Real Education Funding in Pa. 1790 to 2010

My Good night piece of trivia for you all to digest: For all those who want to suggest and believe, how much we are currently over paying for Public Education. State Funding began in 1790 and it covered 20% of the costs.in 1940 it reached about 30%. In the 50's when we were scared straight when the Russians launched Sputnik and we had to turn to Public Schools to save our bacon which they  quickly did,  with the help of Dr. Werner Von Braun funding was increased rapidly to 40%.In 1972-73 then things were aslo bleak, we kicked it up to 51% and since that time it has been a steady decline to were it is now 32%. During that decline every Politician{Especially one party in particular} alive kept complaining about how much they were funding Public Ed. So let me get this right with all the unfunded mandates and the States virtual abdication of its responsibilities ; We became the greatest country on the planet at funding levels slightly higher than those of 1790! What am I missing??

Money, Mandates and Education Reform: PA’s Pension Crisis

The pension and retirement law change in 2001 is a classic illustration of what we have all so willing allowed our elected officials to perpetrate upon us and thus we face another fiscal crisis.  A Crisis which is still being ignored by our Legislature in order that they might win favors from their respective Party Leadership.

 Why did the change of 2001 occur?

Primarily the belief that by incentivizing older teachers to retire they could then be replaced with younger, less costly staff. The approach had a twofold problem associated with. It did not fully take into account the substantial increases in salaries those younger teachers would gain over time and it didn’t appreciate how difficult it would be to replace key staff such as science, math and administrative personnel.  Therefore, Districts found themselves in a position of paying top dollar for those key staff in order to attract them.

 Another key factor in this pension crisis is that it was based again on the faulty projection of a never ending investment boom.  We all know how that worked out because we relied on the unfettered free market system and our own collective ambitions.

 Let me be perfectly clear, the Pension Crisis is currently the single most significant issue our legislators face today. They cannot continue to do what they have been doing since the mid 90’s, which is to kick the can down the road to the next group of legislatures, because failure to act now will lead to a major financial disaster in this area and state-wide by 2014!

 In this area alone I would predict that a good number of school districts could find themselves distressed by 2014 without huge tax increases which in themselves may not be able to generate the necessary revenues given the Act 1 limitations and caps.

 We are talking about a statewide calamity because when the state reduced its own required contribution levels, as well as those of school districts contribution levels, at various times by as much as 50-60% below the required amount necessary for the full funding of the Pension System, districts utilized those savings to offset present level expenditures instead of setting the funds aside for the rainy day they knew was coming.  Thus everyone avoided the necessary and dreaded tax increases.

Everyone from the, Governor, Legislature, to the local School Boards at that particular moment in time were roundly applauded for not raising taxes. Well, as we all know now and should have realized then, at some point someone has to pay and now that day that rainy day is here!

The parallels are striking with what is transpiring on the national stage now relative to tax cuts and hopefully we will not allow ourselves to be sold another panacea this time! The Federal tax cuts of the 90’s did not do what they were purported to accomplish in then and there is no assurance that they will now!

 Let me make clear up another myth now: Teachers have always and still do pay their share into the system.  It is the State and Local School Districts that have NOT.   Teachers, on the other hand, never received exemptions.

 I like many others of my former Teacher and Administrator colleagues went into the profession because we loved what we did.  It certainly was not for the pay which at the outset of my career was $3,800.00 annually.  However, with the promise of a guaranteed retirement I could feel somewhat assured in the end. When I entered the profession no one really cared about my retirement plan. The $3,800 annual salary made the vast majority of full-time working teachers and administrators eligible for food stamps although very few ever took advantage of the program. My retirement was seen as an incentive to attract people into a poor paying profession at that time! In fact, some in our society considered it a joke to be a teacher because of the poor financial benefits.

    Personally, I was in favor of many of Legislative acts and changes previously referred to in this and other writings and have contributed greatly to the increase in overall costs because we as a society could not continue to ignore those amongst who were less fortunate and thus not being served.

 I am simply saying that I like many others were constantly permitting ourselves into being hood winked by “The Heartless Lions we elected to office” because we so desperately want to believe that there exists a free ride.  As a nation or state just tell us the facts and the cost of a program you want to implement! Better yet, how about in this information technology and internet age, survey every registered taxpayer on that particular issue by asking the same two questions.

