Education Reform

Edward J. Dodson

[ [An essay posted for discussion at the Banneker Center for Economic Justice, October 2002, with several respondant comments. Additional comments can be read at www.progress.org]]

In my opinion, the list of "education reforms" put forward by experts and critics are far too timid to meet the challenges ahead. Nowhere in the debates to date has anyone asked whether even the best schools in existence are good enough -- either privately-run or publicly-run.

In the U.S. our schools are all (or virtually all) organized hierarchically, with the teachers at the bottom of that hierarchy. Publicly-funded schools have elected school boards at the top. The school boards hire an executive administrator, who hires other administrators, who hire teachers in the same way they hire bus drivers, maintenance workers and others). Privately-funded schools have appointed boards of directors (if for-profit) or trustees (if not-for-profit), who hire an executive administrator, who hires other administrators, who hire everyone else. Again, the persons who are most directly delivering the educational service to students are at the bottom of this hierarchy.

If teaching is to be treated as a real profession, then teachers should have the ability to come together in partnership with other teachers with whom they share the same philosophy of education -- and open a school. The teachers, as owners, would then be at the top of the organization, hiring an administrator (or selecting one from among themselves). They would bring in young teachers as "associates" and retain the best as partners in the school. The school would succeed or fail not on the basis of having a captive student body but on the school's ability to attract and retain students because of the quality of education provided.

Again, in the U.S., the way we fund education today, and have funded education for over a century, is regressive and should be overhauled. Many high income households who have several school-age children are being subsidized by people who have lower incomes. A needs-based voucher system should be considered as a serious alternative that is inherently a fairer way to distribute costs and benefits.

I readily acknowledge that the above ideas will not make it onto the political agenda any time soon. Nevertheless, we need to be thinking more deeply about the structure of our existing systems and not limit the dialogue to what a narrow range of short-term fixes that will only get us through to the next crisis -- which, I suggest, is where the current list of options under consideration will lead.

I am interested to hear whether others agree with me (and, particularly so, if you are or have been a teacher at some level). Also, are there any experiments in other countries that might come close to the above restructuring? I would be very interested to know of any research that has looked at teacher-owned and run schools and their comparative success in providing students with a sound education.

RESPONSE / Elementary / 15 October

I've been teaching for 4 years (5th grade) and substitute taught for 2 years prior to that. Here's where we differ:

The school boards hire an executive administrator, who hires other administrators, who hire teachers in the same way they hire bus drivers, maintenance workers and others).

Hiring teachers is actually done a bit differently than any other position. California law states that you must pick a certificated teacher, all other things being equal, above a non-certificated one. Also, quite often, a prospective teacher will be interviewed by teachers themselves (I have been on an interview committee once). Principals- at least the good ones- are very careful about who they select. They're not so careful when it comes to who mops the floors and fixes the roof. The more a district can offer, the better the pool of teachers it can select from.

The teachers, as owners, would then be at the top of the organization, hiring an administrator (or selecting one from among themselves).

You'd be surprised how often teachers end up running the show when a new administration comes in. There are always changes, but they are mostly cosmetic. A good principal is not above the teachers, but works with them, and backs them. The principal I work for trusts her teachers completely to educate students. In return, we expect complete cooperation in dealing with unruly students and parents. You could offer me twice what I make and I would turn down a principal position. The worst principals are the ones who micromanage. This creates an atmosphere of distrust on both sides.

On school boards: My experience with them has been negative. My district is currently looking at ways to get rid of 6 of the 7 members this November.

A needs-based voucher system should be considered as a serious alternative that is inherently a fairer way to distribute costs and benefits.

Would have to see the voucher proposal. I don't want tax dollars going to support parochial schools. Competition never hurts, and there is precious little competition in the public school system.

The school would succeed or fail not on the basis of having a captive student body but on the school's ability to attract and retain students because of the quality of education provided.

Demographics play a huge role in whether a school succeeds or not. The closer you get to the poverty level, the more apathetic (and even hostile) parents feel towards education. You could be doing everything right and still fail if the parents are not supportive.

RESPONSE / Todd Altman / 15 October

In my opinion, the list of "education reforms" put forward by experts and critics are far too timid to meet the challenges ahead.

All I've read and observed convinces me that the primary reason for this timidity is that the experts and critics in question -- the ones who are generally allowed to express their views in the corporate media -- operate within a paradigm that *presumes* the legitimacy of compulsory school attendance laws.

Nowhere in the debates to date has anyone asked whether even the best schools in existence are good enough -- either privately-run or publicly-run.

In all the debates I've seen, both sides usually acknowledge (explicitly or implicitly) that the schools in existence are not good enough -- hence the repeated calls for "improving" education one way or another. If either side believed schools are already good enough, one would think that they would, on that basis, deny the need for schooling reform. There may be instances in academic debates where such a denial is issued, but I've never seen it issued in a political debate.

In the U.S. our schools are all (or virtually all) organized hierarchically, with the teachers at the bottom of that hierarchy. Publicly-funded schools have elected school boards at the top.

Most elections have become Soviet-style elections, in that parents are routinely expected to choose between two candidates who (despite minor differences) both support the same basic educational paradigm. What's worse, parents are not allowed to choose whether or not government schooling is compulsory in the first place. The implied premise is that parents can't be trusted with their own children's education, but politicians and bureaucrats can. The arrogance of that premise never ceases to amaze me.

