The problem with education reform: No. 5 and final of a series

Throughout history it has always been the sons and daughters of the aristocracy who were formally educated. They had to be prepared to rule. In the United States, in this experiment we call democracy where “We the People” are the aristocracy – the ruling class, it is imperative that we all be formally educated. We must be prepared for our role in citizen-rule. Hence the founding of our common schools for the common child, or commonly known as our public schools. Our Founders intentionally left education out of the Constitution, wanting to protect schooling from government and keep it in the hands of the people, communities and churches. Like many great notions left unprotected the people, communities, and churches let slip their gift and public schooling became a ward of the state.

This cobbling together of fifty different state constitutions each with their public education provisions plus those of our territories and the District of Columbia has resulted in an overly bureaucratic, clunky and very expensive mis-aligned system of schooling for our youth. It sometimes appears the smart play would be to nationalize K-12 education and ensure a common quality for all…yet we know it would do no such thing. It would become more regulatory, more expensive, and we would lose (again) the gift of having some say locally.

The key then is to first address our state systems and processes. This series on educational reform has already put four such changes on the table: Relieve local districts of the burden of funding new schools; relieve them of the emotional and financial costs of negotiating with local unions and running district payroll offices; reorganize the teacher workforce into those who directly teach state-tested subjects and those who do not (and adjust pay accordingly); and restaff and reschedule elementary schools for efficient and effective use of the workforce.

But the above will make no difference if schools are allowed to plod along safe and protected. Thomas Jefferson worried about just such a problem with schools a part of government and having education “out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns…” So should we. I am not suggesting we privatize public education, tepid attempts have been badly made in some states and it is not worth the effort. But Idaho can infuse an entrepreneurial spirit and some private sector speed into our schools.

Presently we have a punishment system in place whereby schools and their staffs struggle to stay off the “failing schools” list. No organization ever achieved excellence staying off of something. No salesperson ever became rich by setting goals to meet quota. It is a disincentive “incentive,” system pure and simple.

Injecting speed and spirit into our hundreds of public schools won’t be easy, but it must start at the top. “Turn-around” principals must be developed for duty and dispersion to sub-par schools. This can be done out of the State Superintendent’s office, as an academy and taught by a cadre of professionals – business, education, or otherwise with turn-around expertise. The training will necessarily be different than any preparation the principals have had to date.

Representing the educational regions of the state the principals would come on leave from their districts and form an initial cohort of 15-20, engage in intensive training (approximately 3 weeks) and then descend back to their regions to “fix” the most lagging schools. The next cohort could then begin.

Critics will say that faster principals won’t fix the learning needs of the children. That is true, but it is not the learning needs of the children that keep them from learning. It is pure and simple our bulky processes of schooling and our focus on everything except the learning of the most needy. Our turn-around principals will set that focus and streamline the processes.

With the above in place, we can now turn to our employees and address their training. Our teachers are well educated for their work but many are poorly trained to teach to tested learning. Teaching to a state standard of learning is very different teaching than many of our current teachers were prepared for, and not even a concept they all embrace. It’s not that employees won’t get on board, mind you, it is just that getting on board a ship going nowhere has made no sense to many of them. Regardless, the “fixer” principals will be so trained and will in turn train the teachers at lagging schools.

There will need to be competitive compensation for these principals and the leeway to make changes. Fast changes. Entrepreneurial changes. And the imperative for districts to participate will need to be made clear and enforced by the state.

While there is a cost to this plan, it is miniscule compared to the merit raise proposal the teachers did not want, and equally so compared to the cost of slow and continual failure with too many of Idaho’s children.

Of course, the sad point is that much of this would happen naturally in a competitive environment bolstered by less regulation, more charter schools, alternative high schools, and tax relief for those choosing private schools. But that is another story and series altogether.