The Purpose of Superintendents’ Reports on Student Achievement
This report from the Superintendent for Prince Rupert (SD #52) is one of the few out of the 60 we are to see in the next few months. By law, this report is to be prepared by Dec 15 and in the hands of the trustees shortly thereafter. Upon approval, it’s to be sent to the Ministry of Education by Jan 31 and as soon as practicable, the report is to be made available to the public.
This four step process, I expect, is to ensure all concerned are informed and welcomed to participate in deliberations.
The four audiences that will have an intimate interest in the report will be: a) management (supt and teachers and others on the producer team); b) the trustees who are in oversight and charged with policy review; c) the public (parents, parent groups, media, and wider community); and d) the Ministry which is mandated to provide the opportunities for all children in BC to obtain an appropriate education.
I don’t know if my above analysis is right or reflects the intention of this procedure. I also do not know how long this program has been in place but it sounds like a good plan for our subsidized education system in BC. The timing is good since there is still a half year left to try to make up any deficits in learning or attract or shift resources.
I don’t know how directive the notice to the public should be. Should the public, just by chance, read about the report in the local papers if some conscientious reporters were in the audience? Or should all boards be required to place a public notice on their website and newspapers about this report and when it will be discussed? I’ve never seen such notice and didn’t even know the Superintendent’s Report was to be made available to the general public.
Mind, IF the public is to be involved, this transparency is important as early in the game as possible.
The concerns raised by the superintendent in the Prince Rupert Report are worthy of many heads in deliberation:
Children in Care (CIC) are reported as being monitored and having designated case managers as requested by the MCFD (Ministry of Child and Family Development).
This Report was easily downloaded from the website, and the two newspapers carried good stories: The Daily News http://www.princerupertnews.com/Site/Tues,%20Dec15.html and Janet’s above link for the Northern View.
The report also fulfilled these other criteria:
I hope the citizens of Prince Rupert get involved with discussion of this Report. Those really serious should also access the district’s Achievement Contract, Literacy Plan and Early Learning Plan.
I hope the citizens of the other 59 school districts in BC get a chance to see their Superintendent’s Reports shortly and become involved.
(by Tunya Audain, 091221, comment to blog Report Card by Janet Steffenhagen, Vancouver Sun education reporter on story : Troubling statistics about Prince Rupert’s kindergarten childrencommunities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/reportcard/archive/2009/12/16/troubling-statistics-about-prince-rupert-s-kindergarten-children.aspx#comments, 091216)
Do School Boards Add Value to Education?
(by Tunya Audain, 091218, comment to blog Report Card by Janet Steffenhagen, Vancouver Sun education reporter on story : Drop two trustees and save money: Ann Andersen, 091217)
That is the title of an article in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, May 10, 2000. http://www.aims.ca/education.asp?typeID=4&id=510
It is well-worth reading in its entirety, but these are the main points that the writer, Brian Lee Crowley, says would flow from transferring management of education to local schools away from school boards:
While he mentions the case of New Zealand needing to fix its “massive fiscal problems” of the 80s, he does not use the figure I’ve seen quoted often enough to make you stop and think. For example:
“ (New Zealand) … Prior to implementing direct school-based management, two-thirds of spending disappeared before it ever reached a single student. After the fact, external overheads absorbed only one-third. And student test scores shot up.” http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/953
What happened was that New Zealand adopted school-based management, replacing regional school boards in 1989. Reports remain glowing to this day for results and responsiveness. And don’t think they don’t have school board conventions. Each school sends delegates for practical workshops (principal appraisal, boys’ education) and the usual tea and sharing and comparing. For hands-on management, not arm’s length direction.
In Alberta, while school boards still exist, many schools have gone the charter route (since 1994), by-passing school boards, making a contract with the Ministry instead. Neither of these two models, school based management nor charter schools can be called privatization. They are fully publicly funded. The organizational principle they embody is either devolution or decentralization. No middle managers.
Now, on the matter of the Cowichan Valley School District — trustee, Ann Andersen proposing the reduction of trustees from 9 to 7. Good luck, Ann! You’ve already tried twice and could not get a seconder to your motion. Hope some brave (non politically hog-tied) soul does second your motion so that the board plus the community can discuss this important issue.
Especially in light of the Secretary-treasurer’s dire projections of a serious budget shortfall looming.