1. Do you really want or need this?

 2. Do you want or need it bad enough to be willing to pay for it?

 Unfortunately most Elected Officials and Pollsters today simply ask the first question and not the second. You get an entirely different set of responses when you ask both questions.

So again, who has to picks up the cost? Local taxpayers who were never really fully informed of the potential costs! Then those State-level elected officials go to Washington and repeat their voodoo programs at that level.

How much has the cost of Public Education gone up?

 Well, it depends on how you look at the numbers! If you look at the cost of Regular Education alone the Sandia Labs study indicates the cost has risen pretty much in line with COLA rates. If, however, you look at the cost of Public Education from the perspective of mandated special programs the increase reaches over 330%.

Please understand clearly that I am not saying we should not be offering these types of programs. I am, however, saying we need to better understand, what the costs are up front and why the costs may greatly increase over time! As some districts have found, the per pupil expenditure cost of just one student with special needs can exceed millions of dollars. 

I do, however, also believe that we must re-construct and pay entirely and pay for those programs : such as Vocational Education, Special Education, Bi-lingual Education, Transportation, Compulsory Education/ Attendance, Discipline and Alternative Education , Merit Pay, School Choice , Professional Development , School Calendar/Day and perhaps most importantly the tremendous cost burden litigation places on Schools today. We must simply keep in mind our responsibility: caveat emptor!

Money, Mandates, and Reform in Education: The Current McCarthyism

In last week’s article we said we would separate the facts from the myths as they pertain to public schools in our state and nation. We propose to break those realities into three perspectives on current Education reform; Financial, Assessment / International Comparisons and School choice or Charter schools initiatives. In this article, we center on the real financial costs of Public Education because one of the most frequently expressed concerns by taxpayers is the cost. Is it expensive? Absolutely!  If it’s the priority that everyone in this country says it is, perhaps that is as it should be.

 Let’s examine the real dollars and cents of this issue from a very local perspective.

If you took the average per pupil expenditure for a student in one of Somerset Counties’ School Districts your average cost would be roughly $12,500 per student. If that family had 3 children the mean cost to that district would be $37,500 to educate, transport and provide co-curricular programs for those three children.  Assume now that family pays roughly $2,000 in school district property taxes and if they rent they pay nothing. They are essentially receiving $37,500 in education while paying $2,000 dollars or nothing in out of pocket expenses. Obviously they may also be paying state and federal taxes; some of which are returned to each school district in programs and services.

That, however, creates another issue; funding inequity. Several districts in the county appear to be wealthy because of valuable real estate held by large corporate entities in their respective boundaries. However, when you look at those districts in terms of their residents’ ability to pay property taxes, their income levels indicate some of the lowest per capita incomes in this state!  The State’s response to those districts is either you increase local taxes to higher levels or your funding formula from us will still be kept to minimal levels. Well, as you imagine, those districts are faced with the reality of raising taxes on individual property owners who rank amongst some of the poorest in the state based on per capita income data. If they raise taxes on those corporate entities and businesses they run the risk of losing either some jobs or, in other cases, the entire business itself.

The Somerset County district which had the highest per pupil expenditure in 2008-2009 was the Shanksville – Stonycreek School System which had a reported per pupil cost of $14,113 and an MP/PI aid ratio of 0.24 {most Local districts contribute 76% of every dollar spent} and an average teacher salary of $45,167. The three districts with lowest local taxing efforts are Shade:  0.74, average salary $48,557, Windber: 0.70, average salary $56,585 and Meyersdale: at 0.68, average salary $58,195. Two of those districts {Meyersdale-$58, 195 and Windber-$56,585} have average teacher salaries above the state average which is $56,091.

The problem here is districts such as Meyersdale and Windber with some of the lowest local taxing capability and effort can afford to spend more on salaries and student programs because they stand to receive .70 cents or.68 cents return for every dollar they spend. Districts like Shanksville 0.24, Rockwood 0.36 {average salary $51,732}, and Somerset 0.46 {average salary$54,663} are required to support their cost for education to a large extent from local taxes, while others can rely on State funds to a greater extent.

 This situation is compounded in the districts with the higher local taxing effort in that when it comes to competitive grant programs those districts which have high local effort are usually ruled out totally or partially because they are perceived to be wealthy.

We must all understand this is in no way anyone in particulars fault, but rather a systemic problem due to the archaic funding system our state Legislature and both political parties choose to utilize and lack the courage to alter!

