A Blueprint for Improving the Public Education System

by: Russ Russler, CFO, NCR [retired]

According to various statistical measures, our children's intellectual skills rank
around 181h when compared to other developed countries in the world. On the other hand, the press has reported various times that the USA educational system is the envy of the World. Both positions may be right. In 2002, the Bush administration focused on the issue and the "No Child Left Behind" law was passed with bipartisan support.

Unfortunately, the teachers, teacher unions, and many educators viciously attacked the law mainly because it was the first time annual statewide assessments of students was required which in tum focused on schools with low performance especially among minorities. It also brought to the attention of parents in schools where minority or low income populations were not involved, that their kids were not performing. The parents then became concerned that there might be some problems in their school with the administration, teachers, or curriculum. As a result, there started to be some discussions and decisions about taking the results of tests of students and using them in the evaluation
of a teacher's performance as test scores are the only objective and quantitative measure of the most important mission o fhelping students to improve and reach their academic potential. Because of the outrage, especially by the teacher's unions, the law became very political resulting basically that the implementation of the law was not funded so it failed.
There were some definite problems with the law which were well documented but instead of trying to fix them the politicians including the Administration let the law fail and our children lost several years of effort that could perhaps made a difference in their lives.

The'No Child Left Behind Act" was recently replaced by its "Every Student Succeeds Act" again with bipartisan support. President Obama noted the goals of the previous law were the right ones but its "cookie cutter" approach to standards didn't always achieve results. The new law among other changes allows states to set their own standards giving the states more flexibility in raising student achievement, hopefully getting away from the "teach-to-the-test" philosophy which was cultivated by the old "No Child Left Behind Act". The new law even prohibits the Federal Education Department from imposing the Common Core model. It appears that the "new law" is a major step in the right direction.

Since there seems to be concern by many about the competitive position of our children's intellectual skills when compared to others in the world, the purpose of this paper is to look at our system for public education (K-12) especially as to how it should function, where the accountability lies and that the results should be measured and used. This paper, hopefully, will provide a blueprint that can be used by interested parties to identify the cogs in the PES that are not working so they can be fixed and for those that are working to be transported to others in need.

Before one can even look at the Public Education System (PES), it must be recognized that the foundation supporting PES is the Family. Science and society has endorsed the concept that parents generally provide the best environment for the nurturing of a child. A child is like a sponge soaking up that which they come in contact. There is a tremendous amount of responsibility given to the parents for providing the kind of environment for nurturing their children's desire to learn and for what they are "teaching" them and what is being taught to them by the educational system.

A most important part of the foundation of the PES that parents must provide is an atmosphere for learning and for the content of that which is taught. These two issues are major responsibilities for the parents. Secondly, as a child approaches the age they enter the PES, he or she must understand that the parents support the school's part in the continuation of the learning process.

When parents tum over part of their responsibility in the education of their
children to the PES, they are in essence forming a partnership with the PES. It is a unique partnership in as such the parents still are responsible for the education of their children but they have turned over to the PES a substantial part of the "book learning process" as well as a whole host of extra-curricular activities. Unfortunately, some parents have turned over to the PES the teaching of their child's proper behaviors, manners, right and wrong and basic communication skills.

A very important element of this unique partnership is the relationship of the
parent to the teacher especially as it pertains to the parent's involvement in their child's homework. Needless to say, there must be involvement, but how much? A child must learn to accept help when they need it but they also must learn to be accountable for their own actions or lack thereof. The parent and teacher must communicate with each other to find that acceptable balance which may be different for each child.

How do parents manage their relationship with the PES? It is through a series of
responsibilities. To better understand how this relationship and responsibilities work lets look a typical PES unit organizational structure.

