influence of these particular formats.

In defense of funding and the separation of church and state, Kansas argues that the federal government is an impartial system for funding and accountability. Parents, by selecting the school of their choice, exercise full authority. The federal government funds and regulates such schools as it would any other, offering no advantageous or adverse treatment. Further, the established legitimacy of “faith-based” initiatives underscores the potential for impartial systems.

The duality

A brief summary of the the national framework
[You can view the PDF here.]

The structure of a nationally-standardized private-school structure would be a progressive mix of roles and formats. Most important of the roles will be that of the district, which will have the responsibility of establishing the format – focus and philosophy – of each school and their structure as subsidiary, private, or charter schools. As for the differences: subsidiary schools would remain under the full control of the district, whereas private schools would have principals appointed by the district and charter schools would have a board of trustees with a permanent group appointed by the district and a rotating group within schools. Private and charter schools are otherwise independent in the absence of poor performance. All would have a timeframe for renewal of philosophy, directives, and appointments. A rarer form would be foundation schools, established by philanthropists or churches, whose structure would correlate strongly with charter schools.

The district remains the organizing body for all of the school’s in the community – overseeing transportation, athletics, and transfers for all schools. The district’s authority and make up are subject to local government and subsequent policy: districts in large cities will likely report to a mayor or board of education; smaller suburban and rural districts would be appointed by county government or board.

The national curriculum
During the five year privatization process, Congress would establish an educator’s advisory panel composed of teachers, researchers, and relevant officials with the intent of establishing a national curriculum for all grades and subjects of study following a brief period of town halls throughout the country.

The curriculum will encompass the core courses—math, English, history, and science—and pinnacles, including the arts, foreign language, et al. Primary focus will be on the development of curriculum for core courses as competency in these subjects will be expected of all schools.

The goals of the panel should be limited to promoting a concise, basic curriculum on which national assessments would be based and a complete, voluntary curriculum. The basic curriculum is solely an articulation of expected degrees of competency. Each school will develop their own comprehensive curriculum.

The panel will seek to enhance retention through all grades and also evaluate the competiveness of both forms of the curriculum compared to foreign peers. The panel would be tasked with the distribution of such curriculum following its approval and its regular maintenance and alteration on a yearly basis.

Organization
At its essence, decentralization is a duality of purpose: it affords greater flexibility to individual schools while also centralizing the basic systems of funding, assessment, and accountability to a broader, national context. The structure of the new systems would be based on a national department of education responsible for funding, standards, and assessment. Local districts will continue to be comprised of several thousand children and several elementary and secondary schools—their role is more specifically discussed in The District.

Tuition
Tuitions for each school would vary based on a variety of circumstances including school performance in core subjects, involvement in sports and the arts, needs of the student body, and
participation in incentives programs. The formula for determining tuition for each school would also take into account the location of the school and allow buffers promoting the integration of students with poorer performance.

School tuitions will also vary based on adherence to additional voluntary curriculums and policies offered by the federal, state, and local districts.

Testing
Assessments of all students would take place each year based on the basic curriculum. The performance for each subject assessment is determined by failure (less than 65 percent of problems correct), satisfactory (65-75 percent), exceptional (75-85%), and superior (85-100%). All students are expected to pass each core subject; 75 percent of students are expected to have scores that fall within exceptional to superior.

Other subjects for assessment, not required for each student includes the arts, foreign languages, etc All tests are accessible at all times throughout the year depending on a school’s schedule. A national rating system for schools will be established based on the school’s performance in the core areas of study and pinnacle courses where applicable.

Accountability
For five years after privatization, schools will have the flexibility to make adequate yearly progress towards national standards. If they fail, the district will be responsible for coordinating acceptable change—if necessary, changing the school’s structure.