When I write about politics, it's always an exercise in learning. I draft something, read what I drafted, discuss it, change my mind about sections of it months later, refine it, etc. Here's what I'm thinking about education, which is in some pretty dire straights.
Federal
1. End the Department of Education
2. Transfer the annual $70 billion currently given to the Department of Education to states (for a 5-year transitionary period, no strings attached)
States
1. Use the received portion of the $70 billion to continue Pell Grants and raise the base level of teacher income
2. Raise sales and gas taxes to get teacher income to a competitive level ($70,000-$90,000?)
3. Change to (or keep) a year-round schedule and make the year 200 days
4. End teacher's unions, making it easier to fire the worst of the lot
5. Give hiring preference to those who have a master's degree, and give a stipend to those with a master's degree
After reading Outliers, I'd say that changing to a year-round schedule and making the school year 200 days would be the best and simplest move a state could make. The rest would be nice, but more difficult.
9 comments:
Good ideas--I agree with most of them, like year-round schedule (for universities too). I feel like unions could possibly take charge in being more flexible about hiring/firing, but if not, they'll probably need to go.
What about detaching education funding from property taxes? I've never heard a good argument for why these two are linked.
It would make me as a teacher extremely nervous to see the unions go. I've watched them defend my mother (a teacher in Idaho), when she had a manipulative, hostile principal, and I've seen them defend my coworkers when parents came after them for teaching that Islam was not a religion of violence.
Unions and their policies could use reform, but I do think they serve a positive function in the education system. If we got rid of them, we'd need to give the individual teachers themselves more power and avenues for defense, negotiation, and recourse of wrongs.
I agree, Eve, that teachers would need more power and avenues for defense, and that the decision to fire a teacher should never be left just to a principal. I wonder if a committee that consisted of the school board, the principal, and fellow teachers would work well. They could also factor in anonymous student feedback in their decision.
My sister (a teacher in AZ) talks about bullying tactics the unions use: those who are in the union get a sticker next to their name on the mail slots in the break room, while those who didn't join the union didn't get asked back the next year.
It's true that there's probably a lot of bloat in the Department of Education, but from what I understand, a huge majority (as in almost all) of their money goes into 3 programs: Head Start (which, from the research I've read, has been shown to be hugely effective at reducing deficits for low-income kindergarteners), Title 1 funding (money for "poor" schools), and special education funding. Where would states get money for those programs if we dissolved the Fed branch & spread out the funds like you suggest? And do you feel that we could trust states to ensure equal access for disadvantaged preschoolers, impoverished schools, and disabled students on their own? Looking at the enormous variability in things that states already individually regulate (like teacher licensing requirements, high school graduation requirements, gifted & talented programs, facilities management & funding, curriculum selection...the list goes on and on), I would hate to be the parent of one of those high-needs groups (disabled students, etc.) if education were suddenly deregulated like that.
...
...
I've taught at a charter school, a private school, and public schools now; in relatively wealthy areas and in much poorer areas; in a highly urban neighborhood, in suburbia at its finest, and in a remote corner of the Tooele valley next door to working ranches; in almost entirely white classrooms and in places where I was the minority. The differences between them are pretty minimal in my mind. No matter where you go, some kids can read and some can't; some are smart and talented and good at playing the game of school and some aren't; some teachers are enthusiastic and engaged and some aren't. A lot more is working than is broken in our schools. People talk big all the time about "fixing" education, but no one can even identify what's "broken"--test scores in subject X are up or down, depending on whom you include and how you bend the numbers, from 10 or 30 or 70 years ago. We've got to remember that the idea of public education itself is still very, very young--much less than 200 years--and its definition and aims change with every generation of students. You may say that someone's selection of key indicators point to a "crisis" in math or reading or X Y Z scores compared to X Y Z countries, but the data is too inconsistent to make the kinds of generalizations that political talking heads use to write headlines--and it fails to account for our changing student population. American public schools educate more disabled, non-English-speaking, hungry, and impoverished students now than we did even 5 years ago.
...
...
You can't "fix" education by throwing more money at it. The problem with world hunger isn't that there isn't enough food for all of us to eat--it's that supply chain problems (political, economic, physical, and otherwise) prevent food from getting to where it needs to be. Money for schools is the same way. There is enough money in the system for every student to get a free, appropriate public education, but too much of it is misspent (sometimes intentionally, often not). Think about it. School districts, principals, and even individual teachers (especially those on technology and curriculum committees) make spending decisions on thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. Do they have the training to understand wise spending? School districts have accounting departments, but do they have highly trained specialists (like CFOs) on hand to weed out the bloat and find ways to make spending more efficient and effective? Usually not. Individual schools (including charter schools, who by definition are never overseen by a district) make decisions on discretionary spending in the tens of thousands of dollars a year (not including staff salary decisions!), and yet they are rarely if ever required to account for the good that money does (other than in test scores, which are a terribly poor barometer for spending effectiveness--way too many variables in between).
...
oops. ...
I honestly think the US Dept. of Education should be drastically streamlined and pared down (when it comes to spending), but that we need a national-level overhaul on regulation of schools. I see the DOA functioning most effectively as a regulatory body similar to the FDA, not necessarily a first-level funding source for schools. If we are going to legislate public education as a national right (most recently seen in Race to the Top, but previously in NCLB (2001), ESEA (1965), etc.), then we absolutely must define what public education means on a national level. What should the minimum requirements be to get a high school diploma? To be certified as a teacher? To ensure that underserved populations are given equal access? It's not necessarily the federal government's job to answer those questions (e.g. licensing requirements for doctors, nurses, etc. are national but are not dictated by the government), but I really think we need national-level consistency on a few bare minimum items if we are to spend education money efficiently. We need to put the advantages of economies of scale to work on the fundamentals of schools, and then keep decisions about the details (What classes will this high school offer? What curriculum will we choose? How much can we pay teachers, parateachers, librarians, custodians, principals, superintendents, etc.?) as small-scale and local as possible. If we can define the goal of what schools are accountable to do/produce with their money (i.e. make specific, national benchmarks for what public education is and does), we can allow them to spend that money in ways that make the most sense for their individual needs. Without consistent minimum requirements, we have no way to know what is "good" spending (meaning spending that accomplishes a goal) and what is bloat. And we can't use student test scores as the only (or even the primary) measuring stick--again, way too many variables. Goals/regulations need to be more specific and objective (like teacher licensing requirements).
Sorry to commandeer your comments page! You're pondering all my favorite topics. :)
DOE, not DOA. Dangit. Although the similarities are interesting...
Post a Comment