Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Education’ Category

It’s worth noting that to take our next step forward we actually have to go “back to the future”, back to 1995 and the inception of the “Bold” plan.  When we combine that concept with some of the more recent specific systemic change recommendations (like the Memorandum of Understanding for priority schools increasing local control), our path forward becomes clearer.  Local control with appropriately prepared CEOs (formerly known as principals) working with teachers and parents is essential for any significant improvement in education.  The Brookings Institution said that, to improve education, the power cords from school boards and bureaucracies to the school buildings had to be cut.  This isn’t because of incompetent administrators but because the current system cannot get the job done.  We no longer use horses to travel and transport goods, not because there is anything wrong with horses but because compared to the other various means of available transportation we would all be better off if the horses were put out to pasture.

If we don’t take the time and effort to first, fundamentally change the education system, then any seemingly beneficial attempts to improve things can have disastrous results.  Consider the current discussion about reducing the number of school districts in the state.  New York City and Los Angeles have only one school district each while the much smaller student population of the state of Delaware has nineteen.

Several elected officials have opposed the reduction of the number of school districts because of the significant increase in operating expenses they say would result due to the “leveling up” effect of teacher salary scales.  To support their contention, the officials refer to a 2002 study conducted in response to House Resolution 54.  That study only considered Kent and Sussex Counties and the conclusion was that consolidating into only one district in each county would increase operational expenses by 7.2 million dollars!  How could that be?

Without the “Bold” power shift of placing operational decision making in the hands of local building professionals, many functions would continue to be duplicated (and triplicated) at the district and state levels along with excess administration and support personnel.  The study used the existing state funding formula which was based on student enrollment.  The result was that, since student enrollment remained the same, literally everyone who was displaced by reducing the number of districts to one in each county was rehired by the single but much larger county districts.  There were no district cost reductions to offset the salary scale increases!  Reduced building operation expenses were ignored as were the possibilities of renting or selling office space or facilities.  Some legislators today still rely on the flawed conclusions of that study.

Our action plan over the next three to five years should have the goal of improving all public schools.  CEOs (formerly principals) will complete a professional administrative leadership program (a manual, The Art of Administration, has already been prepared) along with a mentoring component and an emphasis on developing a strong school culture.  As schools qualify for local control, they will have autonomy from any District or Delaware Department of Education requirements not mandated by state or federal law.  As more schools qualify for local operational control, the administrative responsibilities of district school boards and bureaucracies will be greatly diminished while parental contact with education decision makers is increased.  This now prepares the foundation for district reductions.

The expanded responsibilities of the CEOs include: 1) The authority to hire and dismiss all staff; 2) All programming inputs including but not limited to school calendar, school schedule, curriculum, instructional practices and methodology, program emphasis, textbooks and technology; 3) Marketing, long-range planning and continuous improvement efforts; 4) Support services including transportation, food, and maintenance; 5) Budget preparation, implementation, and expenditure control.  Surplus operating funds will be retained by the school for future use.

District school boards will have the following responsibilities relative to the operation of the local schools: 1) Hiring and performance evaluations of CEOs; 2) Approval of proposed annual budgets and major capital proposals; 3) Review of appeals of CEO decisions; 4) Operational support in areas such as legal, financial, personnel, facilities, marketing, etc. as requested by CEOs; 5) Facilitation of intra and inter district meetings of CEOs as requested by them.

It’s time to stop rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and settling for incremental improvements.  It’s time to address the gash below the water line.  It’s time to be “Bold”.

-by Ron Russo, Senior Fellow, CRI Center for Education Excellence

     Founding President, Charter School of Wilmington

     Former Principal, St. Mark’s High School

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

When the conversation turns to improving student learning, most people focus on curriculum, technology, evaluations, methodology, etc.  These and other items are critical to the teaching portion of student learning.  They certainly affect the outcomes of a school’s efforts.  But the 1995 systemic change plan (supported by the Governor, the Delaware Department of Education, and the business community) was unique and its interest was completely different.  Teaching focuses on “what” has to be done in the school building.  Education focuses on “how” the system will operate in order to get the “learning job” done.

