At the gate

International rankings
[You can view the PDF here.]

Worry, Thomas Friedman tells Americans: The world is flat (forgive the advertisement) – and losing the Olympic basketball tournament is just the beginning. Standards of education are rising throughout the world, and as the country’s preeminence wanes, so go its substantial advantages.[1] After all, a globally competitive economy necessitates a globally competitive education. The United States, it seems, makes a solid performance, but leaves much to be desired, that is, depending on where one stands. It is, more than anything, a numbers game.

Many, with whom this paper agrees, would have the world’s richest economy be the best educated as well. (It, the United Nations ranks, is 12th out of 21 countries.)[2] Others, are more non-chalant: after all, of Newsweek’s top ten global universities, eight of ten are American.[3] The argument is at both points self-defeating and immediately beneficial to this paper’s quest for privatization. First, the gap between a poor education and superior economies does not bode well for long-term economic growth – the investment seems only capable of deteriorating; second, universities, private or autonomous, represent the ideal embodiment of a privatized schools system. Steven Sample, President of the University of Southern California, definitively concludes, “A country that has the best universities in the world has among the worst elementary and secondary schools.”[4]

Measuring the reading proficiency of fifteen year-olds, as measured by OECD, 61.1% of America’s students rank at or above Level 3 proficiency. This trails Japan’s level of 72% or Australia’s 68.6%. All told, fourteen of twenty-seven scores rank higher than the United States in terms of proficiency at the high end. More disconcerting, the percentage of the country’s pupils ranking at the bottom is 6.4%, more than mean of 6.0%, and greater than seventeen other nations.[5]

Math, as measured by the Department of Education’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, te lls a similar tale: the country ranks 15th – only 8% above the mean, and trailing Singapore by 20 percent.[6]

Among the more interesting statistics, 25 and 20.2% of America’s students report a low sense of belonging and participation, respectively, also higher than the mean statistics for both benchmarks.[7] At 15.5 students to teachers at the pre-primary level, America is almost 5% higher than the mean; for all-secondary education, the country’s rank of 15.5 is some 14% above average. The country finds a rare success at the primary level where it has a ratio that is seven percent less than average. The country is notable for the near absolute stability of its ratio – the United Kingdom’s ratio ranges from 26.6 students per teacher to 12.5.[8] (This marked disadvantage for England’s primary-level children is remarkably clear: the cost, The Economist notes, of a child leaving English primary schools illiterate is some £50,000).[9]

Seeking the forest

Invariably, it does not take much to become muddled in statistics. Therefore, two points should be drawn in summary: higher centralized funding, as advocated in this paper, is negatively correlated with a country’s reading performance. (Only 8% of America’s school funding comes from the national government, whereas the mean is 50 percent.)[10] Schools independence, however, demonstrates a positive correlation (see chart). What then to make of the contradictory numbers in context of this paper’s argument; and what to weigh more?

Independence is the essence of Kansas’ position – nationalized funding is but a secondary aim, albeit the potentially most effective for bringing about the full force of an incentives-based competitive market. This paper does not doubt the overall effectiveness of its schools reform platform if the means for financing it was altered to become the legally-bound responsibility of the state. A nationalized solution, then, is most pragmatic because it is less crippling locally and requires less political will to implement and follow-through.

One can also combat the negative correlation between centralized funding and schools performance on three fronts. Mexico, for better or worse, best embodies these trends.[11] First, geographic disparities naturally result in differences in the source of a schools funding. Smaller countries, e.g., Luxembourg, can more readily centralize funding.

Yet, this difference in the source of funding does not differentiate between the level of resources available within and between countries: where the United States is relatively prosperous throughout its states, in countries like Mexico, where income distribution is not as equal, it is more pragmatic for a central government to step in. While central government spending may be high, it does not necessarily mean that it accounts for much, making such comparisons untidy.

Second, underlying factors regarding the nation’s economic development and the structure of its education system can skew results. Where economic conditions are bleak, the advantages of staying in school shrink. As a result, enrollment falls – or was never enforced – and performance deteriorates.

