Education

Add a Comment

24 Comments

Comment by John Mussack on July 27, 2008 at 2:38pm

Aloha Everyone!

Students and their families were unanimously blamed for the poor performance of Hawaii’s high schools, in the Advertiser’s Sunday article. Two named principals and two named state section heads participated in the blame session, as did the ubiquitous but anonymous “DOE officials” and “school officials.” Meanwhile, the best comments Assistant Superintendent Daniel Hamada could come up with seemed to suggest he hasn’t been paying attention, but has just noticed that high schools are doing poorly, and he’s thinking about getting around to asking people why.

Governor Cayatano told you why. So did PriceWaterhouse-Coopers, the Felix monitor, and others. They all told you it’s because you have no accountability. Put your listening cap on, DOE – “ACCOUNTABILITY.”

Accountability means one person is told to do something, and then they receive consequences based on whether they did or did not do it. In the case of our high schools, that would be the principals.

The article unwittingly displayed a perfect example of the DOE’s failure of accountability. Pearl City High School Principal Carlyn Fujimoto stated that there are no reading classes in high school, and her teachers don’t know how to address reading and comprehension in their classes. Well, Ms. Fujimoto, that’s where you come in. It’s your job to show your teachers how to address reading and comprehension, if they don’t know how to.

Promoting reading and comprehension in high school content courses is considered an essential part of the high school teacher’s training. They should have learned it before they got their degrees. But if they didn’t, then it’s the school principal’s primary job to train her faculty.

In addition, why haven't you instituted any remedial reading classes, if they are needed? That's the principal's job, too.

It’s telling that, of the 20 or so attributed comments in the article, not a single one acknowledged that any DOE personnel are not doing their job well. Come on, DOE, stop passing the buck.

Aloha!

Comment by John Mussack on July 25, 2008 at 11:24am

Aloha everyone!

I hope you all read the Tuesday Star-Bulletin's front-page article on the political power of the HGEA, which is the union of DOE officers and administrators. It gives the HGEA the top power position in Hawaii politics.

As I've said before, it's the HGEA which is running the DOE, not the teachers union.

Mahalo!

Comment by jk on July 16, 2008 at 10:46am

Aloha John M.,

You're right. I did mean that quality education requires authority to be concentrated at the school level.

Allow me to make a few comments.

In your view, quality education and democracy are separable and independent. In my view they are inseparable and because "quality education" should be defined by what the people desire for children. If democracy is not used to define “quality education,” it will be defined by default, and that often leads to undesirable consequences.

You point out that in Hawaii student performance is low. Presumably, you mean that standardized test scores are low (and there are other factors that indicate low student performance). Standardized tests are designed to neutralize the effects of culture so that students in one region of the country with certain cultural characteristics don't have an advantage over students in another region with other cultural characteristics.

Although standardized tests are designed to be culturally neutral, it doesn't necessarily follow that curriculum and instruction throughout the country should be culturally neutral. In fact, education can be more effective when it takes advantage of the power of culture to engage children.

One successful example is the Hawaiian language immersion charter schools, where the Hawaiian culture plays a large role in the design of curriculum and instruction. I'm not saying that these schools should be the models for regular schools, but I’m using this example to point out how culture can be used to motivate students.

It is impossible to take education out of a cultural context, nor should it be. Without formal mechanisms to define “quality education” through culture and community values, quality education will be defined only by educators, who will unintentionally infuse education with their own values that don’t necessarily reflect community values.

Relating this issue to your excellent summary of the Bruce Bimber article, administrative decentralization will work only if the principal has a good idea of community values and uses these values in the design of curriculum and instruction. Without that sensitivity, the principal will surely fail because the school will be disconnected from the community.

I don’t think we should take a chance on whether the principal understands community values or not, because it is likely that there won’t be enough of an understanding. Formal mechanisms have to be created to ensure that the school reflects community values.

Here’s an example of what I mean. The statewide school system uses the same mold for all schools, so that schools in Waianae are very similar to the schools in Hawaii Kai, even though the culture of those areas and the community values are very different. I believe that the dropout rate for Waianae is somewhere around 40%, and test scores are low, even for Hawaii.