 My purpose in this report has nothing to do with finding fault with the 501 school districts in this state, but rather to acquaint the public with the real problem and that is the archaic system they are forced to operate in! Hopefully the public will stay informed and district leaders will more systematically educate and inform their respective communities, not just during periods of labor strife or turmoil.

 District leaders in this information age should better utilize their information technology tools to more frequently survey their communities and inform them of the thankless struggles they face daily. If a student can text a survey or inform a group of students about the comings and goings of their social group; how difficult can it be for a school district with all its technological resources to conduct serious civic engagement questionnaires in order to achieve real community feedback on the issues rather than accepting simplistic statements like, “My Constituents want.” when deciding a course of action for their respective communities. It can and must be done in this day and age when we are allegedly basing our decision making on another of our educational clichés, “Data Driven Decision Making”.

The cost of Public Education is high but compared to what? Research has shown us that Public Schools overall are a bargain when compared to private schools and certainly less than charter schools, in particular Cyber Charter Schools when you factor out the cost of mandates and bricks and mortars issues faced by Public Schools.

 In later articles we address the assessment data question.  We can and will demonstrate clearly that there are many misconceptions about Public, Charter, and Cyber-Charter School performance.

After all many of the same people complaining about the cost of educating a child think nothing of spending hundreds, even thousands of dollars on sporting events or paying professional athletes millions of dollars in salaries to entertain themselves. Is it any coincidence that teams with the highest payrolls like the Yankees, Red Sox, Lakers, and Celtics consistently win championships while teams with the lowest payrolls like the Pirates, Brewers, Bucks, and Clippers regularly finish at the bottom?

Is it just about more money?  Absolutely not!   As I have often stated unequivocally.  Can it assist in the furtherance of great ideas? A resounding YES! Our problem in Education has been we have been doing the reverse; putting more money first and then hope we come up with a great idea! 

My point here is very simply this.  No matter what our political parties’ leaders attempt to convince us of on a regular basis?  Quality Education in an extremely divergent society with increasingly dysfunctional families is EXPENSIVE!!

Money, Mandates, and Reform in Education: The Current McCarthyism

In last week’s article we said we would separate the facts from the myths as they pertain to public schools in our state and nation. We propose to break those realities into three perspectives on current Education reform; Financial, Assessment / International Comparisons and School choice or Charter schools initiatives. In this article, we center on the real financial costs of Public Education because one of the most frequently expressed concerns by taxpayers is the cost. Is it expensive? Absolutely!  If it’s the priority that everyone in this country says it is, perhaps that is as it should be.

 Let’s examine the real dollars and cents of this issue from a very local perspective.

If you took the average per pupil expenditure for a student in one of Somerset Counties’ School Districts your average cost would be roughly $12,500 per student. If that family had 3 children the mean cost to that district would be $37,500 to educate, transport and provide co-curricular programs for those three children.  Assume now that family pays roughly $2,000 in school district property taxes and if they rent they pay nothing. They are essentially receiving $37,500 in education while paying $2,000 dollars or nothing in out of pocket expenses. Obviously they may also be paying state and federal taxes; some of which are returned to each school district in programs and services.

That, however, creates another issue; funding inequity. Several districts in the county appear to be wealthy because of valuable real estate held by large corporate entities in their respective boundaries. However, when you look at those districts in terms of their residents’ ability to pay property taxes, their income levels indicate some of the lowest per capita incomes in this state!  The State’s response to those districts is either you increase local taxes to higher levels or your funding formula from us will still be kept to minimal levels. Well, as you imagine, those districts are faced with the reality of raising taxes on individual property owners who rank amongst some of the poorest in the state based on per capita income data. If they raise taxes on those corporate entities and businesses they run the risk of losing either some jobs or, in other cases, the entire business itself.

The Somerset County district which had the highest per pupil expenditure in 2008-2009 was the Shanksville – Stonycreek School System which had a reported per pupil cost of $14,113 and an MP/PI aid ratio of 0.24 {most Local districts contribute 76% of every dollar spent} and an average teacher salary of $45,167. The three districts with lowest local taxing efforts are Shade:  0.74, average salary $48,557, Windber: 0.70, average salary $56,585 and Meyersdale: at 0.68, average salary $58,195. Two of those districts {Meyersdale-$58, 195 and Windber-$56,585} have average teacher salaries above the state average which is $56,091.

