Just when finish up my PDF of the latest version of the Tax and Education Reform Plan, (with podcst to boot) Illinois' Edcuation Bureaucracy comes up with a figleaf reform of their own.
Good for them.
Mine's better.
It talks about Tax reform.
1. Zero out the local property tax for schools
2. Pass HB750 increases at the state level
These result in a $2-3 billion dollar tax cut for Illinois. It constitutes a REAL, not FAKE, tax swap for Illinois.
It talks about Education Reform.
1. Phase out the School District - it is an essentially useless entity designed to spend money
2. Convert EVERY Illinois public school to an independent charter school
3. Provide Every Child in Illinois with a $7,000 scholarship (indexed to inflation) to be used a ANY participating school
4. Replaces ALL state mandates with an annual, uniform testing regime that covers a broad and sequenced set of rich content standards.
___
Any Thougths? (but spare me the "it's not politically possible" complaint. Though I know that, the fact is that it will never be politically possible to reform education until some one actually proposes real reform.)
I think your plan makes too much sense. It will automaticly be opposed by those feeding currently on school property taxes.
I like it in theory.
It' a great plan. I think the teachers on this site will like it, also. How could these highly educated liberal teachers possibly be against high academic standards, freedom of choice and the elimination of a regressive tax?
John
1. Phase out the School District - it is an essentially useless entity designed to spend money
Some parents would like to think that school districts do somewhat more than this. From the Unit 4 web site...
Mission StatementThe mission of the Champaign Unit #4 School District, in partnership with the community, is to guide all students in gaining knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to direct their lives, improve a diverse society, and excel in a changing world by providing dynamic, resource-rich learning environments and experiences in which people and lifelong learning are valued.
2. Convert EVERY Illinois public school to an independent charter school
This would create an instant shortage of administrators leaving some schools with no direction or leadership which could cause them to fail, which would remove seats from classrooms for children.
3. Provide Every Child in Illinois with a $7,000 scholarship (indexed to inflation) to be used a ANY participating school
In our capitalist society the price of a seat for your child in a school (which would no longer be guaranteed) would be well over this even in the first year, not the mention the "tuition" that some schools with better scores would charge.
4. Replaces ALL state mandates with an annual, uniform testing regime that covers a broad and sequenced set of rich content standards.
I like this idea, but where have I heard it before...
The fact of the matter is that we have charter schools now that are out of reach of a good deal of the population. It is not as much of an issue because there are always public schools to guarantee that every child has a seat. Try convincing me how every child would be guaranteed a seat under your plan. The last thing we need to do is keep the poor un-educated.
Cheesy Poof,
Nice mission statement. The IL Constitution guarantees us all a great education as well. I hear that is working out well. As an aside, how much time was spent by administrators andboard members hashing out that essentially worthless mission statement? I don't mean to be mean, but that fact is that a "District" educates exactly no one. Get rid of it, and apply the money toward, schools, teachers, and other things that actually DO educate students.
"Instant shortage of administrators"
Not really. Who says a principal can't "administrate?" Who says a teacher can't "administer" a great deal more efficiently than the army of "coordinators, directors, managers, etc. etc.?
It isn't as though you aren't raising a viable issue. It's just that you are thinking inside the "District Box" that narrows your view. While your points have validity, they need to be addressed differently.
Instead of saying "It can't work," we need to say, "How do we manage the transition?" One way is to re-write the entire school code to transition from "Bureaucracy based education" to "Child Based education." I know from your line of thinking that you disagree, but we need to fund children, not districts. The issues that arise will be legion, but they will be managable.
"price of a seat for your child in a school (which would no longer be guaranteed) would be well over this even .."
Your saying so, doesn't make it so. The fact is that it shouldn't take more than $7,000 to educate a child, and most people applying common sense know this. Also, when you add the feature of an "Education Savings Account" (it's in the 27 page plan that I've written), you create a strong incentive to reduce costs. Parents are well-suited to get involved in schools that they now have more of a say in managing.