The school boards hire an executive administrator, who hires other administrators, who hire teachers in the same way they hire bus drivers, maintenance workers and others). Privately-funded schools have appointed boards of directors (if for-profit) or trustees (if not-for-profit), who hire an executive administrator, who hires other administrators, who hire everyone else. Again, the persons who are most directly delivering the educational service to students are at the bottom of this hierarchy.

But what is not the same is who's on the *top* of this hierarchy. In the case of compulsory schooling, government officials are on top; in the case of private schooling, parents are on top (since they're the ones who determine whether the administrators even have a job to begin with).

If teaching is to be treated as a real profession, then teachers should have the ability to come together in partnership with other teachers with whom they share the same philosophy of education -- and open a school.

Something they could much more easily do if (1) compulsory attendance were repealed and, with them, the power of government to force most parents to send their kids to schools ran by administrators instead of teachers; and (2) the property tax was converted to a land value tax, thereby making it far more profitable for educational entrepreneurs to establish alternative schools in poor districts where land is less expensive, and hence less of an entrance barrier.

On the one hand, the resultant increase in both supply and competition would drive up quality while driving down cost; on the other hand, the surge in school construction in poor neighborhoods would make the provision of quality education more equitable.

RESPONSES / 16 October

Again, the persons who are most directly delivering the educational service to students are at the bottom of this hierarchy.

So what? Why is this a bad thing? There are some who delivery services and others who coordinate. What is wrong with this division of labor?

If teaching is to be treated as a real profession, then teachers should have the ability to come together in partnership with other teachers with whom they share the same philosophy of education -- and open a school.

They can do this now. There is no legal restriction barring teachers from starting their own school. The primary barrier is that they must compete against tax funded psuedo schools.

The teachers, as owners, would then be at the top of the organization, hiring an administrator (or selecting one from among themselves). They would bring in young teachers as "associates" and retain the best as partners in the school. The school would succeed or fail not on the basis of having a captive student body but on the school's ability to attract and retain students because of the quality of education provided.

Suppose some construction workers owned a school and hired teachers- would they be less interested in the performance of their investment? It is not clear that schools necessarily work better as a kind of partnership. The key is private ownership

Again, in the U.S., the way we fund education today, and have funded education for over a century, is regressive and should be overhauled. Many high income households who have several school-age children are being subsidized by people who have lower incomes.

This is simply false. Many high income households pay high property taxes- a source of much funding for our public pseudo schools. Often these households have few or no children. Often low income households have more children and pay less tax by far. My impression is that education involves net transfers from rich to poor- one of the few instances where things work out this way- not that I support this awful system

A needs-based voucher system should be considered as a serious alternative that is inherently a fairer way to distribute costs and benefits.

Fair? Define fair? Where some people pay for the education of other people's children? There is nothing 'fair' about that, its just theft with state sanction. Fair means each pays for his own

I readily acknowledge that the above ideas will not make it onto the political agenda any time soon. Nevertheless, we need to be thinking more deeply about the structure of our existing systems and not limit the dialogue to what a narrow range of short-term fixes that will only get us through to the next crisis -- which, I suggest, is where the current list of options under consideration will lead.

I am interested to hear whether others agree with me (and, particularly so, if you are or have been a teacher at some level). Also, are there any experiments in other countries that might come close to the above restructuring? I would be very interested to know of any research that has looked at teacher-owned and run schools and their comparative success in providing students with a sound education.

I definitely think that this proposal is absurd. What is needed is to break the teachers union, along with all other labor market monopolies, and to fully privatise all education, so that we all pay tuition instead of taxes. Then, competitive forces will tend to eliminate bad schools that fail to teach students. As for affordability, private schools cost less. Left wing demagogues always mention Sidwell Friends as a typical private school with a cost of 15,000$ per year, but this is clearly at the high end of the private tuition scale. Leftist demagogues also quote the operating costs of public pseudo schools- omitting capital costs, so as to make a false comparison. The real figures indicate that the private sector can and does deliver quality education at a lower cost. As to the form of private organization, the market tests will sort that issue out. There is nothing to debate here, there are the facts. Leftists are all either ignorant or disingenuous when it come to education- well, lets be honest- they are just as bad on every other issue as well.

RESPONSES / 18 October

The case for public schools hinges upon the idea that public schools outperform private schools. Why would this be so. Consider each possible category of market failure

1) Markets undersupply education when there exists positive externalities. When people benefit from education without paying for it, they free ride on others. Education is then a public good- one where the private supply of it benefits persons outside of this transaction. Taxes internalize this externality. Is this plausible? No. There is a strong correlation between lifetime income and education. Therefore, the people who pay for tuition- the student and his parents- receive personal benefits. OF course, employers benefit from an educated workforce, but they pay higher wages for it too. Some claim that people who are educated are better citizens, but legal penalties and social norms are the prime movers here. The effects of education here are secondary, and therefore constitute an infra marginal externality- one of no consequence. On the contrary, government oversupplies education (at the college level). Educational credentials serve as a signaling mechanism (Look up Michael Spence at the Nobel webpage -- under economics) these subsidies lead to wasteful competition over credentials.