The problem here is districts such as Meyersdale and Windber with some of the lowest local taxing capability and effort can afford to spend more on salaries and student programs because they stand to receive .70 cents or.68 cents return for every dollar they spend. Districts like Shanksville 0.24, Rockwood 0.36 {average salary $51,732}, and Somerset 0.46 {average salary$54,663} are required to support their cost for education to a large extent from local taxes, while others can rely on State funds to a greater extent.

 This situation is compounded in the districts with the higher local taxing effort in that when it comes to competitive grant programs those districts which have high local effort are usually ruled out totally or partially because they are perceived to be wealthy.

We must all understand this is in no way anyone in particulars fault, but rather a systemic problem due to the archaic funding system our state Legislature and both political parties choose to utilize and lack the courage to alter!

 My purpose in this report has nothing to do with finding fault with the 501 school districts in this state, but rather to acquaint the public with the real problem and that is the archaic system they are forced to operate in! Hopefully the public will stay informed and district leaders will more systematically educate and inform their respective communities, not just during periods of labor strife or turmoil.

 District leaders in this information age should better utilize their information technology tools to more frequently survey their communities and inform them of the thankless struggles they face daily. If a student can text a survey or inform a group of students about the comings and goings of their social group; how difficult can it be for a school district with all its technological resources to conduct serious civic engagement questionnaires in order to achieve real community feedback on the issues rather than accepting simplistic statements like, “My Constituents want.” when deciding a course of action for their respective communities. It can and must be done in this day and age when we are allegedly basing our decision making on another of our educational clichés, “Data Driven Decision Making”.

The cost of Public Education is high but compared to what? Research has shown us that Public Schools overall are a bargain when compared to private schools and certainly less than charter schools, in particular Cyber Charter Schools when you factor out the cost of mandates and bricks and mortars issues faced by Public Schools.

 In later articles we address the assessment data question.  We can and will demonstrate clearly that there are many misconceptions about Public, Charter, and Cyber-Charter School performance.

After all many of the same people complaining about the cost of educating a child think nothing of spending hundreds, even thousands of dollars on sporting events or paying professional athletes millions of dollars in salaries to entertain themselves. Is it any coincidence that teams with the highest payrolls like the Yankees, Red Sox, Lakers, and Celtics consistently win championships while teams with the lowest payrolls like the Pirates, Brewers, Bucks, and Clippers regularly finish at the bottom?

Is it just about more money?  Absolutely not!   As I have often stated unequivocally.  Can it assist in the furtherance of great ideas? A resounding YES! Our problem in Education has been we have been doing the reverse; putting more money first and then hope we come up with a great idea! 

My point here is very simply this.  No matter what our political parties’ leaders attempt to convince us of on a regular basis?  Quality Education in an extremely divergent society with increasingly dysfunctional families is EXPENSIVE!!

Money, Mandates, and Education Reform: Charter Schools - Fact and Fiction

 How much and why has the cost of Education increased in light of the state and federal governments unwillingness to live up to its promises and  former constitutional requirements?  In Many instances on the national and state level we have and continue to witness an extraordinary shell game. Governors and Legislators get elected on a fiscal restraint agenda and enact what appear to be cost cutting measures. It is only later that we find out they simply passed the cost of those services on to local governmental agencies.

We have a classic example of that from the mid 90’s to 2003. The State obligation for Education is a 50% share of the cost. The last time this Commonwealth lived up to that responsibility was in the 1972 – 73 fiscal year when it paid 50.96% of its share of the cost.  Since then it has been a steady decline to 2007-2008 level when the state’s share was 32.99%. This is why our state receives a C or D grade from the “Leaders and Laggards” report card on educational innovation.

 What does that mean to you at the local level? It means local school Boards must raise local taxes to make up the difference in state and federally mandated programs that carry little or no financial support with them. The highly touted NCLB legislation is a classic example of federal legislation, which on its surface, sounded like a marvelous idea, but carried with it little if any federal funds.

 In Pa. we have a timeline replete with costly legislative changes beginning in 1970 with the passage of Act 95{collective bargaining} and the creation of IU’s to replace the county wide system, which is still a better idea. It would save a great deal of money by eliminating administrative positions without forgoing individual districts identity and simply consolidating programs and services.