The new school code would address many of your concerns, though probably not in the way would like. First, we need to unwind the finances of districts. This would which include keeping all existing contracts in place while also determining the finances (assets and liabilities) of each district. (I salivate at the opportunity to place every distirct in IL in the position of undergiong a fornesic audit - the corrupiton ins districts is legion - even if "legal." It is Illinois, after all.)
Regardless, there is no reason on earth why we can't transition from this system to a better one while and still have places for every child. You may wish to believe that charters combined with scholarships means that the wild, wild west will pop up in a day, but it is far more reasonable to manage the process intelligently.
Here is the reason I'm ultimately correct on this. Take United Airlines. There are passengers, planes, pilots, support, gates, airports, etc. etc. Had United been forced to liquidate (my opinion) based upon their awful management and upper management greed (while screwing their workers, btw), then the only thing that would have changed is that all of their assets would have been absorbed into the "market" for travel - which, last time I checked, was robust.
Not only is school management (administrators,bureacrats, etc. ) akin to greedy CEOs who ruin companies, but market metaphor applies as well. vast majorities want their kids educated, the buildings exist, the teachers exist, and to top it all off, there are numerous innovations that are waiting in the wings as we transition from "bureaucracy based educaiton" to "child based education." .
Every one of your points are valid in the old paradigm. So are buggy whips. We just don't need them any more.
"Standardized Tests"
One reason we're going to have to hear it all again and again is that a society that funds education has a right to know whether kids are educated. This is not to shoot the kids, but to measure the system and the people in it. My honor student nephew (HS Junior) is here from Germany. Here in OPRF- a supposedly good school with a good feeder system - he encountered kids in his honor's history class that couldn't place Germany on a map. This is obscene. It clearly isn't the kids. It's the system, and it has to go.
I don't care how you slice it - lack of parental involvement, too many NCLB tests, too much focus on sports or GLBTG PC claptrap (all valid critiques, BTW) - there is no excuse for any school in any part of Illinois not teaching it's students the geography of the US and the World (120-140 countries) by 7th or 8th grade. It isn't rocket science. It isn't hard to make it "fun" and if the teachers won't do it, then we can get a $35 cd-rom to do it for us. The CD-Rom won't demand end-of-life-cycle bonuses or an actuarially impossible pension.
There is plenty of data suggesting that you can cover broad, sequenced content, and that testing for part of the content still allows for accurate measurement. (See E. D. Hirsch) Set the standards high, and let a newly freed set of schools decide how to best meet them.
"Already Charters" "Guaranteed Seats"
If the 892nd spending district in IL ($4,177) can have better results than one spending $13,000/yr, then every child with a $7,000 scholarship is going to have a good seat. As to the fact that there alre already charters, that's a hoot. The number of charters is severely restricted, and for no rational reason other than political clout of the education industry (and yes, it is an industry, just like any other - only protected)
My plan educates the "poor" much better than they could currently hope for, and I'll take that debate with anyone, anytime, anywhere.
Again, your critiques are only valid inside your box (paradigm). We've had that paradigm long enough. Its time is up. We need an education system that works for kids, parents and taxpayers. The teachers, their unions, the administrators, and the bureaucrats have all had their ride on the gravy train. If any of the preceding folks create value, they will be amply rewarded. One wonders how many teachers reading this would be willing ot give up the political 'protection' for the opportunity to really teach.
ew-
Some random replies, sorry it is so rambling...
I agree that we need to fund the children, more specifically the education of the children. Asking teachers to do the school's payroll, pay the school's bills, negotiate contracts, and do their normal teaching and lesson planning might be a little demanding. I shudder at comparing an airline that provides flights to a school that teaches a child, but how much money has the government thrown at United Airlines? There is no way to predict what tuition would be in a free market, and no way to control it, therefore I am assuming that it would be high because anyone who opens one of these schools will be doing it to make money, and the primary purpose of a school should be to educate. What happens if a school is losing money and closes down mid year like failing businesses are known to do?