Third, general inefficiencies, a consistent target of this paper, could also be put into play. Mexico’s Educational Workers’ Union, the largest trade union in Latin America, has what The Economist terms “a stranglehold” on education funding. The union readily absorbs increased funding, and control of bad teachers, Enrique Rueda, director of Oaxaca's teachers, says is “very bad.” As a testament to the country's inefficiencies, public education spending as a percentage of all public expenditures in 2001 was marked at 18.0 – in excess of the mean of 8.9 percent – a territory it finds itself in with none other than the United States.

[1] The World is Flat. Thomas L. Friedman. 2005.
[2] Full of woe. The Economist. 17 February 2007.
[3] The Complete List: The Top 100 Global Universities. Newsweek. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14321230/. 13 August 2006.
[4] The Educated Child. William J. Bennett, Chester E. Finn, Jr., John T. E. Cribb, Jr.
[5] Reading Literacy of 15-year-olds. Education at a Glance 2004. OECD. http://tinyurl.com/2w7z5k.
[6] Average mathematics scale scores of eight-grade students, by country: 2003. Institute for Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics. U.S. Department of Education. http://tinyurl.com/2u7tmq.
[7] 15-year-olds’ Engagement in School – A Sense of Belonging and Participation. Education at a Glance 2004. OECD.
[8] Class Size and Ratio of Students to Teaching Staff. Ibid.
[9] Catching up. The Economist. 23 December 2006.
[10] Total Public Expenditure on Education. Education at a Glance 2004. OECD.
[11] Mexico’s mezzogiorno. Time to wake up. A survey of Mexico. The Economist. 18 November 2006.

Paying up

Tuitition

4.1 The base tuition for all schools will initially be $10,000 per child; the maximum government contribution will be $15,000— each expected to increase in adherence with progressive systems. The specific tuition for all school’s will vary depending upon three sets of factors— predetermined factors, performance, and incentives-based.

The median per-pupil expenditure for students, as measured by the U.S. Department of Education in 2005, was $9,392; the 95th percentile: $18,100.[1]

4.2 The district will receive financing of $150-250 per child.

While the funding may vary significantly between schools, every effort will be made to ensure that the levels of financing are relative to the performance and needs of all schools.

Predetermined

4.3 The location of the school will weigh heavily on the school’s individual funding. Urban facilities and staffs will cost more to maintain and expand. In the same respect, rural schools will be allocated additional funds for transportation.
4.4 Elementary schools will receive additional funding—and subsequent scrutiny, to provide individualized services, ensuring literacy, a cost effective means to limit the expense and problems of lingering illiteracy in secondary schooling.

Performance

4.5 Schools that exceed superior standards for student basic skills will receive a maximum increase in funding of 2.5%. For example, a school that has 80% of students in the satisfactory range, five percentage points out of twenty-five more than the required amount, will receive a .5% increase—or one-fourth of the possible amount.

4.6 Schools that focus heavily on the arts and vocational studies receive an additional potential amount of $1,000 ($11,000-$16,000) to justify the additional burdens of pursuing mastery of both their specialty and core courses. Unlike similar performance funding, the percentage of a school’s population within the exceptional to superior range will determine the total amount per child awarded to schools.

Incentives based programs

4.7 In order to promote competitiveness between schools, the government will provide additional allocations to school’s that pursue its various incentives.
4.8 The primary incentives program will be a school’s performance in voluntary adherence to the more strict, complete curriculum. Schools that also seek to promote diversity, integrate students of lower socioeconomic status will also be allocated additional resources to encourage further inclusion by other successful schools.
4.9 Schools will also be encouraged to accommodate poor-performing students from other schools. The government would offer an additional $1,000 to schools under the $15,000 maximum for increased performance from students who performed poorly in other schools in the last year’s examination.

If for example, a school’s total population from other school’s last year was 74% on the basic examinations and increases to 90% this year, the school receives an additional $160 per child – including those not from poorer performing schools. This structure will encourage competition as well as maximize the opportunities available to each student.

4.10 Another such incentive will be a school’s adherence to the recommended budget allocation for schools that share similar characteristics. Another measure will award schools for students that are enrolled in college-level courses. Additionally, schools will be rewarded for a dropout rate below the national average; and participation in arts and sports— standardized records per sport and adjudications will serve as the basis for these allocations.