Charter schools were not to be the sole answer to Delaware’s educational woes.  They were to be the mechanism for changing the existing school system which was perceived as an economic liability for the state.  The purpose of charter schools as stated in the law itself was to “…improve public education overall…”  It was to accomplish this goal by using a few charter schools to pilot the local control concept along with exploring new ways to improve student learning.  Using the charter school experience as a model, all traditional public schools were to be changed.  Implementing the local control concept meant that parents were closer than ever to the decision makers for their children’s education.  It meant that schools would be customized and not standardized.

To appreciate the seriousness of the local control issue, consider the overview of the charter school legislation prepared in 1995 by Michael Ferguson, State Superintendent of Public Schools and co-author of the Charter School Law.  He clearly described the transfer of decision-making power away from school boards and district bureaucracies and placing it with the local schools.  Excerpts from that document include: “Reliance on bureaucratic decisions would be a thing of the past.”  “…empower local communities further with additional decision-making authority.”  “…try new approaches to learning without bureaucratic restrictions.”  “…empower local communities to try new, unique solutions to problems that are facing their own schools.”  “Teachers…can minimize the bureaucracies that perhaps once stifled their creativity.”  “Parents and teachers are less restricted by decisions made at a district or state level, so they can focus their teaching methods, curriculum, and other policies around the needs of their particular students.”  In describing this shift of power to the state’s first charter school president, Ferguson said, “Except for federal laws and laws regarding health and safety you are free to do whatever you want but you have to be willing to accept responsibility for your actions.”

What would this “Bold” change look like?  Most current principals will require a transition period as cadres of building principals are prepared, mentored, and converted from traditional principals to CEOs (Chief Education Officers).  As individual schools wait for the conversion process they will operate as they currently do.  This will permit the transition to be as seamless as possible and provide for controlled growth.  The Caesar Rodney Institute is working on a draft piece of legislation to define the new responsibilities of the CEOs and the supportive and oversight responsibilities of district boards.  It is modeled after the Memorandum of Understanding designed by the state and intended to significantly improve the state’s lowest performing schools through local control.  It should be noted that it contains the statement that, “The School shall have autonomy from any District or Delaware Department of Education requirements not mandated by state or federal law.”  As suggested by the US Department of Education, evaluations must be based on performance and not compliance.

The benefit of the “Bold” shift surfaced at the 2014 Rodel Foundation April Education Event.  Andreas Scheleicher, a member of Rodel’s International Advisory Group, presented data to show that a school’s performance would be enhanced by giving the school greater autonomy coupled with involving teachers in the decision-making process (distributive leadership).  Any other significant changes to the existing bureaucratic school system must be preceded by a “Bold” power shift as the fundamental “first step”.  Discussions on the topic of reducing the number of school districts is a good example of the horrible erroneous conclusions that arise when this “first step” systemic change is ignored.  New York City and Los Angeles have one school district each while the much smaller Delaware has nineteen.  Should that number be reduced?

The importance of this first “Bold” step for other educational improvements will be covered when we consider the discussion on district reductions.  We will conclude with where we go from here in part 3, the next (first) step.

-by Ron Russo, Senior Fellow, CRI Center for Education Excellence

     Founding President, Charter School of Wilmington

     Former Principal, St. Mark’s High School

 

 

Read Full Post »

You don’t have to have school-age children or grandchildren to have an interest in Delaware’s public schools.  If you live or work in Delaware you have a great stake in the changes to the state’s public school system because education reform is all about Delaware’s economy.  It’s about attracting business and retaining business.  It’s about property values and taxes.  It’s about reducing crime rates, creating jobs, and population shifts (do you know anyone who moved to get into a different school district or, perhaps, moved across the state line?)

Let’s be clear about the difference between teaching and education.  Teaching is a profession with a special relationship between teachers and students.  This is similar to the legal and medical professions with their relationships between attorneys and clients, as well as, between doctors and patients.  Education, on the other hand, is a business like a law firm or a hospital.  It is the structure or system within which our schools operate to benefit our children and our communities.  It provides support and oversight for the teaching professionals who were hired to use their knowledge and talents to “get the teaching job done” and who are situated close to parents in the school buildings.  If anyone says to you “It’s all about the kids”, know that they are talking about teaching in the local schools, not education.