In 1972-73 mandated transportation of non-public students { which has increased from a per pupil cost of $77 in 1971 to $779 in 2007}.

 1975 brought the IDEA which was rapidly followed by the revisions in ‘83,’86,’90,’97 and 2004.

 1990 brought us gifted education.  

1991 brought us PSSA’s.

 1992 gave us Act 88.  

1994-1995 brought an end to ESBE funding and excess costs for special education services. This meant the state would no longer pay districts what it actually cost them to implement all those IDEA requirements but based some imaginary mathematical formula allowed those real costs to be shifted to the local school district.

 1996 brought Charter Schools {which were to improve quality of education and save taxpayers money by being more efficient}.

Here are two examples of how that has worked out.

 Rockwood School District paid $228,311 in 2009-10 and got reimbursed $60,256 by the state.  Somerset paid out $432,621 and got reimbursed $114,176. Countywide districts paid $1,581,040 and got back $417,260.

So again local taxpayers picked up the cost difference for a program where half the students are cyber schooled and receive a family computer and paid internet services.  Local school districts would gladly provide all their students these things but cannot afford to.

 2001 gave us the major change in our pension and retirement laws. The Pension and Retirement Law change in 2001 is a classic illustration of what we have all so willingly allowed our elected officials to perpetrate on us and now we face another fiscal crisis, which is still being ignored by our Legislature so that they can win points with their respective party leadership.

 Why did the change of 2001 occur?  Primarily the belief that by incentivizing older teachers to retire they could then be replaced with younger less costly staff. The approach had a twofold problem in that it did not fully take into account the substantial increases in salaries those younger teachers would accrue over time and it didn’t understand how difficult it would be to replace key staff such as science, math and administrative personnel.  Therefore Districts found themselves needing to pay top dollar for those key staff in order to attract them.

 Another key factor in this pension crisis is that it was based again on faulty projections of the booming investment upswing of the 90’s. We all assumed the incredible upward swing would always continue.  We all know how that worked out because we relied on the unfettered free market system and our own collective greed.

Another of the prevalent myths today is based on the 1996 creation of Charter schools which were created in order to improve the quality of student performance and were to be more cost effective than their Public School counterparts. Nothing could be further from the truth.  Future articles will examine the performance and assessment data for Charter Schools, which will hopefully challenge your current views on their real academic prowess.

This week we will concentrate on the financial impact they have on our state and national expenditures.  In Pa between the 2006 and 2008 school districts have paid over $315 million dollars to Cyber Charter Schools alone.  Of that amount the State only reimburses the districts at a rate of somewhere between 26% to 36% or $94.5 million level.

 That means another mandate that our elected officials impose on local districts and then leave them to pay for!  Here are three case studies of how this legislation has worked out locally:

 Rockwood School District paid out $228,311 in 2009-10 and got reimbursed $60,256 by the state. Somerset paid out $432,621 and got reimbursed $114,176. Countywide districts paid out over $1,581,040 and got back $417,260. So again local taxpayers picked up the cost difference for a program where half the students are cyber schooled and receive a family computer and paid internet services which local school districts would gladly provide all their students but cannot afford to. The Philadelphia City School District paid out $313,790,529 and was reimbursed $115,830,766 with local taxpayers again being asked to make up the difference.

In 2007-2008 four of the state’s 11 cyber charter schools had fund balances of over 25%.  Local districts can legally only carry 8 to 12% if they are fortunate enough to be able to do so!  We are paying for programs for 4 year olds to attend charter schools while in our regular schools we cannot get funding to provide the same level of service.

Why did we need to create another entire bureaucracy when all we needed to do here was allow public schools the same discretion they now give Charter schools?

 Think of the duplication of hierarchy we could have prevented.

 What if we had allowed regular public school administrators to discipline students in the manner that is often permitted to Charters?

 What if we had allowed public schools the same opportunity to assign class credit, eliminate unnecessary seat time/ artificial instructional hour provisions that we grant charters?

What if we had reduced the professional development requirements for Public Schools?

 What if we had eliminated the artificially contrived certification requirements for teachers and administrators of Public Schools?

 What if we had allowed Public Schools to offer early start programs with reimbursement for four year olds as we do for Charters?

What if we allowed public schools the same loose attendance checks on students as we do for charters?