First, PES was intended to be a structure built around local autonomy,
responsibility, and accountability. The geographical boundaries ofthis structure are called a district and geographically can be as large or small as the people decide. This "district" is run by a "board" elected by the people in the "district". Here lie the first responsibilities that parents have in the relationship with the PES. A significant number of the "people" in a "district" are parents. Therefore, it is up to the parents to help elect school board members who will carry out their responsibilities in accordance with what the people (mainly parents) want to have happen. For both the "people" and the school board members this relationship is probably a learning experience with both having a not very well defined definition of what their objectives are or should be. Nevertheless, the
school district has to function.

The "people" can broadly define their major objectives as:

1. Educate each student to the maximum of his/her potential.

2. Equipping the students to be productive citizens beyond their high school years preparing the student to be successful in college, including technical schools, careers, or trades they choose.

3. Requiring the education process to be consistent with the ethical and moral values that the majority of the "people" want.

4. Managing the cost of such education so as to be sustainable by the taxpayers in the district.

5. Establish accountability at the board level for the educational experience expected by the parents for their children.

The electorate must develop a process to make the qualifications, objectives, and goals of the individual candidates for the board publicly known so they can vote for and hopefully elect the candidate(s) they determine who will best carry out their objectives for the school board.

Since "board members" are responsible and accountable for carrying out the
wishes of the people they have to figure out how they are going to do it. The common model used is that the "board" hires an executive usually called "superintendent", who in tum hires a staff to carry out their responsibilities. Great care should be taken by the board that the executive has the educational background, successful work experiences, character and personality to accomplish the objectives of the board and to carry out the responsibilities assigned to him or her.

Among the major responsibilities assigned to the executive are:

1. Determine the size of the administrative staff necessary to accomplish the objectives and to hire competent and capable people to fill the positions.

2. Manage the staff "successfully" holding them accountable and responsible for their actions.

3. Determine with council of staff and teachers the text books and other instructional aids to be used making sure they are supportive of the objectives desired by the board.

4. Develop a strategy for hiring the most capable teachers to man the classrooms including

a. Choose applicants and candidates from a university or college whose educational program has a history of producing successful teachers.

b. Develop guidelines for accomplishments a recruit should have including grade point, class ranking, extra-curricular activities, experiences and personality.

c. Hold experienced recruits to the same guidelines plus the results of their previous work experiences.

d. Make sure all new recruits are indoctrinated with the objectives of the board and with what their responsibilities are.

e. Develop a system of measurement that gives a meaningful insight into the success or lack there of that the teacher is having with their responsibility in the development of the leaming process and improvement of their students. Great effort should be put forth by the district executive that the system of measurement should be comprehensive, objective, meaningful, factual, and fair to both the parent and the teachers.

f. Employ a compensation plan that is competitive, awards teachers for achievements at a cost that is sustainable for the taxpayer.

g. Provide an environment that fosters and encourages teachers to be innovative and successful.

Next to the parents, teachers are the most important cog in the PES. Successful teachers can overcome failures in the other cogs of the PES. However, their success can be enhanced if the other cogs (including parents) in the PES are functioning properly, being responsible and accountable for their actions or lack thereof. The purpose of this paper is not to define what a successful teacher is as that is an issue in itself. Suffice to say, teachers are in a noble profession that requires above average intelligence, good college education, strong character and values and a nurturing personality.

Hopefully, the above paragraphs will help define for the reader the cogs in the wheel that drive the public education, K-12 system as it is now generally constructed and the major responsibilities and accountabilities of each cog. With this information one can look at his/her own school, assess what is going on and determine what is being successful and that which is not working. Interestingly enough, common sense and a lot of work can go a long way to fix that which is not working.

To some, the answer to the unsuccessful school is the charter school. There are many examples of successful charter schools in the same neighborhoods, same level of poverty, and same ethnic backgrounds. Those examples cause a clamor of activities to create more such schools while causing little interest in finding out what's wrong with the existing schools and fixing the problem using the framework of "cog identification" and their performance in the responsibilities and accountability so assigned.

In the l0/07/l5 edition of the Wall Street Journal, there was an article entitled "A Tale of Two Schools, One Building" written by Nicholas Simmons. The following information was obtained from the article. Mr. Simmons, the author, is a vice principal in the Success Academy Charter School network. The Public School's name was Wadleigh Secondary School located on the West side of Harlem. The Charter school was named "Success Academy Harlem West" and was located in the same building as Wadleigh sharing the same cafeteria, gym, courtyard, and city blocks. At both schools more than 95% of the students were Black or Hispanic. The students at Wadleigh all failed to meet state standards in Math or English. At the Charter School, 96% of the students were proficient in Math compared with 35% citywide, and 80% scored at the advanced level. In reading and writing, 75% of the students were proficient, compared with 30% citywide.

Looking at the "cogs" involved with the "Success Academy Charter School", we gain this insight. First, one might give accolades to the parents for selecting the charter school. That isn't a factor as the students for the new school were chosen by lottery. The parents do come into play later on, however. Next, the New York School Board should get credit for recognizingthe failure of some of their schools and so they created the public charter school in order to try new concepts. They hit the jack pot and now their issue is to how to get their successes into their failing schools, a hard job for politicians who want to protect the entrenched interests of a system. The school administration evidently did a great job in figuring out the parts necessary for success – the culture they wanted to create, the curriculum, and most importantly the teachers necessary to implement their program. The teachers were very important part. Their school day ran from 7:30 am to 5:15 pm and the teachers spend evening's and weekends speaking with families about their children's progress. The parents obviously become very interested in the progress as shown by the results. In addition, the teachers' were required to come back to work August 3 for 2 weeks of professional development and to welcome their students 3 weeks before the district's regular school started and whose unionized teachers reported the day before the students. The "Success Academy Charter School" found ways to overcome poverty, race, culture, and family issues and to be successful.

There is starting to be evidence that what charter schools can accomplish could also be accomplished in our traditional schools if all the "cogs" are in place functioning and accountable for the results wanted. The issue seems to be entrenched in the lack of desire or willingness to make changes in the current school boards, administrators, and teachers.

Many administrators have turned to testing hoping that it will fix or help fix the failures in their schools. After all, teachers have used testing in the classroom forever. Outside testing of students has been around since 1900. The first test was the SAT whose purpose was to create a uniform college-admission test in an easy format. Some changes were made in the test but in 1959 the "ACT" testing program was started in competition with the SAT program. Competition caused yet other changes to be made but the purpose essentially remained the same-a college entrance test. An interesting development occurred. Along with intense competition between SAT and ACT came further research by many colleges and universities both private and public. Neither test was a "slam dunk" for measuring a student's success in college. Bates College published results of a study of 123,000 student records from 33 colleges. Their conclusion was that high schools GPA even at poor high schools with easy curriculums were better at predicting success in college than any standardized test. There is other data available that confirms there are other schools that believe the same and as a consequence significant number of schools have either diminished the test scores (SAT and ACT) in the selection process or in many cases eliminated the requirement for test scores altogether.

The testing requirements of the 2002 law "No Child Left Behind Act" unleashed a torrent of activity in the testing community. Two new issues were created. First, the private testing companies, SAT and ACT saw a business opportunity. Why can't the current SAT and ACT tests be used for measuring the progress of students as well as for college entrance evaluations? That opportunity seemed like a good one but did cause a need for some changes in the existing tests by the companies and also a responsibility for school boards and administrators was created to determine which tests are the best at measuring the progress of the student and in fact, just what are they measuring. Complicating the scene is the issue of "Common Core" benchmarks. These benchmarks have resulted in yet a new set of tests being developed by private companies to measure students' progress toward those benchmarks. It is interesting to note that the new law "Every Student Succeeds Act" prohibits the Federal Education Department from imposing the Common Core Model. This is a good thing. The Federal government is too far away from the student and his educational process to require such a law.

The issue of testing needs much more hard data from research studies. There is one thing for sure – testing is the only objective quantitative measure of a students' progress. The parents deserve to have such a measure available of their child's progress and the measure should be used in the evaluation of a teacher's performance so the taxpayer can know how effective his tax dollar is being used. There must be mandated tests that provide long - needed accountability and student progress as a part of teacher evaluation.

There is a lot of data being published since 2002 which indicates that there is a tremendous amount of testing going on. For example, in my local school district, the school board was given a presentation on the school's testing policy by the administrator's curriculum director. From a report of the meeting, in the local paper, and by my count, 5 tests were administered per year and two of those tests were given twice for a total of 7 tests. From what has happened in response to "No Child Left Behind Act",one might expect that the response to Common Core benchmarks will be "do more testing". Educators and administrators should review what industry learned producing war materials for World War II - You can't inspect quality into a product. You have to build it in. Likewise, educators can't test improvement into a student's academic performance, you have to teach it. The best tests and the number needed needs to be determined.

That is where the colleges and universities, both public and private, come in. Many of them have the technical expertise, discipline, and funds to conduct research to gather hard data on the testing issues, both the kind and the amount of testing necessary to accomplish the desired objectives. They are the most qualified to gather the data and to interpret it and then to teach it to the education majors. They are obviously more qualified than the politicians. Universities and colleges are also the best qualified to instruct their students the best techniques and processes for them to use in teaching various subjects. Teachers should be equipped with the knowledge and the different ways to solve a problem and be permitted to use different ways for different students but be held accountable for the results for improving the student's progress. The teaching institutions will soon be recognized and judged by the product they develop - the teachers. It is up to the school administrators to seek out and employ those teachers so educated.

There is evidence that the educational institutions are stepping up to the plate. For example, in a recent publication of Michigan Technological University, they describe a project called "Michigan Science Teaching and Assessment Reform (Mi-STAR)'. The project is developing a curriculum that engages students in applying science to real world problems. The project used school teachers, faculty members, researchers, and graduate students from five Michigan Universities to lay the foundation for the Mi-STAR curriculum. The project is providing training for teachers to develop and implement the new curriculum. It is using research and assessment for analyzing results and changing course when necessary. Three units of the new curriculum are being piloted in several schools. It is hoped that Mi-STAR will be a great model for classrooms nationwide. This is an example of the kind of thinking and research that needs to be done by educational institutions and then implemented to get successful curriculum in place and trained teachers to teach it.

In conclusion, there are two major stakeholders that are the recipient of the success or failure of the PES (Public Educational System). They are the students (our children) and the society as a whole. These stakeholders are very strongly linked together. Students successfully educated overwhelmingly contribute more to society than the students who were not educated to their potential. There is research data that indicates that the poor and minority groups can prosper in a successful PES. Unfortunately, in an unsuccessful PES the poor tend to stay poor and the minorities are not integrated into a successful society. That in tum contributes to the crime and drug issues currently plaguing our society. There is so much resting on a successful PES.

In Summary, it appears the cogs in the wheel of education must be working successfully. The parents must be involved in creating an atmosphere for leaming and for the content of what is taught. The parents also have to be responsible for teaching their kids manners, proper conduct, and ethics and not to shift such and similar issues to the teachers. The parents have a lot of competition. Students have indicated that nearly two thirds of the teens don't think that watching TV or texting hurts their ability to study and learn while there is more and more research that indicates the opposite. As parents deal with these kinds of issues they must coordinate their thoughts and actions with the teachers.

Goals, objectives, measurement of results, and accountability are key words in the relationship between the "Cogs"- parents, electorate, school board, administration, and teachers. Each cog must have a reasonable understanding of the responsibilities and be willing to be measured and held accountable for their results.

There is a significant need for the educational institutions to do more research and data interpretation in the area of testing and measuring of results. New teaching methods and curriculum changes should be supported by research and data before implementation.

Finally, as stated before, teaching is a noble profession. Teachers should work in an atmosphere that encourages creativity and innovation. They must however, be willing to be measured fairly with data and other appropriate means. The successful teacher can also overcome failures in the other "cogs in the wheel", but it helps tremendously if they all function successfully. So much is riding on the successful teacher and the school districts must be willing to reward them in accordance with their contribution to society.