Educators have infused Waianae schools with their values, intentionally or not, which are different from community values. As a result, there’s too great a separation between schools and the community.

The schools in Waianae need democracy to re-define “quality education” so that culture and community values will have a greater influence on curriculum and instruction. That would lead to more student engagement, a lower dropout rate, and an improvement in test scores.

“Quality education” and democracy are inseparable. When treated as separable and independent factors, quality education suffers.

Thank you for allowing me to comment on your remarks, and you may have the last word on this issue.

jk

Comment by John Mussack on July 15, 2008 at 4:03pm

Aloha jk!
Thank you for your clarifications. But I did not say you seem to mean authority should be concentrated at the school. I said, you seem to mean that quality education requires authority concentrated at the school. These are different ideas. I was trying to determine if you were aiming for quality education or democracy, and trying to find out what your assumptions are about the effect of local authority.

The gist of the rest of your comment suggests that you are really concerned about increasing democratic input to schools, but not concerned about improved performance. Moreover, I think that your assumption that increased local influence will necessarily mean better performance, is only an assumption.

Rather than debate the fine points of our comments ad infinitum, why don’t I just say that you and I part company with our objectives. I am definitely aiming for better school performance, per se. I want students to learn better. My motivation is provided by statistical reports of low levels of learning in our schools. All of my research and commentary and suggestions are based on the objective of raising student learning levels.

But I think your objective is to increase local democratic input into school decisions. That is independent of the notion of student learning levels. There is nothing wrong with it. My motive is no better than yours. But we do have different motives.

So your ideas have no bearing on mine, and my ideas have no bearing on yours. I’m going to continue advocating for better school performance. And I hope you keep advocating for more democratic input to schools.

Aloha!

Comment by jk on July 12, 2008 at 11:44pm

Aloha John M.,

I’m sorry that I was vague, but I’m glad you figured out that I was trying to say that decision making authority should be concentrated at the school level.

Regarding democracy and desired educational outcomes, I don’t think they can be separated. In our country, public education is a democratic institution, so the goals for public education should be consistent with what the people want.

Also, every community is different. Different communities have different values and different expectations for their children. The schools in any particular community should reflect the values of that community. Formal mechanisms should be created to enable communities to shape their schools.

When schools deliver “quality education” I mean that schools have achieved the goals that their communities have set. Those goals should not be set by educators. Our country recognizes that public education should not be controlled by educators because public school systems throughout the nation are headed by boards of education that are composed of laypeople.

I agree with you that the central authority should determine goals, and the individual schools should determine how to achieve those goals. Since goals should reflect the values of the community, independent districts should be created, and each district should be small enough that community character is fairly consistent within the district.

The central authority for Hawaii’s statewide system has been a failure. For example, the central authority has been unable to determine the objectives for public education. I don’t pretend to be an expert on the Hawaii Content and Performance Standards, but I understand it is in its third iteration in 15 years because the first two iterations couldn’t be implemented. During the years that the central authority has been confused about its educational objectives, that confusion has been passed down to the schools. It’s not a pretty sight. After decades of failure, it’s time to dissolve the statewide system and try something else.

I also agree with you the principal should be accountable. However, we may depart regarding to whom the principal should be accountable. As I envision things, the principal would be accountable to the superintendent of the district because the superintendent appoints the principal. The superintendent would be accountable to the board because the board appoints the superintendent. The board would be accountable to the people living in the district because they elect the members of the board. Ideally, the board would embody the values of the community. There’s a single line of accountability from the people to the board to the superintendent to the principal, so in this organizational structure the goals of the principal would reflect community values.

We agree that the principal is ultimately responsible for student performance. However, the principal has to work with teachers and other school staff to accomplish the goals of the school. When I think of the kind of leader that can be most successful in a school organization, I think of someone who collaborates with teachers, asks for their opinions, their suggestions, and implements their good ideas. That makes for happy, motivated teachers.

It’s impossible to run a good school with unhappy teachers -- or unhappy parents, for that matter. In order for a school to be fully functional, all of the stakeholders have to feel they are contributing to the school. One way to get that to happen is to create formal mechanisms for teachers and parents to influence how the school operates. When parents feel that they have an influence, they feel ownership, and they are more likely to participate in other types of school activities, such as volunteering in their child’s classroom. Research shows that there is a very strong correlation between parent participation and student performance.