As a basic principle of business, is it better to have centralized, distant, decision makers calling the “operational shots” or would it be more productive and efficient to have decisions made at a local level by professionally prepared individuals who actually deal with situations daily?  For public education that question was answered in 1995 when the decision was made to move toward a more locally-controlled educational system.  It was a decision supported by the Governor, Delaware’s Department of Public Instruction (now Department of Education), and a business consortium (DuPont, Bell Atlantic, Hercules, Delmarva Power, Zeneca, and Christiana Care).  The existing public school “system” was seen as a liability.  The time for “tweaking” was over and the time for “Bold” action had arrived.

Many people, organizations, and other efforts (Rodel Foundation, Race to the Top, Vision 2025, etc.) have been working earnestly to improve student performance and we are seeing “upticks” in scores but is that enough?  USA TODAY on 7/18/17 ran a front page article on rising graduation rates.  The nation has hit a new high of 83% while, at the same time, SAT scores have dropped over 20 points.  The article concludes that students haven’t learned more but, rather, high school grades have been inflated.

There’s a new way of looking at an old problem.  Delaware’s public school system has been operating under a “horse and buggy” model of administration while a new system of local control and accountability was on the horizon.  A few charter schools were to pilot the new system and the lessons learned were to be used to change the traditional public schools.  Large numbers of charter schools were not the intended answer to Delaware’s education problems.  In the August 2015 issue of Delaware Today magazine it was stated that, “Charters proliferated in a way never intended or anticipated.”  A few charters were to be the change models for all traditional public schools.  Dr. Gary Miron, Executive Director of Western Michigan University’s Evaluation Center, conducted a three-year study of Delaware’s charter schools (2004 to 2007).  He was quoted by the Brookings Institution as saying, “Charter schools weren’t meant to duplicate the traditional schools.  They were going to be a lever for change…”

Why didn’t Delaware’s outdated education system change?  Well, everyone involved in the change effort was no longer around.  The Governor became our Senator, the State Superintendent who co-authored the Charter School Law passed away, and the consortium businesses were significantly transformed.  All six CEOs left their positions and several of the companies experienced major changes.  Bell Atlantic became Verizon, Hercules was taken over by Ashland, and Zeneca merged with Astra. The change agent (charter schools) was taken over by the very system it was supposed to change!

More specifics of the proposed reform effort will be presented in Part 2, the Bold Plan.

-by Ron Russo, Senior Fellow, CRI Center for Education Excellence

     Founding President, Charter School of Wilmington

     Former Principal, St. Mark’s High School

Read Full Post »

“I get no respect!” That was the signature comment of comedian Rodney Dangerfield as he complained that no one really understood him.  The same could be said for Delaware’s gifted and talented population.   Attempts to focus on their special needs are usually met with “Oh, they don’t need any help, they’ll be just fine.”  Really?

A 2008 Fordham Institute report found that, while low-achieving students have made gains under No Child Left Behind, advanced-learners were “languishing”.  A 1991 study at the University of Connecticut found that between 18 and 25% of gifted and talented students drop out of school.  The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented in a project involving the University of Connecticut, the University of Virginia, and Yale University reported that the drop outs were 27% Black, 17.9% Hispanic and 50% came from the lowest socio-economic status quartile.  If not adequately challenged, gifted and talented students become bored, frustrated, unruly, and develop poor study habits that limit their potential.  The main reasons stated for dropping out included boredom, failures, and “not liking school”.

Gifted and talented students have special needs.  The Delaware Code (Title 14, Chapter 31) defines an exceptional child as “a child with a disability or a gifted and talented child”.  The law further states that the gifted and talented child, “may require differentiated educational programs or services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in order to realize that individual’s full contribution to self and society.”  In Delaware, giftedness could include general intellectual ability, specific academic aptitude, creative productive thinking, leadership ability, visual and performing arts, as well as, psychomotor ability.

