Across the nation, there are three common ways to increase school
choice: charter schools, vouchers (subsidies) to help pay for private school,
and tax credits for companies that donate supplemental funds for voucher programs.
All three approaches have serious deficiencies, and I propose two better
alternatives.
But first, what is wrong with the current options?
Charter schools are relatively unregulated, compared to regular public schools.
They often are special-purpose schools that do not offer solutions for the
broad swath of typical students. A common problem with school-choice options
such as vouchers and tax credits is that such bills will be tied up in court
challenges on the grounds that public money is being diverted to private,
profit-making schools. The widely popular Nevada program, for example, is now
held up in court.
Voucher programs provide only part, often around a
half, of the cost of private schools. In the Nevada plan, the state transfers
up to $5,700 per child directly to the parents. But the national average
private school tuition is approximately $9,518 per year. Thus the shortfall
means that only people who have the means can pay the difference. In other
words, voucher programs are a subsidy that clearly discriminates against the
poor and minorities. How can that survive court challenge?
Also, think about what happens to a public school when
all the middle class students transfer out. Public schools can be undermined in
another way as well. In Nevada, for example, all the funds that normally would
go to the public school are transferred, thus removing support for overhead
costs of running a school (utilities, janitorial service, physical plant
maintenance, etc.). In addition, a new
bureaucracy has to be created to administer the program and monitor allowable
expenditures by every participating parent.
Arm waving and lip service will not do. We must seek
better options. One option is to privatize the management of public schools. An
innovative approach has been enabled by Louisiana Senate Bill 432, passed on
May 12, 2016, which transfers oversight of charter schools to local school
boards. In the New Orleans Parish district, historically shamefully inadequate,
there is now the opportunity to put schools under contract management.
Basically, the program allows the school district to convert all public schools
into charter schools, controlled by safeguards from abuse by supervision of the
Orleans Parish school board and state law. Each school can have complete
autonomy over all areas of school operations, such as school programming,
instruction, curriculum, materials and texts, business operations, and
personnel management. Further details are provided in the documents listed
below.
Parents can send their children to any school in the
district, and all schools must use the district-wide enrollment and expulsion
system. Schools that develop so much excellence that enrollment limits are
reached can create lottery admission policies. This puts enormous pressure on
the local board to hire contractors who can upgrade the performance of the
other schools. Multiple contractors are not only allowed but encouraged. Boards
have the authority for competitive bidding processes that ensure competition
among the various schools it also makes sense to allow students to transfer
from one public school to another, or even to a public school in an adjacent
country. Florida just passed such a law.
In Louisiana, safeguards include the requirement that
each charter school must have independent third-party administration and
monitoring of state high-stakes tests. The state Department of Education can
withhold funding from any school districts that under-perform or abuse these
new liberties. Local boards have authority to close a charter school. The state
superintendent of education can rescind the charter for any school that is
being inappropriately protected by a local school board.
A second option that I propose is to break up
mega-enrollment schools into smaller schools-within-a-school as separate units
that face open competition for enrollment. Carving out smaller schools would
increase school choice because there would be more schools and more
competition. They could be managed in the usual ways or as in New Orleans by
independent, competing contractors. Note that the philosophy is akin to that
used in premier universities like Oxford, where separate small, relatively
autonomous "colleges" are embedded within the university.
Inner city schools with enrollments of several thousand
or more are common after the sixth grade. This has helped to create the
dysfunction in inner city schools. It is a well-documented fact that smaller
schools produce better student learning. That is why you don't see private
mega-schools. Super-sized schools breed attitude and behavior problems and are
bad for education quality because:
- Students become part of a herd collective,
losing individuality and personal attention from teachers who know them
well.
- Students have less opportunity to hone
leadership skills or to participate in key extracurricular activities.
- Behavior and security problems are
greater. Teenagers have enough trouble "finding themselves"
emotionally and socially without being swallowed up as just another number
passed from teacher to teacher who can't possibly know much about
everybody's learning and emotional needs and problems.
- Students in mega-schools face fierce and
demotivating academic and social competition. Only a few get to
participate in the popular extracurricular activities. School can cease to
be fun. Almost a third of public school students quit, and many more just
drift through. Minorities are especially harmed.
- In this
school-within-a-school model, the small schools may grow too large because
of population growth in the community. But if that happens, the district
can build new schools with the same school-within-a school philosophy. The
philosophy
In this school-within-a-school model, the small
schools may grow too large because of population growth in the community. But
if that happens, the district can build new schools with the same
school-within-a school philosophy.
Small schools can still have the same amenities as
mega-schools if the districts create shared facilities, such as cafeteria,
stadiums, sports arenas, gyms, band rooms, vocational education shops,
special-needs or advanced placement teachers, administrative staff, etc. With
shared facilities, construction costs are reduced. Support staff might actually
be cut if many facilities were shared. For academic instruction in
low-enrollment subjects, like calculus, a small band of roving specialty
teachers could service several small schools.
There is no justification for extra administrators.
The principal and staff that now serve a school of three thousand can just as
readily service five schools of 600 each. The core of quality education lies in
the teachers, who will do their best if they have autonomy and competition.
In summary, educational policy wonks and legislatures
should stop pursuing controversial and flawed choice options and consider these
two models. Both offer more choice, do not discriminate against the poor and
minorities, do not undermine public schools, easily pass court challenge, and
are likely to produce better educated children. The public does not have to
embrace subsidies of private schools to get more school choice.
Districts may be slow to implement
such reforms, because in many districts, the superintendents and their boards
have comfortable cozy relationships. But once parents have access to better
options, they will elect the kind of board members who demand real change.
Sources:
Readers interested in my efforts to improve a child's success in school might be interested in my e- book, "Better Grades, Less Effort" at Smashwords.com or "Memory Power 101" at bookstores everywhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please contribute your ideas. This blog is all about making learning easier for everyone.