Small Schools are Beautiful
“We must create an apocalyptic sense of urgency about Education in this country and then take drastic measures.” ~ Shafeen Charania
So as John put it recently, since it “appears to be Say Controversial Things About Public Education Week” I’d like to just discuss what I see as my own ideal system of schools and, to narrow that down a bit, my ideal school. I’ve been reading the recent joint-report [.pdf] released by the Center for American Progress and the American Enterprise Institute (weird, I know) and I want to say some things about that in a future post.
First of all, as I’ve mentioned, I’d like an educational system that relied more on autonomy than on strict guidelines – if testing is inevitable to gauge performance, for instance, then so be it, but I think we need to find a way to make these tests informative rather than formative. In other words, use them as guides but place much less emphasis on their importance as a metric of educational quality. At most they should serve as red flags for under-performing schools rather than as a metric for teacher performance or student learning. Obviously some subjects are better for testing than others, but we shouldn’t place too much value on those subjects (like math) over other subjects (like music) just because they are easier to measure. Yglesias takes an interesting look at the Finnish model of testing, which might be more palatable:
What Finland does, testing-wise, is that the national government draws up lots of tests. Tests of different kinds of subject matter that are appropriate for children of different ages. But it doesn’t require any nationwide assessment testing. Instead, what’s done on a national basis is that there’s a matriculation exam after ninth grade and there’s also non-publicized testing done on a statistical sample basis so that the government can keep track of what’s happening.
So what are all the tests for? Well, the local governments who actually run schools can — and typically do — order tests administered from time to time in order to check up on what’s happening. So while there isn’t a formal system of test-based accountability, in practice something similar is happening. For example, there was a test in Helsinki of Finnish language ability among I think sixth graders last year. The results weren’t publicized, but they were shared with the principals of Helsinki schools. We visited a school that got poor results on this test, and so the principal and his staff responded by drawing up an action plan to turn things around.
All of this may be difficult in the really impoverished inner-city schools, and those schools because of the impoverishment of their communities face far more problems than most. Obviously in a school or district that is very corrupt and dysfunctional there may be need for real intensive federal intervention – going way beyond just holding back federal dollars. Usually those areas have corrupt political institutions that make reform extremely difficult. The teachers unions in some areas also play a role in stifling healthy reform. It really depends on where we’re talking about, which is why a national conversation on education is so difficult.
So what we need is a higher teacher to student ratio – classes really shouldn’t pass the 15 student mark. Twelve would be better. But beyond that schools should never be allowed to get so big – schools need to retain their own theme, community, etc. and big schools simply can’t achieve this. Student bodies should be kept as small as possible (within reason). There is a lot to be said for the “one room schoolhouse” model, though I think that ship has mostly sailed and we need to look more at five-room schoolhouses and other small-school models. If this inhibits certain extra-curricular activities, schools can join forces to say, put together a good football team – though I think the smaller schools would give more kids a chance to be involved in more activities. The magnet approach would also direct more kids to their various niches (and many charters are magnets even if they don’t label themselves this way). I’d also like a highly connected school system, which made use of technology and open source software to connect schools to one another, share ideas, strategies and so forth. More on this idea of autonomy and connectivity later.
I’m also in favor of involving professionals in the teaching/learning process, for one because it’s important to get communities involved in our schooling, and also because they have a lot to offer. A lot of people think certification gets in the way of this – and it often does. So higher education institutions need to work together to come up with graduate level “fast-track” programs to get people from various fields involved as teachers. To make all this a success we’re going to need to hire lots of teachers, and a fast-track approach for temporary instructors should be an option.
So let’s break it down:
1) Testing should be limited if it is used to serve as a “red flag” for failing schools. More intervention is needed in those schools than simply giving or withholding funds.
2) We need to hire lots of teachers to get the ratio down, and one way this can be approached is through “fast-track” programs.
3) School choice is important but the charter option is better than the private model for a number of reasons we can discuss later. (In DC, for instance, many voucher schools are converting to charters).
4) There are other topics I want to go into more depth on, including trade schools and education models in Canada, Sweden, etc, as well as early childhood education (read John’s post from today as well as Yglesias on the Finnish model). I prefer a sort of means-tested universal access to preschool. It simply can’t hurt to open up these opportunities to kids, but that shouldn’t mean subsidized day-care for people who can afford to pay for it. My ideal in regards to early childhood care is a country that allowed one parent to stay home for those first few years – and we can learn a lot from the Nordic model of maternity leave on this matter, which I think of as a “family values” issue far more than most of the hot-button “family values” issues normally put forth.
I aim to continue this education blogging for a bit. Rest-assured I’ll burn out sooner or later.
UPDATE: I realize that the likely outcome of too much federal involvement is too much overhead, too many strings, etc. and in the end local control is very important – but – this leaves the question of those localities that have simply failed their children. What about them? So this is difficult. I worry also that all the autonomy in the world will fail if the funds can’t be found – and that funding will be hard to come by. Waste is also difficult and important to weed out, but again this can be stopped at any level of government. Thus the importance for competition – though the vouchers still worry me because, well, private/public partnerships just seem way too easily distorted, corrupted, etc. So I’m going to have to keep writing about this because I’m far from decided on any of these things. There are no clear or easy answers.
Full disclosure: My wife is a high school teacher and I am a former school board member in a different district. Both are large districts.
Every study I have seen (please correct me if you have seen otherwise) says that class size does not affect student performance unless the ratio is very low (I’m remember something like 14:1) or very high (I’m remembering over 40.) Therefore, unless you can get down very low on ratio, you may feel that you are doing something to improve education, but it isn’t going to actually affect anything.