And, even more importantly, I do hope the discussion can be framed against the lingering questions raised by the Southern Report of May 2008. (See: Knuckles rapped in Cowichan Valley) http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/reportcard/archive/2008/05/22/knuckles-rapped-in-cowichan-valley.aspx
Mr. Southern said student achievement has been low for five years. The report quotes:
“Improving learning success for its students is the primary responsibility of any board of education and the Cowichan Board needs to do what is necessary to get the job done. If the level of student learning does not begin to improve in the next school year and continue upward this Board will have failed to do its job.”
Go for it Ann! And why not talk about the broader possibility of disbanding the whole school board and devolving management to each school? Why not sacrifice trustee vanities and administrator self-interest? Do “what is necessary to get the job done” and trust each local school to spend the money wisely and appropriately.
Responsive Schools Key to Good Society: Nobel Winner
(by Tunya Audain, 091015, published in “The Report Card” blog of Vancouver Sun education reporter, Janet Steffenhagen on her story: “Online education threatens rural schools” 091017)
It takes a political scientist to unravel the economics of citizens effectively and efficiently managing their own affairs and that of their immediate communities. In other words, self-governance works. Provided there is limited central state interference and provided powerful self-interested insiders don’t rule.
That is the message Elinor Ostrom, a co-winner in this year’s Nobel Economics prize, passes on to help empower people at local levels to both a) challenge outsiders and self-interests, and b) confidently evolve the procedures, rules, and oversight which serve their interests. She cautions against any one-size-fits-all model. Local people, local governance.
She and others of her school of thought challenge the usual dichotomy in seeking solutions – state or market. Should there be state finance, control and provision of services and resource management or should the markets prevail? There is a third way – communitarian.
While Ostrom’s work has usually dealt with user-managed fish stocks, pastures, woods, lakes, and groundwater basins, she has also been embraced by development workers, especially in third world countries. Her general principles apply to any area where citizens manage their own projects — without the heavy fist of the state or the invisible hand of the market.
Ostrom distinguishes the three methods of provision: public, private, and civil. She sees more citizens becoming involved in policy analysis and application if they are to avoid becoming “the objects of an authoritarian regime” or exploited for profit.
Self-governing, adaptive organizations follow these principles:
1. Balance power at many levels within the structure (checks and balances) 2. Monitor performances and hold designated persons accountable 3. Accept conflict as healthy, indicating need for mediation or more problem-solving 4. Empower citizens and communities with enforceable rights to check abuses of authority Regarding the education field she comments that simplistic solutions can go “amok”. Amazing word to be used by an academic — "berserk, demoniacal, possessed, insane, characteristic of mental derangement” (Wikipedia)!
After studying 70 years of school district consolidations in the name of efficiency and equity she found that these “top-down, command-and-control solutions” did not result in better achievement or lower per-pupil spending. She concludes that “policy makers are reconsidering the consequences of past reforms and recommending charter schools, voucher systems, and other reforms to create more responsive schools.”
In other words, she concludes, “state control has usually proved to be less effective and efficient than control by those directly affected” and sometimes even “disastrous in its consequences.”
What applies to forests and fish-stocks applies to people services as well. That is why school-based management, independent schools, charter schools, parent participation preschool cooperatives, etc. work so well. Unfortunately, today, they are often resisted and blocked by powerful self-interests.
Fortunately, however, we now have a more prominently revealed social science to help those who seek communitarian solutions to social services. (See “Policy Analysis in the Future of Good Societies” by Elinor Ostrom http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/good_society/v011/11.1ostrom.html
091017
Parent Rights a Top Priority for Education Responsiveness
(Published by Tunya Audain In Education Advisory on January 13, 2009, Accountability, Parent Involvement in Schools and Parent Rights)
How well parents exercise their rights determines what degree or quality of services they get in public schools. It is quite different in independent or private schools as there the customers are usually treated as paying customers. So, how can parents exercise their expectations and rights better, across the socio-economic spectrum?
People often think that by moving to an affluent district the schools are better. And this is generally true, even though there are exceptions where schools in poorer areas achieve excellent scores. We can learn from this demographic skew and adopt some of the characteristics of parents in rich districts. It is not necessarily the money that makes the difference!