It’s not easy to make the efforts necessary to get community input. But if a school is not anchored to the community, it has the potential to float away from community values toward irrelevance.

I am prepared for a lot of criticism, especially from teachers. Please take a number.

jk

Comment by John Mussack on July 12, 2008 at 2:16pm

Aloha jk!
Your comment of July 11 is a little vague, but I’ve studied it and tried to get your point. I think it is this; correct me if I misunderstand you…

“For schools to produce quality education, they will need to have more control than the central authority.”

Did I get you right? Let me see if I understand your assumptions. I will guess that “quality education” means the students learning well. And I will guess that you assume students will learn better if the state office is weak, because you assume the local people know more about education than the state office (I believe you said, “at the school level, where most of the expertise about students resides”).

But if you really are aiming for more democracy, per se, instead of aiming for better educational results, you ought to clarify that in your own mind and in your comments. Democracy and results are entirely different. “Collaboration among teachers and administrators, and substantial opportunities for parents and other community members to influence the school,” which you appear to be advocating in your comment, DO enhance democracy, but DO NOT enhance educational results. If you really are aiming for democracy instead of results, then I’d like to ask you to stop using the phrase “quality education,” because it suggests the opposite.

May I suggest that the notion of “strong controls” be refined a little? Scholars distinguish two kinds of control in education. The first kind, usually held by central authorities, is deciding what the goals are. The second kind, also usually held by central authorities but more productively held by schools, is deciding how to reach the goals. Serious advocates of decentralization -- those who do their homework -- try to get power to the schools to decide how to achieve educational goals that are set by the central authority, with the central authority monitoring results and the school accountable for the results, though not accountable for the methods.

Serious advocates of decentralization who are motivated to improve results, rather than democracy, will make the school administrator accountable for reaching goals, at the same time that they give him/her the decision making power needed to do so. They will not diffuse the accountability by giving power to teachers, parents, and the local community. Accountability means one person is accountable.

And accountability is absolutely necessary, to improve results rather than democracy.

These are just my humble opinions, but I acquired them by assiduously doing my homework. I hope the rest of you do your homework, too, because we all agree that we really need a competently designed school reform.

Aloha!

Comment by jk on July 11, 2008 at 10:38am

There are a couple of ways to think about a structure for public education in Hawaii, the top-down approach and the bottom-up approach.

The top-down approach usually begins by conceiving of a statewide system with various regions, then fitting the individual schools into this system. This approach gives the highest priority to administrative concerns. By default, educational concerns assume a lower priority. This approach usually results in strong controls at the top of the organization, with weak decision making authority at the school level, where most of the expertise about students resides. This approach should be rejected by those who place the highest priority on quality education.

Alternately, the bottom-up approach begins by creating a vision for how individual schools should operate. For example, the vision may include control of education resources at the school level, collaboration among teachers and administrators, and substantial opportunities for parents and other community members to influence the school. After creating a school vision, the bottom-up approach would formulate an overall structure for public education that supports this vision. This approach would likely result in most of the decision making authority being placed at the school level. Districts may be given the power to coordinate the activities of schools within the district, when needed, but only if the individual schools agree. If there is a need for a statewide education agency, it may have very little power, which may be limited to specific administrative functions. The structure of public education should be designed to support strong schools.

Comment by John Mussack on July 3, 2008 at 4:50pm

Aloha everybody!
Here's a comment on the July 2 Advertiser article about the BOE refusing to conduct random drug testing and Gov. Lingle trying to persuade them to do it --

You can't find a clearer illustration of the absolute lack of accountability in the DOE. This is totally apart from the merits of the drug testing per se. The Gov. says education officials are not doing what they are supposed to, instead of saying, "Pat Hamamoto, you are not doing your job." The Gov. says there may be a complaint with the Labor Dept. about it, instead of the BOE saying, "Pat Hamamoto, you're fired." In fact, the BOE is also refusing.

Remember, this comment is not about the merits of drug testing. But accountability means identifying the individuals doing the wrong thing and taking sanctions against them. That is something that absolutely never happens in the DOE. That is what we have to change.