You are talking about ratios of 12 or 14 to 1, however, so that is very low. Unfortunately, there are huge financial barriers to going there. Private schools with ratios like that have tuition that normally approaches $15,000 per student per year and that isn’t normally the full cost, either (Fund raising being done to cover the shortfall) and that’s without the cost of special ed, busses, etc. [special ed typically eats about 1/4 of the budget.] Whether the federal government or the local government pays, they will still have to get the money from your taxes. You’re talking about roughly doubling the nation’s spending in this area.
I see no political will to do that, particularly if it will only produce a marginal improvement. The teacher’s union does control the Democratic Party, but they are much more interested in higher pay and benefits for their current members than in expanding the number of members.
Also understand that a lower student teacher ratio means that you need more classrooms. A lot of new classrooms and they aren’t cheap!
If you believe that the Federal government’s money comes with no strings, you clearly haven’t heard of the golden rule. “Those who have the gold make the rules.” Even if they don’t have extensive rules in the beginning, they will down the road. Grandstanding Congressmen will be quick to hold hearings about this or that perceived shortfall in your performance and now we’ll have a new law to see that you do it their way, no exceptions.
Most other countries that have national funding have a national curriculum, which is rigidly to be followed. The classic example is Japan, where teachers are expected to be on the same page of the same textbook every day, nationwide. (And look at their student achievement levels!) Do you really want to go there?
I will also note that smaller classrooms AND smaller schools means fewer opportunities for the students. E.g. if you want to be in choir, and you are in a small school, there may not be enough other students interested in choir to form one. Science labs is another, similar issue for small schools.Report
What can we do to make the inner city more like Finland or Japan?Report
All good points, Patrick. Let’s see…
Re: financial barriers – yes, hence “ideal” and yeah, I’m pretty well aware this is a pipe dream in a lot of ways. But it’s too bad. Spending on education is one area that really does pay off in the long run. And one area that absolutely needs our investment.
I also understand that the federal money comes with strings, which is the catch of course. Again, ideally that’s what I’d like to see, and I think it could work. Yes, some national curricula would be a requirement, but that’s not the end of the world as long as there is breathing room for style and approach (i.e. not such strict adherence to arbitrary tests…)
I addressed the small school/fewer opportunities problem briefly above but essentially with targeted or “magnet” schools kids could have focused learning and there would be schools for those who wanted to focus on choir or on baseball or whatever. Then, too, I think there is merit to the idea that schools could work together to provide extra-curricular activities.Report
What can we do to make the inner city more like Finland or Japan?
Probably not a whole hell of a lot – but, we can intervene where corruption and dysfunction have essentially created inertia that locals simply can’t overcome. It sort of depends on what the problems are, though.Report
If your description is a Platonic ideal and not expected to ever become reality, then, yes, sounds great. My greater concern than the level of spending is the level of importance that people put on education and that is not improved by spending. What I see is an on-going dumbing down of curriculums, because people can’t be bothered. There are a lot of distractions out there and the community tends to put inordinate importance on the peripheral and a correspondingly lower place for the heart of education. Home work not done, attendance okay, as long as I don’t have something else I’d rather do, and so forth. I’m not talking about the whole “kids who come from poor homes can’t succeed” thing (which is a cop out.) Rather, I see even blue collar, middle class and upper class families that place a low importance on educational success and that’s a dagger in the heart of our country’s future. Even the ambitious think first in terms of the formal measures (SAT scores, getting into the “right” schools, etc.) rather than learning, as in “knowing stuff.” Yes, there are always some kids who are super bright, but the average is slipping, in my humble opinion. I see a culture that says “Don’t be a geek,” rather than looking up to the successful, unless success is defined in terms of sports or entertainment.
I would like to see more evaluation of schools in terms of value added. For example, I was on the board of a district that produced a lot of above average students by the 12th grade and the district staff just about broke their own arms, patting themselves on the back . But when they were tested in the 3rd and 5th grade, these were well above average kids. I don’t see school that take kids who are well above average and make them above average as being successful. On the other hand, there are schools that take kids who are in the 10th percentile and get them up to the 30th. No, they’re not at the 50th percentile, but they have made things better.Report
If your description is a Platonic ideal and not expected to ever become reality, then, yes, sounds great.
Well – yes and no. I think it could become a reality. And I think it would be good, because I really do think that it’s not how much you spend but how you spend it (smaller classes for instance) that matters. I’m just very cynical that it’s very likely.
Re: your other points – again, I agree. Measuring changes in performance is much more useful, and certainly we’ve started to devalue our priorities in this country. Education is one of those areas that is taking a back seat to – well – to pop culture I suppose. To consumerism. It’s sad. It’s the mark of a society in decline.Report
I found that class size was more of an issue (at least for me) when grading and offering instruction on papers than it was during the time spent teaching in the classroom. I required my students to write several drafts of the same paper, so I spent a lot of time writing on their papers. The fewer students I had in the class, the more time I had to devote to each one.Report
So I’m going to have to keep writing about this because I’m far from decided on any of these things. There are no clear or easy answers.
I understand. I have pretty strong opinions about how I’d build or improve a school, but at the same time, I don’t think education is something I should be dogmatic about. What works in one place may not work in another. I believe my philosophy of education is right, but even so I wouldn’t want to impose it on the whole of the country. I’d rather see it and, at the same time, others tested at a local level and judged by their fruits. If an idea or practice proved successful, then it could be applied elsewhere while taking into consideration the particulars of each new school.Report
Fascinating. Despite howevermuch we’ve butted heads, we agree on a lot more than I might have figured EDK.
I think that you’re placing insufficient weight on the importance of choice and testing. Some sort of accountability taken somewhere is crucial. As idyllic as the Finnish model is, it requires a degree of trust in educators that I simply don’t have.
But beyond that, what you say sounds quite interesting.Report