Three sides of the same debate

Choice, accountability, and autonomy

In the opening acknowledgments to Dr. George H. Wood’s Schools That Work, he concedes that he found out “how hard it is to sell a book on what is good about American schools.” His purpose, however, is clear: “Could every American school work so well for every child?” (1)

For the past decade, the debate over school reform has been fragmented into three debates: one of choice, one of freedom, and one of accountability. Choice remains dominated by the championing of voucher programs - an approach that this paper believes only serves to stratify the education system into schools of the poor and privileged. The continual rejection of voucher initiatives - most recently in Utah - speaks to the movement's ineffectiveness. Freedom has reached the forefront most specifically in the debate over charter schools - and with it, concerns over accountability. It is accountability, undoubtedly, that has been at the center of these three debates: it is a shorter word for the No Child Left Behind Act.

Rather disconcertingly, these ideas have remained more as points of disagreement than being embraced, as this paper sees it, as complementary. As this paper has argued, the No Child Left Behind Act is failing precisely because it lacks the flexibility (and incentives) necessary to enable schools to extend their efforts beyond the test alone. The result is an environment that avoids risks - and potentially great returns.

This paper is undoubtedly unwelcome and uncomfortable at the extremities of each sides of this debate. Its purpose has been to unite the underlying promise of choice, accountability, and autonomy. It must first confront the skeptics.

Rage against the machine
The first line of argument is the failure of federal oversight. "Since the [federal government] has been seriously involved in education 'we have suffered…a catastrophic decline in educational productivity, analogous to buying 1970s cars today and paying twice their original selling price,'" Neal McCluskey writes in Cato@Liberty, the public-policy institute's official blog. "So what’s the solution to all this?" Mr. McCluskey asks. "Universal school choice. Give parents control over public education money instead of giving it to the educrats, and make the schools compete ... Only then will the catastrophic flaw in top-down control at any level be eliminated, and the power structure for real accountability be in place." (2)

The source of his frustration is test-based accountability - which he argues, continues to diminish standards. Richard Rothstein writes in The American Prospect that this system "corrupts schooling in ways that overshadowed any possible score increases." One such consequence, he writes, is the goal distortion of undue emphasis placed on particular subjects and metrics. Even the specifics can be distorted: the No Child Left Behind Act demands proficiency of all subgroups, but by the very nature of statistical accuracy, the margin-of-errors spread farther— in short, “inaccurate accountability.” (3)

Kansas responds to this line of thought through part agreement and part argument. Mr. Rothstein’s questioning of goal distortion is more or less the same as this paper’s frustration with “entropy as the result of specificity” - and addresses it on several fronts. First, agreeing with Mr. Rothstein’s assessment of goal distortion, the paper’s understanding of a school’s effectiveness incorporates more than test scores.

It also agrees with Mr. McCluskey that accountability alone has and will continue to fail, but asks how will choice alone manage any better if schools cannot truly differentiate themselves from one another? Autonomy, too is needed. It is here that schools can move beyond merely teaching to the test, but transcending it, through curriculums and policies that are truly competitive.

This paper strongly disagrees that the federal government should not be a force in education—and questions how much so it truly has been ‘seriously involved’ in public schooling. The No Child Left Behind Act has failed precisely because it lacks assertiveness: without universal national standards—with which Mr. Rothstein supports, if proposed by a third party—it is in the states interest to limit standards to meet compliance.

The federal government must remain involved in the nation’s education, but it must transcend the ill-conceived frameworks in which it has been content with. In a nation wrecked by inequalities of funding and standards, it is the position of this paper that quite simply, the federal government must become a stronger force in this nation’s education. But it must be a focused force — uniting standards to reflect a united economic and democratic interest, and ensuring equality of opportunity, no less through guaranteed payment of tuition.

The opportunity is present, quite simply, to transcend beyond this wretched system of inherent inequality—and federal policies ineffective precisely because it accepts this as an unquestionable reality—to embrace a system that is truly both comprehensive and effective.

Dismal pickings
“School choice seems simple, straightforward,” editors Edith Rasell and Richard Rothstein write in School Choice, “but despite the apparent consensus, critics of school choice have raised a number of troubling questions. Will all parents be equally able with sufficient time and sophistication to choose the best school for their children? Will choice further stratify an already stratified educational system? In the past school choice led to segregated schools; will outcomes be better this time?” (4)

Amy Stuart Wells’ study of the choices of parents of inner-city African American students found that: Several factors, including expectations, racial attitudes, sense of efficacy, and alienation and isolation from the larger society, affect the amount of information parents and students have access to and the kinds of decisions they make. These factors … lead to educational decisions far removed from tangible measures of school quality. (4a)