Stability

4.11 To prevent rapid fluctuations in school tuitions as well as to ensure that funding is being used effectively, mechanisms will be implemented to ensure stable funding from year to year.
4.12 Bonuses from previous years are priced in to the school’s upcoming year’s budget. Schools whose performance decreases will only lose a small portion of their relative bonuses from the previous years. Additionally, small portions of such bonuses are reclaimed each year to prevent an accumulation of resources that cannot be spent.

Special grants

4.13 Special grants are awarded to schools that pursue pilot programs,
expansions, and maintenance, allocated by the district.

Hybrid schools

4.14 In what will be appealing primarily to schools that have maxed out their maximum government contribution, schools will also have the opportunity to initiate a hybrid-funding program, receiving funds from both the government and parents.

4.15 The school will determine the required parent contribution, however,
participating schools must also adhere to mirroring standards to ensure that
cost is not used as a blunt instrument to reduce the counts of those who could
not otherwise afford the school.

4.16 The government will provide a fair valuation metric for parents to compare the true value of their school.
4.17 Certain schools run by organizations or religious associations will choose to provide all of its funding from other sources that do not directly tax students’ parents.

Bob Chase, the former President of the National Education Association, is right. “Many politicians talk tough about holding students and teachers accountable. But while they have zero tolerance for underachieving kids, they have abundant tolerance for underfunded schools.”[2]

[1] Expenditures per pupil at the 5th, median, and 95th percentile cutpoints and federal range ratio for public elementary and secondary school districts in the United States, by district type and type of expenditure: Fiscal year 2005. National Center for Education Statistics. Department of Education. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/revexpdist05/tables/table_5.asp?referrer=list
[2] Teacher’s Unions and Teacher Politics. American Education. Joel Spring. Tenth Edition. McGraw Hill. 2002. Page 55.

Roles

The teacher

12.1 Following privatization, teachers are afforded more flexibility to pursue what and how they teach their classes, consistent with the policies of the schools that employ them.
12.2 Teachers will ultimately be held to a greater collective scrutiny – however by freeing schools to chose the philosophy that best suits their teachers and students should counteract any discomfort. School turnover will be a component of evaluating a school’s performance and tuition. Measurement will vary from class performance to a process of colleague review.
12.3 Teachers will exercise greater influence in the affairs of their schools in regards to developing and implementing policy and curriculum.

Pay and benefits

12.4 Pay will be measurably increased with a benchmark average of $50,000 per teacher.
12.5 Better teachers, as measured by common indicators and processes established at each school, will be paid more. As a result, an emphasis is placed on depth of knowledge and multiple certifications. Continual education is a significant priority. Schools may also offer additional bonuses at their discretion as long as they are approved by its governing board.
12.6 The market determines the value of fields of study. For example, the market will value new history teachers more when they are scarce; less so for science teachers in a glut. At the same time, poorer performing schools have the flexibility to increase their pay to attract qualified candidates. Consistent with market principles, such imbalances naturally self-correct.
12.7 Each state manages health and retirement benefits – a hybrid of mandatory school contributions and funds raised by the state. An additional a la carte system will compliment basic services, supported by fees from the schools, serving as another means of attracting talent. Individual schools, particularly those with large endowments, may deviate from this plan.
12.8 An impetus is placed on schools to offer incentives to teachers – including subsidized study, bonuses, et al. Schools that are effective at reducing redundant administrative burdens (i.e., implementing digital classrooms to automate grading individual papers) and replacing this time with producing engaging lesson will benefit.

Standards and certification

12.9 All professional teachers must secure a basic, national license. More rigorous licenses are available consistent with meeting necessary benchmarks and requirements. These licenses encompass both degree of advancement and specific subjects.
12.10 Certifications would be overseen by a board similar to style and composition to that of the national curriculum board.
12.11 Some states and schools may require that, in addition to the basic license, teachers achieve a certification in their desired subject(s). Teachers would be hired on the premise that they would achieve such a certification within a reasonable time limit.
12.12 All incoming teachers will be required to reach basic competency in a foreign language, with emphasis on less predominant languages to achieve their national license.
12.13 It is recommended that schools adopt a “career ladder” approach to qualification, experience, and development.

The student

12.14 Students will have the opportunity to enroll in schools with philosophies consistent with their learning styles and needs.
12.15 Students for whom English is a second language are afforded a three-year exemption from their scores’ calculation as part of a school’s performance in order to gain a satisfactory mastery of the language.