 I could continue on and on but the obvious reality is that had we done some of the aforementioned changes we would not have needed to create another elaborate bureaucratic structure and thus prevented the current politicization of our Educational Reform initiatives. Nor would we have turned over one of our Nation’s nonprofit institutions to the robber barons of our Capitalist System!

Does anyone really want their children’s education turned over to a for- profit enterprise in which their education is turned over to an administrator who is more motivated by his or her performance pay which is based on the ledger bottom line and not your children’s academic well being?   I don’t!

Part 1: Education Reforms, the New McCarthyism: Why they have not been Successful

 Last week we ended with Bush aide Diane Ravitch’s change of heart as to the effectiveness of NCLB. Her rationale is based on something that anyone who has been in a school for more than five minutes could have and did foresee. The system would be gamed. The quality of Education would be sacrificed at the altar of a panacea of a test and school choice. In some states standards have actually been lowered rather than raised in order that their students would have appeared to achieve proficient status. Test creation and the test industries as well as the charter school industry have been given a huge financial boon and in exchange they have made huge contributions to the political campaigns of one party in particular. In fact none of the six agreed upon goals that were associated with NCLB have been accomplished. In some instances it has worsened those goal areas.

Both the current education reform movement and McCarthyism had elements of truth to them and both were wrong headed and minded in their approach to a solution. Because of that we as taxpayers were asked to foot a bill for things that could not nor would not fix the root cause of the problem.

The problem is with our current approach in that it allows politicians to ignore and distract the public from the real problems associated with our Educational Systems. It is usually for political reasons that they choose not to deal with the real problems for fear of not being re-elected or turning off the faucet of campaign donations.

 It is also based on several clearly misguided facts in that it completely ignores deliberately the many salient positive aspects of our Educational system which are clearly present despite the lamentations of those seeking Political Office. The oft misguided media focuses on the 30 to 60 second sensational sound bites because they often lack the time to sufficiently cover an issue.

We in the general public share the blame for this as well in that our short attention span does not allow for in depth reporting and writing by journalists today.

As part of this series we will look at two major areas: 1.) assessment and the resultant data and 2.)public funding and taxation in order to demonstrate how the NCLB movement, while noble in purpose, cannot and will not succeed until we are willing to look at all the facts and not merely through the prism of 30 to 60 second sound bites!

As Part of our examination of assessment and its data we intended to look at historical data related to state tests, SATs, ACTs and various international assessments in a manner not normally utilized. We will look at the numbers to address commonly held myths about what the numbers do or don’t really tell us.

An example of which would be to ask the average person on the street, “Comparatively did the class of 1989 outperform the class of 2010 on the SAT exams?” The standard perception driven by misguided media and politicians would certainly suggest that the class of ‘89 did better. You would be only partially correct because the average 1989 SAT verbal score was 504 and math was 502.   In 2010 the verbal average was 516 and math in 492. We can document a major increase on the verbal side of the test despite a tremendous increase in non-English speaking students taking the test.  

Also the number self-reported C and D students taking the test has risen over the years. So we have students taking the test today and that in my day and age would not have considered taking the test at all.

Does anyone not understand the impact of the substantial number of students coming to our schools from dysfunctional families, single parent households, the number kids coming to school from poverty level households, kids who come from violent households, low infant birth weight mothers, and so many other negative demographic factors. Factors that our political officials repeatedly choose to ignore and duck. They usually say they we are not responsible for these conditions.

 Anyone who buys that argument needs to read Crane Brinton’s The Anatomy of a Revolution, Winford King’s 1915 work on Income Inequality and its Potential Negative Impacts on a Democracy, Andrew Carnegie’s 1889 Gospel of Wealth in which he lays out the social responsibility of the wealthy and how it can impact our society (His approval of death taxes might surprise modern billionaires!) , or the Census Bureau’s data on the record levels of our national income gap.

Does anyone then not understand how these factors diminish the national averages and why it is so vital that we address real Education Reform? I would submit to you that rather than being an indictment of Public Education it should be considered a minor miracle that Educators have been able to accomplish what they have been able to do!!

It is political scape-goating.  As H. L. Mencken would say, “There is a simple solution to every problem and it is usually wrong”. There are real problems which the present politically driven approach to reform ignores.

  We will look at the international test data not just from one isolated perspective but from a more microscopic view of the results. When you do that you get a whole different picture than the doom and gloom our political leaders and the media headlines are asking us to believe.