Douglas Willms and Frank Echols offer an interesting insight on Scottish schools, where families are allowed to choose schools outside their neighborhood—the schools required to publish information on their curriculum, school discipline, and examination results. “Many families,” the summary reports “choose schools based on factors unrelated to achievement or academic quality.” They include, Jon Witte writes, geographic location and disciplinary climate as well. (4b,c)

Even the Scottish families who sought the highest academic quality were susceptible to a lack of meaningful information. Parents, Mary Driscoll writes, are also vulnerable to self-deception: adamant that their chosen schools were superior, in defiance of a reality that suggests otherwise. (4d)

Choice, Rasell and Rothstein believe, cannot be a “single factor solution.” They are right. Without an effective framework responsible for accountability—clearly and fairly assessing schools on all relevant factors so that parents may be truly informed, and thus empowered — choice is meaningless. The editors are correct—that unless an effort is made to unite standards by dismantling the unequal fifty-tier system of standards—school choice will only compound this fifty-tier mishap into a one-hundred tier monstrosity.

Without autonomy, schools cannot truly differentiate themselves—and will be continually bound to an uninspired approach to education that has continued to plague this nation’s schools.

What’s missing
This paper acknowledges that performance—no matter how defined—is not the sole influence in determining which school a child is sent to—nor should it be. This paper is not written in the interest of having students “pushed out of their neighborhood schools and onto a bus heading for the suburbs by an assertive parent.” (4) The failure of poor, urban and rural schools will not be fixed by outsourcing their children to better performing schools elsewhere.

School improvement must be organic, continuous, and close to home. It is achieved by giving school leaders the flexibility to embrace innovative programs such as KIPP as their school’s groundwork, and affording them the power to enforce. This power— ranging from what teachers to keep and recruit (and how much to pay them) — allows them to compete for talent.

With control of funding, school leaders can invest in their resources and facilities on which an environment that fosters education so fully depends upon. Thus empowered, no longer must school buildings be decrepit and void of books—not only because parents are equally empowered to move elsewhere, but because that there are no more excuses.

Think—but think clearly
This paper has not been disillusioned by either argument that education is in too much of the public interest to deny private (preferably, not corporate) interest, or too eager to embrace the fanciful notion that complete privatization can effectively regulate itself. John Kenneth Gailbraith sees the conclusion clearly: “I react pragmatically. Where the market works, I’m for that. Where the government is necessary, I’m for that… I’m in favor of whatever works in the particular case.”

This is a unique case— for, Jim Horning is right, “nothing is as simple as we hope it will be” — one that is at once faced with enormous responsibility and immense complexity. The government must exist in education to ensure the equality of standards and funding, to see to it that at minimum, all schools are fulfilling their responsibilities; the market exists to encourage schools, parents, and student to demand more of themselves, and be empowered to seek it.

John Chubb and Terry Moe of Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools finished their work with the conclusion that “private control means less bureaucratic influence; less bureaucratic influence leads to better school organization; and better school organization leads to higher student achievement.” (4)

This debate is a question of words—all of them political, and all of them polarizing. It need not be so. Private, autonomous, charter are all the same: independence. Choice is nothing more than the proper fit for school, student, and parent. The aim is to continue to diminish the variance in performance between schools - and now to address the large variance in performance within them without compromising diversity. This paper has recognized and addressed the very real risk of disillusioned parents by encouraging a greater transparency in total performance and satisfaction, while also encouraging schools in turn to work further in the students’ and their own, to indulge in unspeak, enlightened self-interest.

This encourages schools to actively recruit students—and also offers them the incentives to seek out and develop poor-performing students just as much so as the talented. It is then that schools embrace the challenge of an empowering education—and if such an equilibrium can be reached, this paper has succeeded.

(1) Schools That Work: America’s Most Innovative Public Education Programs. George H. Wood, Ph.D. Penguin Books. 1992.
(2) George's Will be Done on NCLB. Neal McCluskey. Cato@Liberty. The Cato Institute. 11 December 2007. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/12/11/georges-will-be-done-on-nclb/
(3) Leaving "No Child Left Behind" Behind. Richard Rothstein. The American Prospect. 17 December 2007. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles;jsessionid=acp1XfueERQdql6HVB?article=leaving_nclb_behind
(4) School Choice. Ed. Edith Rasell, Richard Rothstein. Economic Policy Institute. 1993.
a - The Sociology of School Choice: Why Some Win and Others Lose in the Educational Marketplace. Amy Stuart Wells.
b - The Scottish Experience of Parental School Choice. J. Douglas Willms, Frank H. Echols.
c - The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Jon Witte.
d - Choice, Achievement, and School Community. Mary Driscoll.

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.