Mahalo!

Comment by John Mussack on June 19, 2008 at 4:08pm

Aloha!
Here is another article review:
Bruce Bimber, "School Decentralization", RAND Corp, 1993

This article distinguishes some of the concepts that get muddled together by people talking about school decentralization.

“Decentralization” means moving decision making power to lower levels of the organization – some level loses power and some level gains power. It doesn’t mean just allowing lower levels to give their imput.

“Political decentralization” means giving the power to outsiders, e.g. parent councils – this requires the creation of new organizations – it’s the goal of people who just want more democracy or representation, not necessarily better performance.

“Administrative decentralization” means giving power to lower administrative levels, e.g. principals – this doesn’t require any new organizations – it has been shown to improve the performance of many kinds of bureaucracies, if other conditions are also met, though it may not increase democratic decision making.

Political or administrative decentralization require different processes, have to overcome different sources of resistance, and produce different results – so you need to be clear what kind of decentralization, or both, you are aiming for.

Decentralization can mean from state to county, district to school complex, principal to teachers, etc. Decentralizing for one level may still mean the status quo for another level. Clarify what level of decentralization you mean. Most people mean power to the schools.

Decentralization to the school level does not necessarily mean spreading the power among teachers, parents, and others in the community. The principal can still retain the decision making power that used to be at the state or district level. Having a strong principal, whose power is not diluted among the local community, can potentially bring the advantages of decisiveness and accountability. A strong principal can make meaningful and timely decisions which a committee of people representing different constituents would not be able to make. And a strong principal can be accountable while the members of a committee cannot be accountable. So be clear whether your goal of decentralization is strong local authority or democratic decision making.

Those who promote decentralization implicitly reject the theory that good performance springs from the professional attitude of principals and teachers, and accept the theory that it is the organization that motivates its personnel to perform well. For that reason, accountability (incentives and sanctions) must be part of the decentralization process. Will the union contracts permit accountability at the school level? This has to be dealt with for decentralization to be successful.

The author devotes several pages to a theoretical argument that accountability is needed in schools in spite of the fact that educators are viewed as professionals who are self-motivated.

But the need for accountability creates a dilemma – accountability often degenerates to mindless rule following which does not promote performance. On the other hand, accountability for performance, but not for procedures, can produce good results. That is, performance can be defined and monitored by a higher authority, while leaving the procedures to achieve the desired performance up to the local authority. The author says most successfully decentralized bureaucracies follow this pattern.

In conclusion, a hypothetical successful decentralized school will have its educational goals prescribed by a higher level, but will be free to choose its own procedures to reach those goals, with incentives and/or sanctions tied to the goals but not to the procedures, and probably not be run by any council but by a strong principal.

I hope this review is useful. I get a lot of enlightenment from reading the literature. There’s nothing like doing your homework if you’re serious about producing cogent suggestions.

Aloha!

Comment by John Mussack on June 16, 2008 at 2:27pm

Aloha everybody!
Here is another article review: “Accountability and Local Control,” Susanna Loeb & Katharine Strunk, Stanford University, in Education Finance and Policy, 2007

The authors did their own analyses of statistics taken from several other sources. Information was included about all the states. Their conclusions are that school/principal accountability has no effect on student achievement unless accompanied by local control, and then there is a clear correlation between amount of local control and degree of student achievement. None of their measures of local control showed a direct effect on student achievement all by itself (but the authors state that may be due to the inadequacy of their data and analyses).

So it is a combination of accountability and local control that made a difference in student achievement. They measured “local control” variously as principals’ perceptions of control, unrestricted funds from the state, ability of local voters to raise education funds by local taxation, etc. “Accountability” meant testing, graduation competency tests, and sanctions/rewards to schools or districts. The various states had these measures of local control and of accountability to varying degrees.

Of interest to us in Hawaii is that the authors conclude local funding is better than state funding, at least statistically. But I still think we need state funding in Hawaii. Also of interest is that the authors defer judgment on the effect of unions, saying there is inadequate data on the relation between unions and school achievement.

Aloha!

• 1
• 2
• 3