Here is the question that was not addressed, how do we guarantee under this plan that every single school that is already filled re-opens and provides the same, if not better, educational experience? Does it make good business sense to take one of these schools over if it is 50 years old, in a poor neighborhood, and needs 2 million in repairs? What about a small town with only one, one hundred year old school? Who would undertake such a project? Where do those displaced children go if the answer is nobody? I am not pro district, and agree that our standards are a bit low, but if the government will ultimately hold these schools responsible through testing (which costs taxpayer money if done by the government), shouldn't the taxpayers have a say in how they are run?
so how would you feel about a fallback position, where the districts stay in place, and all the kids still get vouchers? Your fallback position exists, but now the gov't schools must compete in the marketplace.
And I will challeng your assertion that "anyone who opens one of these schools will be doing it to make money". Who is the biggest provider of private education now? I would guess the Catholic Church.
I didn't know that John Stossel had an account here.
I know John Bramfeld thinks that anyone who believes in union protection must inherently hate children, so we should probably just agree to ignore each other.
I think we should allow starving children to eat Bramfeld's left arm. How can such an educated conservative be opposed to feeding kids, healthy eating habits and the effective use of what is typically a squandered resource?
I like the initial post in that it has a plan, it has clear goals and links the two.
What I feel it is missing:
1) A lack of connect to the daily realities of our schools. As much as we like to think that simple desire for profit will magically materialize thougtful complex systems to address our society's needs, that just hasn't been shown to be true.
2) A complete lack of understanding of the varying costs of education and everything else according to region. Things don't cost the same everywhere.
3) The typical assumption that current educators are morons and are missing simple solutions to what are simple problems. That's wrong, it is administrators who are morons and are missing simple solutions. Just kidding.
Finally, politics aside, do you really believe in the potential success of a plan that is intentionally designed to attack teacher salaries and protections while basically featuring no direct student or parent voice?
Why put so much of your planning into attacking teachers?
So we do need reform and a cohesive plan, but why not propose one that incorporates all of the needs you name, respects teachers and has some link to economic realities?
I see all these plans, but I simply do not have any reason to believe that any of you will continue to care about the students you have never bothered to come work with once your plan has been rammed through. I think that you have no respect for educators and once we are poor and the system still doesn't work, you will proclaim victory and the education system will further collapse...
As stupid as it may sound, it actually takes some expertise and ability to teach students from depressed economic backgrounds with no support from home. If you think we just wander in off the street and anyone can do it, I absolutely beg you to do so. I sincerely hope you succeed as I am much more attached to the welfare of my students than I am to my political beliefs.
Are you?
I am attached to the belief that competition will provide better results for more kids than the current gov't monopoly system. Good teachers will be rewarded.
I, like many parents, am sick of school district personnel treating me as if I am a "hassle for them" - I want to be treated like a wanted customer. My opinion matters in this deal.
Would the competitive model function differently when the parents absolutely do not care? Probably not. But should we design our entire system around this circumstance?
Well, it will more than not matter because at least in the current system, many of the teachers, despite the terrible circumstances (how many children have been killed in your child's school this year?) do their best to protect the unspoken for children.
I have enough to worry about, I couldn't also be impoverished at the same time. It's not that I wouldn't want to, I simply couldn't do what I am doing. I am a counselor, security officer, grant writer, parent and on and on. Wednesdays, I leave the house at 6:30am and return at 11:30pm. That's straight through. I teach 8-3pm, Tutor at school 3-5, tutor in the north suburbs from 7-10:30. Tu/Ths I'm lucky enough to be home at 8. Mon/Fri I schedule my meetings and professional development. Weekends are for lesson planning, grading and networking.
I make about 45K plus overtime for night school. It's by far the toughest job I've worked and my colleagues who've worked top law firms and residencies say the same.
My friends who work at charters like the smaller school environment, but have no protection. There are terrible and great principals at both kinds of schools, and the job security is low at both, but the difference is that good teachers at least have some recourse if fired at a public non-charter.
They, even those whose are much more accomplished than I, make about 10K less per year and that's with an 8 year experience difference.
I love small schools. I love accountability. I AM high academic standards. I am in favor of REAL choice, not the fake choice that vouchers provide, and I would love to see tax reform to be less regressive.