Many states have established special schools to address the unique needs of gifted and talented students and to take advantage of the synergistic effect of gathering such students together.  According to the National Association for Gifted Children, “Gifted students benefit from classroom interactions with peers at similar performance levels.”  Some individuals consider gathering gifted and talented students together as elitist.  In a publication of the Pennsylvania Association for Gifted Education it was noted that no school official has argued that singling out talented athletes for sports team membership to the exclusion of others is elitist.  In fact, school districts and local community agencies go to great lengths applauding these athletes’ efforts and supporting them in their development.  Why not treat gifted and talented students the same way?

These special schools have admission requirements to assure that the special needs of the students will be met by the special programs being offered.  This “matching process” is similar to the college or employment application process.  Applicants to Delaware’s School for the Deaf, for example, must first establish that they are hearing impaired.  It wouldn’t make sense to accept a student with no hearing problems and reject a hearing impaired student.  Nationally recognized schools such as Thomas Jefferson High School in Virginia, Stuyvesant and the Bronx High School of Science in New York, etc. have acceptance criteria such as an admissions test, SAT scores, grades, recommendations, interviews, essays, etc.   The process is designed to determine if the student will benefit from the special and very challenging program being offered.

It’s important that our best and brightest are not at a disadvantage when competing against the top students from other states and countries.  In a February 2006 report from the University of Delaware Education Research and Development Center authored by Cheryl M. Ackerman, Ph.D. on Delaware’s Public Opinion of Education: Gifted Education, Finance, and Parent Involvement, the polls yielded interesting information.  “While 84% of Delawareans surveyed believe that gifted and talented students have special educational needs, only 14% indicated they thought these needs were being met in the public schools.  In addition, there was strong support (78%) to increase funding to create educational programs for gifted and talented children in Delaware.  In 2003 and 2005 nearly four out of five Delaware residents greatly or somewhat supported providing more funds to create such programs (79% and 78%, respectively).”

Maximizing the potential of gifted and talented students requires a new way of addressing their needs.  If we continue to use the old traditional methods it will result in a condition previously described by Albert Einstein.  According to Jan and Bob Davidson, founders of the Davidson Institute for Talent Development, “The ideal solution for meeting the needs of gifted students is creating schools specifically for them.  These islands of excellence will remain few and far between until the nation as a whole recognizes the cost of squandering its brightest students’ talents and time.”

In their book, Genius Denied, the Davidsons commented on one of Delaware’s high schools that for several years has ranked in the top 100 best public schools in the nation according to Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report.  In a report commissioned by the Delaware State Board of Education and the Delaware Department of Education conducted by Western Michigan University it was stated that the school’s students “are outperforming their counterparts at similarly matched traditional public schools” and “the school was able to advance the learning of their students at a faster rate than demographically similar students in traditional public schools.”  The Davidsons noted, “Gifted students thrive best in a place like this.  For their sake (gifted and talented) this country needs a lot more schools like (this one)”.  It seems our state may have already taken the first step to meet the special needs of Delaware’s Rodney Dangerfields.

In 2012, through a House Concurrent Resolution, a task force, chaired by Debora Hansen, Education Associate for Gifted and Talented Programs, was formed to address this issue.  Several recommendations were made that are in the process of implementation.  They include:  training all teachers to recognize giftedness (a Fordham Institute April 2017 article reported that students who come from poverty or are from a racial or ethnic group are 250% less likely to be identified for gifted programs), districts will have established programs to meet the needs of the gifted, teachers of the gifted and talented will obtain specific certification, etc.

Our educational goal should be to help every student to fully become what they are and not what we want them to be.  Maybe our goal should simply be to, “Max Every Child”.

Ron Russo, Senior Fellow, Caesar Rodney Institute

Founding President, Charter School of Wilmington

Former Principal, St. Mark’s High School

Read Full Post »

At the ninth annual National Summit on Education Reform sponsored by the Foundation for Excellence in Education held (November 30 to December 2) in Washington, D.C., Governor Jeb Bush, the keynote speaker, told the attendees that they had to, “Be big, be bold, or go home.”  Tweaking has a role to play in improving education but the current situation demands boldness.