We will examine the investment in Charter Schools as the next panacea which is not borne out with the facts. A Stanford University study (funded by the Walton Family Foundation a staunchly pro charter organization) of Charter Schools in 16 States concluded that only 17% of those Schools actually outperformed their public school counterparts. It also concluded that Public Charters typically outperform others. Let me say here that my purpose is not to speak ill of Charter Schools; quite the contrary. I welcome and support their existence because I happen to believe that competition is a healthy and positive influence. I do not believe, however, that the education sector should be relegated to the status of for-profit! I believe they fall into the well being and public good of our nation status.  By failing to see them in that light we subject the public interest to profit and leaders of those sectors, when faced with the choice of the public good will all too often be tempted to choose profit over the collective good!

Next week a Historical in-depth look at the data on Assessment.

Introduction: Education REFORMS, the NEW McCarthyism

This is the first in a series of several articles dealing with our approach to reform in Education and why it has been misguided and only marginally effective despite the tremendous amounts of tax payer dollars and our incessant crusades on topics like Merit Pay, Standards, Accountability, Testing, Educator Dismissal and School Choice through Charters. We will also be looking at why our elected officials in both major parties have lacked the political courage to address the real solutions associated with comprehensive education reform.

We know what the research says we must do. Why, therefore, do we continue to mask the real fixes with the facades of reform previously mentioned here? All of these things have their place in reform but they do not address the real issues facing us. Besides, those things have been in existence and available for many years. Effective schools have long been testing their students in a comprehensive manner. Private schools have been effectively in existence from the very outset of this nation.

Competent Administrators who haven’t been concerned with their own personal popularity and getting the approval of politically motivated board members have been effectively dismissing ineffective teachers forever. Many like the misguided notion of consensus building, everyone would prefer consensus but at what point do you act in the best interest of children over the inertia brought about by a reluctant group of recalcitrants.

You may be asking yourself what possible relationship McCarthyism has to the current educational reform movement. Each began with less than a strong conviction on the part of the key political movers instrumental to them. In the case of McCarthyism its impetus was less grounded in an initial concern for Communists in our government than it was for the need of a political campaign issue. Up until May of 1950 Joe McCarthy had not spoken of the Communist threat in our Government. Lacking a re-election issue and overly concerned with his re-election efforts, McCarthy convened a group of his closest advisors in order to come up with a cause. The country was relatively stable despite the winding down of the Korean War. The economy was rebounding nicely from the post war era and images of Ozzie and Harriet prevailed.  What then could be his Issue? To the rescue came a Catholic priest, Father Edmund Walsh, who suggested campaigning on the idea that Communist subversives were working in the Truman Administration. The rest, as they say, became history. Or as Edward R. Murrow put it, “The line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one and the junior Senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly. This is not the time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy’s methods to keep silent. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result.”

Undoubtedly McCarthy had many followers such as Max Eastman, Whittaker Chambers, Roy Cohn and interestingly enough Joseph Kennedy Senior (father of Jack, Bobby and Ted Kennedy, who ironically played a key role in the passage of NCLB or more correctly identified as the re-authorization of ESEA which was to be the centerpiece of our current Education Reform.

He also had many harsh critics including two presidents of opposite political parties.

 When one now compares that era to the attention given to Education in recent years; it is not difficult to make the connections.

 Many of our elected officials came to their respective Education crusade not born of any real commitment to the fair and effective education of our nation’s children, but rather the need for a campaign rallying cry during a period of international peace, economic boom, and high employment coupled with a relatively new middle class prosperity.

 So let’s make Public Education the target. When all those teachers and administrators were paid at a pauper’s level, we really didn’t notice or care about them.  But they are now effectively unionizing and starting to make pretty decent salaries.

We certainly did have pockets of low performing schools as identified by the Nation at Risk in 1983. The clearly identified Education problems are of an urban, rural and poverty nature so let’s begin our assault on Public Education.

 Why does this connection matter at all? If you don’t identify the real problem you cannot possibly arrive at an effective remedy!!

Both the current education reform movement and McCarthyism have elements of truth to them and both were wrong headed and minded in their approach to a solution. Because of that, we as taxpayers were asked to foot a bill for things that could not nor would not fix the root cause of the problem.

The No Child Left Behind Act was passed in 2001 and signed into law on January 8^th 2002 by then President George Bush. One of its key sponsors was Senator Edward Kennedy. Both were hailed as Saviors of the American Education System.