Could you try to help me work on these issues without attacking my person and profession?
I'd be extremely hesitant about an all private school system being implemented in the State, not because of some dislike or philosophical opposition to the free market, which has proven time after time to produce better results and efficiency in many industries as opposed to purely government managed industries which seem to fail at adapting to the changing business environment with their needs and their customer's needs and wants.
Rather I'd be hesitant because some of the good parts of free market in most industries are hard to mesh with the equal opportunity ideals most of us want in education. Supply and demand would dictate that competing schools would adapt to the consumer... many schools would be low budget and target larger pools of potential families. Other schools with good results would experience higher demand but with higher constraints on supply (property, buildings, equipment, staff) to maintain those results and would thus eventually become more expense to the point of being priced out of the larger pool of families but successful as they can target the more well off families and cater to their desire for better education. Meanwhile the larger pool of families will be shopping around at schools within their budget and the discount/economic schools will be where they have to play their hand.
In most industries this situation is perfect. The industry has adapted to allow people to still get a desired product even if it is a bit lower quality to those who might not otherwise be able to afford it and those who have the means for the spiffy version of the product help companies that cater to that demand be successful.
In education this inequity would be considered intolerable to most people because it does not promote equal opportunity. Instead it is very likely to maintain or worsen the socioeconomic barriers that we're already struggling with.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Thanks for an articulate, less-polarizing response to this issue that incorporates a strong understanding of economic principals.
In education this inequity would be considered intolerable to most people because it does not promote equal opportunity.
That assumes that a "free market" Walmart school would be worse than what poor kids in poor districts already have. I am not ready to make that assumption.
The thing is, rich kids already have a market. They can go to private schools, or can move to areas that are more expensive buy provide "better" schools. The poor kids are just stuck - can't afford private school and can't afford to move.
Cheesy Poofs,
I think I did answer that, though I believe my answer wouldn't qualify for your approval.
First, I envision a 2-4 year transition, where a great deal of this can be taken care of through thoughtful legislation. As you may or not have surmised, the plan I envision allows for not only converting existing schools to charters, but for the dramatically easing rules for the creation of charters as well. Add to this the ability of existing private schools to redeem scholarships if they meet testing standards, and you have a situation where it is nearly impossible for there to be a "shortage" of good schools.
Regarding you point about "controlling tuition" in a free market, I can only say that I have no interest in controlling tuiton. If a school charges $10,000 and has an acceptable pass rate, then they can redeem the $7,000 and the parents can pay the difference. If a school charges $4,000, then the parents can use the $3k to save college (a better investment than retirees pensions, BTW)
I have no proof that everything will be perfect. As a matter of fact, I'm sure there will be bad people doing bad things with some charters. That is no reason to delay reform for a moment. THere are bad people doing bad things right now in the public system. There are schools with the fanciest "mission statements" that are doing a horrible job, and the IL Const. guarantee isn't worth a wad of spit for many many kids in IL.
Bite the bullet, reform. It can't be any worse than what is happening right now.
As to the taxpayers having a say in how they are run, of course you are correct. What taxpayer approved end of career bonuses, over production of special ed kids and then staff, and/or large Admin budgets?
You can argue that they "approved" it in theory based upon electing legislators, boards, and approving referenda. On the other hand, when I show people (many of them liberals) where that money is going, they get amd. My view is that there is lack of "informed consent." Regardless, taxpayers deserve the 'educated populace' they are paying for, and I believe my plan is superior to the existing system. Set the standards, and let 1000s of new schools find the best way to meet them for the 100s of different types of children out there.
BTW, your "running out of money" scenario is an excellent question, and it caused me to put it in the mix of good FAQs. Thank you, and yes, I believe it can be addressed.
"thoughtful legislation" I am not sure this really possible?
I appreciate the level of thought you've put into this, but I wanted a few clarifications:
Bite the bullet, reform. It can't be any worse than what is happening right now.
This is clearly not true. After all, educators have heard the exact same excuse to spur the dozens of educational overhauls we've seen in our lifetimes. Some of them have made things markedly better, others have made things far worse (see NCLB), but most are in the middle.
What taxpayer approved end of career bonuses, over production of special ed kids and then staff, and/or large Admin budgets?
What do you mean by the special ed section? We have almost no special ed staff at our school, only unfunded mandates.
Also how will creating a more business oriented system reduce administrative costs? The recent boom of administrative positions has grown out of a desire to be more business-y. Why wouldn't your plan make this work?
Reply to Xian,
A) A lack of connect to the daily realities of our schools
I suppose this is fair enough as a critique, though I might just as easily ask "how much of the reality in schools has no relation to the real world or competing/thriving in it? That is not intended to be as snotty as it sounds. In fairness, I would love to teach, as I think I would do well and enjoy it, but why would I want to enter a miniature planned economy? I've had teachers say I can't critique since I've not been in a classroom. I said "Fine, put me in a class room." No offers.
Let me ask you this. If I could walk into a class of 20-30 kids and outperfrom the existing teacher for less money, give me a reason why I should be prevented from doing so in a moral context.
Next, you assume I'm promoting this as some profit-centered pipe dream. My view is that the "not-for-profit" model would work better in most circumstances, as stake holders will do more for less, and shareholders will ask for high rates of return. I'm not a profiteer, but I am pro-capitalism. I just view capital as something more than just money.
Conversely, I've argued, and will continue to argue, that the existing system is just as "profit centered" as any rapacious capitalist. With no payouts to shareholders, the focus is on growing the business model (class size mandates, special education expansion, P-20 expansion, protecting your "market" from competition, etc etc etc.) Everything that comes out of IEA, NEA, A-Plus IL policy statements is designed to create "profits" for those inside the system while keeping any competition from stealing your captive customers.
Your critique cuts both ways.
B) Things don't cost the same everywhere
I understand this just fine. But again, let me ask. What drives the cost in Lake Forest and River Forest? If the goal is to connect neurons, should it cost more to connect a neuron in LF than in Urbana. When one takes socio-economic status into account, it is probably easier to connect a neuron in Lake Forest. If anything, Urbana should get more money, not less. With no open market for teachers, property tax wealth driving prices (not costs!), how would any of us know what it costs to educate a child?
If a rich parent wants to spend more on school, he's going to find a way to do it. The District Model guarantees that he will vote his elderly neighbor into poverty to get the entire town to pay for "child care expenses" for his double income lifestyle. Looked at this way, the district model borders on the immoral. Give every child an equal amount and the poor will get better schools than they have now. The rich will find out very quickly how much a 'good education' costs as Urbana kids start performing just as well as their over priced schools.
C) current educators are morons
This is simply not true. I know there are many good teachers, as well as some bad ones. It is the system that must go. I DO have a problem with the "progressivist" nonsense taught in ed-schools. I do have a problem with the lack of rigor on the part of some in the education establishment. The fact is that my plan allows for these debates to be settled by 100s of new types of schools. If a progressivist school outperforms a traditional one, then more people will go there. If a mix of progressivist and traditional beats them all, then that is cool too.
Where is the morality in the top-down, one-size-fits-all, rich get richer, poor get poorer system that we have now?
D) attack teacher salaries and protections while basically featuring no direct student or parent voice
Up to now, your critiques have made good sense, but the above makes no sense to me. While I do make the point that education shouldn't be about "salaries and benefits", the idea that a parent with a $7,000 scholarship has 'no student or parent voice' just doesn't pass the common sense test.
I guess we'll have to chalk it up to ideology. You seem to see my idea as an attack on teachers for the purposes of profit. I see my plan as the ultimate parental empowerment, as schools finally have to do what the parent wants instead of the other way around. I can't see a $7,000 scholarship as anything but the ultimate in parental/student empowerment, but I'll admit that I haven't had the opportunity to flesh out the details of the transition.
I'm not attacking teachers as much as I attack the idea that a few years in ed-school gives one the right to work in a monopoly protected from competition. (not only from the outside, but inside as well.) This goes triple for administrators, who have an even more over-weaning sense of entitlement. Let's take a Sylvan Learning Center. A person earning $10-20 an hour (or less) sits at a table with 3 kids (good class size, huh?) So far, this is all "remedial." (BTW, look at what the rich spend on Sylvan, Hooked on Phonics, and private tutors, and tell me again how great their schools are.)