In an article, “Choice, Charter Schools, and Education Reform”, written by William E. Manning, former president of the Red Clay Consolidated School District, he described the current Delaware school system as a “large bureaucracy” which he referred to as “the Blob”.  He also observed that, “…the system isn’t worth repair.” and “…let’s just pitch it and get a new one…” designed along certain principles. 

He recommended a confederation of independent schools each locally managed and free of regulations about who to hire and how to teach.  The schools would be evaluated only by performance data that would be shared with the public.  Since district responsibilities would be significantly reduced, the new system would need only a small administrative cadre.  Professional assistance would be provided to schools but only if they requested it.  Districts would offer,” …helpful resources rather than regulation.”  Teachers would be offered meaningful professional development as their status in the system would be elevated along with appropriate compensation.  These are most of the points.

The Caesar Rodney Institute is supporting a systemic change to our education bureaucracy called the “BOLD PLAN”.  It significantly alters the way the current education system operates by empowering the individual schools to make operational decisions to best serve their students.  The concept was introduced in Delaware in 1995 and was supported by the Governor, the Delaware Department of Education, and the business community.  A few charter schools were to pilot the idea and to serve as models for the traditional public schools.  Through a controlled growth plan and appropriate administrative development, every traditional public school would eventually have the same decision-making authority as a charter school with a much simplified district oversight function.

CRI’s BOLD PLAN incorporates the best features of the 1995 Charter School Law and the Memorandum of Understanding designed by Delaware’s DOE for Priority Schools.  If the changes proposed in the MOU were expected to raise the performance of the state’s lowest performing schools, why wouldn’t those changes be offered to all public schools?

The new system would recognize the importance of autonomy for local school leadership (principals and teachers answerable to parents), the need to focus on performance-based accountability, the value of customized education, and the critical role played by an established school culture of success.

BOLD legislation would specify areas of local decision-making.  Such areas would include: 1) Authority to hire and dismiss all staff; 2) All programing inputs (school calendar, schedule, curriculum aligned to Delaware standards, instructional practices and methodology, textbooks, technology, etc.); 3) Marketing and planning; 4) Support services including transportation, food, and maintenance; 5) Budget preparation and expenditure control with surplus operating funds retained by the school.  Schools will have autonomy from any district or Delaware DOE requirements not mandated by state or federal law.

District school board responsibilities would include: 1) Hiring and performance evaluations of Chief Education Officers (CEOs, formerly, principals); 2) Approval of proposed annual budgets and major capital projects; 3) Review of appeals of CEO decisions; 4) Operational support in areas such as legal, financial, personnel, facilities, etc. as requested by CEOs; 5) Facilitation of intra and inter district meetings of CEOs if requested by them.

For a state the size of Delaware, nineteen school districts is more than what is needed.  New York City and Los Angeles have many more students but each has only one school district.  Any cost savings could be used for additional expenses that may be incurred by the transition.

The BOLD PLAN complements Delaware’s other education improvement efforts (Visions, Races, etc.).  In fact, it may even complete them.  At the very first Vision 2015 meeting hosted by Dan Rich, then Provost of the University of Delaware, he ended the meeting by telling the attendees that if they wanted to improve Delaware’s public schools they had to be bold and, if they didn’t want to be bold, they should get out.  Hmmmm, it seems that Dan was way ahead of Jeb.

Ron Russo, Senior Fellow, Caesar Rodney Institute

Founding President, Charter School of Wilmington

Former Principal, St. Mark’s High School

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

In reality, education reform is about economics. If done properly, it will attract/retain businesses, provide jobs, generate tax revenues, increase property values, reduce crime rates, and reduce the single largest item in the state’s budget. This was the direction taken in 1995 by Gov. Carper, State Superintendent Mike Ferguson, and a business consortium (DuPont, Bell Atlantic, Delmarva Power, Hercules, Zeneca, and Christiana Care) when they advocated for change in Delaware’s public education system.