Less is more

12.16 Regular classroom reorganization and other initiatives will seek to place students in classes with peers of similar ability – allowing uninhibited growth.
12.17 An emphasis will be placed on aggressively promoting students with parental consent to provide an efficient and challenging career. To prevent the potential conflict of interest resulting from schools intentionally delaying students or denying promotions, the tuition formula would be designed to provide a check-and-balance against unjustified promotion (poorer test scores) and unnecessary detainment.

Special needs[1]

12.18 Students with special needs and disabilities are guaranteed a qualified school within the district or cooperative districts through the district’s school formats process. Individual schools with the capacity to support these individuals will receive a monetary benefit for absorbing them.
12.19 Parents of infants and toddlers with disabilities are entitled to exercise additional funds by attending early intervention and therapy at a qualified school with an emphasis on language development.
12.20 Schools that compete for special needs students must demonstrate excellent facilities and experienced personnel. Schools must provide a comprehensive special
needs curriculum that emphasizes vocabulary and language development and social
and behavioral skills.
12.21 Primary schools will be required to perform special-needs identification programs upon a student’s enrollment.

Thomas Hehir’s Begin Early, Begin Well, notes that “50 percent of students served by special
education are not identified until they are in school. … Typically these students do not get referred to special education until 3rd or 4th grade or even later. … These problems are more apt to increase if left unaddressed. The sooner we start with providing these children with positive behavioral interventions, the greater the likelihood we will be able to change these children’s behavior.”

12.22 Special needs students are guaranteed full access to a school’s advanced curriculum consistent with their demonstrated ability through eligibility to enroll in regular classroom reorganization and horizontal-block scheduling structures.
12.23 Implement strong financial incentives for schools that ensure that all students with disabilities complete high school.

Kansas concurs with William J. Bennett’s The Educated Child. Students with special needs “must be given access to the standard curriculum, helped to attain the academic standards of his school or state, and included in the life and activities of his school. … All this and more is possible …”[2]

The parent
12.24 Parents will be at liberty to choose the school they believe would be most effective for their child.

Information

12.25 Parents will have access to each school’s performance data and will have access to officials when considering enrollment and teachers at any time once enrolled. A report for a district’s schools will be issued annually. A national, online database will be compiled to assist in these efforts.

Enrollment

12.26 Parents may be solicited to enroll their children in schools outside of the district at the school’s discretion.
12.27 Parents will have the opportunity to alter their child’s school enrollment once per year. Such change without cause will be discouraged – schools can require a minimum of two years attendance, waved by a small fee.
12.28 Parents will have the opportunity to enroll in school waiting lists consistent with school policy and availability.

The district

12.29 While reduced from its overinflated role, the district will remain a significant component of a privatized school system. Its largest goals will be in coordinating schools within its district in sport and arts and holding schools under it to account. The district will also be responsible for realizing the requirements of progressive systems – such as building new schools.
12.30 The district will also oversee transportation services, paid for by individual schools.

The enforcer

12.31 The district will maintain a Focus group skilled in various departments that can assist schools that ask for it as well as assume control of schools that fail to meet national standards.

New schools

12.32 Following the standards of progressive systems, districts will be allocated funds and a timeframe for constructing the required new school.
12.33 During this time, the district will solicit bids from various organizations who would wish to oversee the new school. After narrowing the choices down to three, the options would be put to a vote by citizens of the district.
12.34 Construction for new schools will be heavily subsidized by the federal government; however, a small ongoing fee per student will be assessed, payable to the district, to finance future construction.

12.35 The district will be responsible for developing and issuing special grants as it sees fit.
12.36 The district will assist in developing each school’s curriculum with its Focus group of instructional facilitators and advisors.

[1] Begin Early, End Well. Thomas Hehir. The School Administrator. October 1999. http://tinyurl.com/2nvnda. Mr. Hehir recommends five strategies for disabled-education policy which serve as the groundwork for this segment.
[2] The Educated Child: A Parent’s Guide from Preschool through Eighth Grade. William J. Bennett, Chester E. Finn, Jr., John T. E. Cribb, Jr. The Free Press. 1992. Pp 467-468.