What if that model can educate more kids, better, faster, and cheaper than the current model? I'm not saying that it can, mind you. There will always be a place for a talented conveyor of content. But again, why shouldn't a parent have a choice to try a "Sylvan school", a virtual charter school, a new charter school. Where is the morality in putting this system first. Why should teachers take the first position?
Of course, if you are teacher, I'm sure you can give 100s of reasons. But they centered around "the kids." They are centered around the teacher. Why?
In closing, you don't sound stupid at all. You are probably dedicated and talented. Why waste such talent in an "equalized," time-served, Step pay structure that puts a clock puncher on the same level as you.
Under my system, you'd be the first person to get together with other talented teachers and open your own school. Think about it. You have nothing to lose but your chains...
Well, a little protection too, I guess.
All,
Your critiques are exellent, but I lack the time to get to all of them. Please keep them coming.
Set up a time to meet, and I'll come to UIUC to present in a focus group format. I can get you all the 27 page document to critique as well. It lays some - but not all - of the issues out in more detail.
But again, thank you. I'll try to get back tomorrow.
Xian,
Really!!! Set up a time to debate / discuss this. I have some answers, but they are as complex as the current system. I'd love to roll this out in front of a few teachers.
Just tell me if I need to bring my chiken wire cage.
Thank you for your thoughtful responses:
You are welcome in my classroom at any time. I've extended the offer a dozen times on this site, and I'll extend it again. My only concern is that someone who hates my politics will look past what I do for the kids to nitpick me on something, but I'm not really that concerned--I teach with everything I have so I'm don't have anything to fear.
There is absolutely nothing preventing a great teacher from taking the classroom currently. In my experience, this is less true at the charter schools--the ones I have interviewed with have looked more for human resource dreams rather than teachers who can work with kids. I'm not sour graping here--they didn't even know decent questions to ask their candidates.
At any rate, I think it is fair to say that your plan will be improved the more time you spend in the classroom, and that's not to say it will politically align with mine--the opposite might be true--it's just that it will become deeper and more practical.
Cost to educate:
While it's true that the cost varies, certainly we can estimate the cost of basic supplies. For $7,000/kid you simply can't buy as many of the vital resources in the City of Chicago as you can in an area with a lower price index.
Lack of Rigor:
Agreed--as I've said before, teacher certification should be a professional school program like medical or law school. Pay should be on a similar level, but that's a different story.
No parental or student voice:
We'll probably just disagree on this, but if you can see the logic in what I'm saying (and vice versa) that's good enough for me. $7,000 is close to the grindstone in most areas. It is simply not going to be profitable to educate the most challenging students. The administrators who are not profit driven may take these students on out of either altruism or desire to face a challenge, but they will be the exception.
Furthermore, look at general industry: in most cases, companies have more interest in anti-education of their consumer-bases rather than the opposite. Even in cases where the $7,000 is something that adminstrators are trying to "win", it will be more beneficial for them to advertise than deliver the best product.
If you want more student or parental voice, build it directly into your program. Remember you will be dismantling the LSC in the Chicago area schools which are the greatest tool for parental voice that I've seen so far...
Teacher salaries and benefits:
In many cases, higher teacher salaries and benefits are directly in line with what's best for the students. There are enough obstacles to overcome that avoiding having an underpaid, underrespected teacher in the classroom is very important.
Are there teachers in the system who need to be shook up or removed? Sure. That will also happen in your system.
My question is what do you say to the teacher who has forged job security and an amazing program in the most challenging environment and now is going to have to start from scratch with a new regime that may or may not have any expertise in education?
Part of what they signed on to was some type of security for their amazing sacrifices and efforts.
I've already seen this happen as CPS has closed down high schools around the city. Some of the best teachers just move on. They gave everything and don't like the fact that no one considered them or the kids they have now in the grand plan.