To be clear, we must first distinguish between teaching and education. Teaching is a profession consisting mainly of teachers with special knowledge and training who exercise personal judgment in carrying out their responsibilities with students in the individual school buildings. The broader concept of education, however, is a business.

The 1995 concept of Delaware education reform was implemented in a pilot program at a school that proved to be very successful. In a study conducted by Dr. Gary Miron of the Evaluation Center at Western Michigan University at the request of the Delaware Department of Education and the State Board of Education, he observed that students at the new school were, “…outperforming their counterparts at similarly matched traditional public schools…”  The school achieved national recognition and generated a substantial operating surplus.

The essence of this bold plan was to shift operational decision-making authority from a school board and district into the individual school building. Control was now local and exercised by a principal working with teachers, answerable to parents with oversight and support provided by a board. Andreas Schleicher, a member of Rodel’s International Advisory Group, presented data at a Rodel Foundation Education Event to show that, when a school is given that type of autonomy, student performance is improved.

The significant reduction of district and board responsibilities should lead to a reduction of the number of school districts from 19 to 5 (1 in Sussex, 1 in Kent, 2 in New Castle, and 1 VoTech District.) New York City and Los Angeles each have only one school district.

Governor Carney’s first executive order creates a working group to consider a public-private partnership between Delaware’s Economic Development Office and the business community. Perhaps an education component should be added to the mix to reflect the previous business/education initiative. Recently the governor created a board to study government efficiency. Since education makes up about one-third of the state’s budget, if you have read this far in the article, you know this author’s position on education efficiency.

A reduced deficit, an improved economy, and higher student performance, now that’s a bold solution everyone can support.

Ronald R. Russo is a Senior Fellow at the Caesar Rodney Institute, and the Founding President of the Charter School of Wilmington.

7 1LINKEDINCOMMENT

Read Full Post »

 

State support for higher education is slipping with one large exception at the University of Delaware. One department, actually one individual, at the university is slated for a 38% increase according to the latest draft of the state budget.  This is in contrast to the state contribution for university operating expenses falling from about 21% in 2000 to about 12%, according to the University’s 2015 Investment Office Annual Report.

The currently proposed 2017 Fiscal Year proposed budget consists of fifty-nine pages of tables of budget numbers by department, and two hundred and twenty-six pages of “epilogue” language.  The epilogue pages are similar to footnotes and most of it is innocuous and a pretty boring read.  It can also be a place where bad policy goes to hide.

This may be the case with Section 285, page 199, which reads:

Section 285. Section 1 of this Act makes an appropriation to Higher Education, University of Delaware  (90-01-01) for the College of Arts and Sciences. Of this amount, $290,000 shall be allocated to the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy for research supervised by Dr. John Byrne as principal investigator

Yes, while other departments struggle as costs rise faster than state contributions, Dr. Byrne is expecting $290,000 to use as he sees fit, not even with direction for what he is researching.  The transfer effectively raises the earth sciences budget 38%.  Dr. Byrne and the University of Delaware have not responded to requests for comment.  A similar transfer was authorized in the last three year’s budgets but was designated more generally to the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy run by Dr. Byrne.

Unlike specific legislative bills there is no acknowledged sponsor of epilogue language.  However, Dr. Byrne and State Senator Harris McDowell (D – Wilmington North) have worked together for over a decade.  Senator McDowell is Co-Chairman of the Joint Finance Committee that writes the budget, and of the Senate Energy Committee.  Dr. Byrne and Senator McDowell jointly chaired the Sustainable Energy Utility (SEU) and its Oversight Committee over the last decade.  Dr. Byrne would be expected to consult with Senator McDowell in his role with the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy.  The obvious question is Dr. Byrne getting special treatment in the state budget because of his relationship with Senator McDowell.  Senator McDowell has not responded to requests for comment.

Senator Greg Lavelle (R – Sharpley) commented, “Based on the fact Dr. Byrne’s name is specifically mentioned in the epilogue language is a unique event, and we will be asking questions”.  He went on to say. “It would make one think that authority for use of the funds rests with Dr. Byrne and not the Center for Energy & Environmental Policy”, or the University.

David T. Stevenson, Policy Director

Center for Economic Policy

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »