Morning Shots

Nary a conversation seems to occur on world globalization and progress without a mention of the famous Thomas Friedman book, “The World is Flat.” I cannot do it justice in these few short words I have to offer, but suffice it to say that the World is Flat is a tome on how boundaries and borders no longer matter to the creation of wealth, progress, and human industry that once seemed confined to a nation’s territory.  Indeed, the world’s flattening has given us customer service from India, and a challenge to American industry and competitiveness that has never been seen before.

Given this reality, I have to wonder why the education world has not yet grasped its own inevitable and necessary flattening.  No, I’m not talking about national standards – that’s an idea that has other worrisome issues attached to it (and I’m not talking about states rights).  I am talking about the attitude of policymakers and advocates, who believe that the education challenges and issues they face in their state are unique.  

States do indeed have wonderful and exceptional attributes and conditions that make them unique.  I can’t visit a place without wishing I had a few days to spend taking in the local culture, visiting its stores, restaurants, parks (in that order), and seeing the beauty each place has to offer.

Schools and school systems do look different across many communities and states, too. Where I grew up, every town was a district – the three public schools in my town were so closely knit, and so in-tune with what was happening a few blocks away that conditions and educational levels were quite high. It was more personalized because of the connectivity of those schools.  And yet where I live now, the counties are

Read More …

Ask any Mayor what his or her top priority is for the long term health of his or her city, and much more often than not they will say improving the quality of public schools. Mayors understand that a city cannot thrive with broken or even sub-par public schools. In too many of the nation’s urban areas students have a less than 50-50 chance of even finishing high school and educational achievement in the nation’s great cities remains far too low.

Yet despite the centrality of public schools to a city’s civic health, few mayors have any formal statutory authority over the public schools located in their city, as school systems in most states are run by independent local school boards. It is a paradox that vexes many mayors.

Mayors determined to reform education must either find ways of supporting school districts or take them over. Efforts to support school districts include building relationships with superintendents, advocating for resources, and publicizing successes. These efforts tend to keep mayors out of trouble (in other words, on the front page and off the op-ed pages) but with a few noteworthy exceptions, such efforts are low-impact in terms of improving outcomes for students.

Other mayors have assumed direct control over school systems, or sought control by supporting entire slates of school board candidates. But the prospects of truly reforming any large, entrenched institution are not good. Stanford’s Michael Kirst, who has extensively studied mayoral takeovers concludes that "it is difficult to link these governance shifts to improved instructional practices or outcomes."

But there is a third way that gives a mayor a way to truly impact education while sidestepping the treacherous politics and problems of takeovers: Mayors can open their own public schools. Doing so does not mean walking away from other struggling public schools,

Read More …

Funding and decision-making authority should follow the student, not programs. This simple but revolutionary idea is gaining bipartisan support across the country. And it could pave the way for an overhaul of federal aid for disadvantaged students.

In January, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed that Gotham adopt three new policies: "backpack funding," school based management, and widespread school choice. This bundle of reforms – known as the "weighted student formula" – embodies a new approach to education finance.

With backpack funding, public schools receive per-pupil funding based on individual students’ characteristics. This consists of a basic per-student grant for every child and then extra money for students who are from low-income households, don’t speak English at home, or have special needs.

The second pillar of the plan is school-based management. School leaders are given the authority to control their budgets and direct their school’s mission. Principals and school leaders get to be entrepreneurs or CEOs of their schools, making decisions about resource allocation, personnel, and the school’s mission without looking to a centralized bureaucracy for direction.

The third pillar is widespread public school choice. Students can attend a school of choice, taking their funding with them. School leaders have an incentive to offer a quality learning environment and attract students to their school.

San Francisco has been a leader in this approach since 2000, thanks to the efforts of former school superintendent Arlene Ackerman. Today, the 60,000-student district has open enrollment and real school-based management. It also has some of the highest test scores of any city in California.

Ms. Ackerman, now a professor at Columbia University’s Teacher College, recently described the district’s experience in the New York Daily News: "In the period after the weighted formula was implemented, San Francisco experienced six consecutive years of academic gains. The system’s principals, teachers

Read More …