First: High Expectations. They are used to good service, and can afford to shop around. For doctors, for accountants, for cars, for groceries, whatever. If they make mistakes, the costs are not earth shattering. Whether from their parents or from experience or both, they soon embody the ancient dictum: Caveat Emptor, buyer beware.
Second: Using Choices and Competition. They know how to handle shoddy goods and services. They do not patronize them. They shop around.
Third: Complaining is Effective. They know how to get results, especially if public services are at issue. Whether roads, sewage, zoning or public health, complaints take many forms: letters to the editor, using your elected officials for remedies, law suits, etc.
Fourth: Knowledge of Rights is Inherent in their Bones. They seem to know and expect what they have a right to, and as citizens and taxpayers, have a keen awareness of what to expect from public service providers. Furthermore, they use information systems, including the Internet, to augment information on what to expect and what constitutes good practice.
So it is with public education. Even though parent rights in education are not usually enshrined in legislation or printed in school handbooks, somehow parents from responsive school districts have a good sense of how to negotiate the system to benefit their children.
If you seek more information on Parent Rights, Google will yield many references, especially for special needs. However, we have an already compiled document which has been around since 1977 and still stands the test of time in empowering parents. Whether you use it as a starting point for your own needs or as study material with other research and tools to develop new material, here it is:
Parent Rights and their Children’s Education http://education-advisory.org/Involved/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/parent_-rights_-and_-their_-children.pdf
Continuing to add to Private/Public debate…This SECOND essay was published by our local newspaper education blog on the topic of meeting with the Minister of Education. The issue arose, again, limiting funds to private schools and giving them to public schools.
BIG Difference between Public Education and Government Schools
Public education is a public good. Everyone benefits from an educated public. While many protest high taxes, most agree that, at least, education is one outcome they expect from giving up some of their income.
That does not mean a public good has to be a government commodity, a virtual monopoly at 90% market penetration, delivered by public employees.
Non-government education is now being delivered by many other means, – home education, independent schools, online learning, correspondence, tutoring agencies, etc. – all expanding methods.
That is why I welcome the innovative idea from Jerry Clarkson who posted a new plan. He says “The province should get out of the education business…Instead of funding schools…” provide an education card, like the health cards we now have. Let the consumer find the best options and teachers would bill the financing agency, the government.
This idea strikes me as being eminently sensible, since the education reform literature points out that the most effective schools are often those organized and led by teachers themselves. Think of all the innovations that would emerge from others as well.
The education dollar would more directly reach the child and not be creamed-off by various administrators, school boards and other infrastructure mechanisms. Accountability and transparency would have to be upfront as competition would require full disclosure to attract customers.
Clarkson computes a figure of $9054 per full time student. Another figure we’ve seen for this term in BC is $8323. Whatever the amount, this is plenty to fund good schools or other opportunities to obtain an educated citizenry.
Hey, Mr. Clarkson is not unique or alone in this idea.
Though we’ve often heard about choices being provided through vouchers, tuition tax credits or scholarships, and though the charter school movement is growing steadily in other parts of the world, BC is stuck with our old industrial era model of delivery – central planning, industrial-type trade unions, distant managers, heavy-duty quality-control testing, and on, and on. This system depends on a captive audience.
No, Jerry (sounds like he’s an educator himself) is on to an idea which has successfully been practiced in Sweden (a socialist country) for over 15 years now. Their free schools paid by vouchers are still state schools, but with freedom beyond belief. Now, David Cameron, leader of Britain’s Conservative opposition is all for Free Schools too, and would bring them in should he get elected in the expected spring election. He would go a step further than the Swedes. He would privatize much of the school system and legislatively enable Free Schools. See The Economist: http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14506392
Speaking to a recent convention Mr. Cameron said: “Why is our society broken? Because government got too big, did too much and undermined responsibility.”
Margaret MacDiarmid’s office which signs off most correspondence with this rejoinder: “The Ministry is always considering innovative ideas that can help improve student achievement in BC schools.” should actively look into these alternatives. Certainly, all the ills that befall big government and big ministries are here and now. Let’s loosen up, release the money to the intended subjects, stand aside a bit, and watch achievement and satisfaction soar, eh?
(by Tunya Audain, 091011, comment to blog, Report Card, by Janet Steffenhagen, Vancouver Sun education reporter on story: “Christy Clark has a go at the new education minister”, 091009)