The two men had entirely different perspectives on what the Law’s primary purpose was.  For the President the law was about accountability through a single testing activity. For the Senator, on the other hand, Title 1 of the Law gives a clear indication of his intent, “Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged.”

 Two very well intentioned men with what appears to be a noble and worthwhile cause, what could possibly be wrong with that!

As Diane Ravitch, one of President Bush’s top level assistants and a strong supporter of choice and accountability thru testing says in her Book The Death and Life of the Great American School System: “I concluded that this NCLB style approach has been a failure.” She also refers to her previously supported position on School Choice as a “Lead Bullet”.

 In next week’s edition we will explore her rationale and its’ factual premises and how NCLB’s good intentions were gamed and sacrificed on the altar of choice and a single test.

Leadership Skills for the 21st Century:

I.                 Five Skills to Create a Better Tomorrow

Ø  Anticipation

Ø  Vision

Ø  Value Congruence

Ø  Empowerment

Ø  Self-Understanding

II.               Establishing the Philosophy and Mission of the School

Ø  The Mission – the direction of our efforts and talents

Ø  The Mission/Philosophy – the Restructuring Process

Ø  Applying Business Principles to the Restructuring Process for schools.  What we believe and therefore what we do:

§  Is what we are doing less than what we really want?

§  Then we have a mandate for change, improvement and a vision.

Ø  Six phases of a project

Ø  Success connection

III.             The Basics of the Change Process

Ø  The Problem-solving Process

Ø  Barriers to change

Ø  Conflict

Ø  Confrontation

Ø  Collaboration

IV.            Logistics and School Restructuring

Ø  Scheduling and reporting basis

Ø  What conditions do I really control?

V.              Teaming and Collaboration

Ø  Co-Teaching NCLB

Ø  Why?

Ø  How?

Ø  What?

Ø  When?

VI.            Academic Instruction – The What and How

Ø  What are we doing to support students having difficulty?

Ø  Curriculum alignment (Teach, test, etc.)

Ø  How can we more effectively involve parents in the child’s learning?

Ø  Why align the curriculum?

Ø  A “J” curve distribution.  The “Did we”?

Ø  Questions to ask:

§  What they need to know?

§  How are we going to teach this?

§  Do they really know it?

VII.           Data Collection/Analysis and Decision Making

Myth:  Schools don’t control the conditions of success.  What conditions do we control?

Ø  Linkage between Mission/Philosophy and Data

Ø  How factual do we know we are good

Ø  “Read ‘em and Weep – The numbers don’t lie”

Ø  WAR – Reports their impact

Ø  NCLB – The easy, effective way to comply

VIII.         Technology

Ø  Technology:  How it changes the school and the way we do business

Ø  Using technology to accomplish age-old educational tenet’s effectiveness:  instant feedback, individualizing instruction, establishing school and community partnerships, communications, diagnosis and prescription of learning/instruction, staff collaboration.

Ø  How technology can be utilized to assist administrators in the development of Individualized Education Plans for students

Ø  How to use technology to assist with NCLB (No Child Left Behind)

IX.            Communicating Education

Ø  Scaling up

Ø  Change

Ø  Replicate

Ø  Expectations

Ø  The “Good News” in a society that loves “Bad News”

Ø  What are the facts according to ETS and how do they compare to the political and media frenzy?

Ø  If you always do what you have done, you will always get what you got.

Ø  Why is it that we never do what we know works?

Ø  What we live – we learn

What we learn – we practice

What we practice – we become

What we become – has consequences

X.              Keynote address:  “You Must Make Music”

XI.            “Seven Kinds of Smart”

XII.           Adaptations, Instructional Approaches and Modifications

XIII.         Integration

XIV.        Cooperative Learning

XV.          Learning Disabilities – Strategies and Adaptations

XVI.        WAR (Weekly Academic Reports)

XVII.      “Tips for Teachers”

XVIII.     Direct Instruction

Ø  Definitions

Ø  Characteristics and Elements

Ø  Feedback and Correctives

Ø  Independent Practice

Ø  Weekly and Monthly Reviews

Ø  Expected Outcomes

Ø  Myths

XIX.        Strategies to Motivate

Ø  Tactics to motivate students for common problems, for most special education exceptionalities and by academic subject area