Structural Reform Concepts

[jk]

Here are some concepts that in my opinion should form the underlying philosophy of a Constitutional amendment that changes the structure of public education in Hawaii. Are there any that should be added? Are there any that should be deleted?

1. Continue to finance public education on a statewide basis.

2. Create small independent organizational units.

3. Create as few organizational levels as practicable.

4. Assign each function to the lowest organizational level within reason.

5. Create accountability through clear lines of responsibility and authority, as well as consequences for substandard performance.

6. Provide greater authority for communities to control their schools.

7. Create additional competition for public schools.

[John Mussack]

Aloha jk!
I personally agree with most of your ideas, except that I'm a little skeptical about Numbers 4 and 6. Regarding Number 4, some functions, like compliance control, need to be at higher levels. Regarding Number 6, it's not entirely clear what you mean by community control -- do you mean control by the parents, by everybody in the neighborhood including local organizations, the parents and staff, or somebody else? And what kind of control do you mean -- majority vote, consultation, control over hiring and firing of the administrator, control over school policies and programs? I think the administrator, as a single accountable entity, should have control, with perhaps local control over his/her accountability by means of hiring and firing -- only perhaps.

But to reply to your post on a different level, I think a constitutional amendment would only properly implement the first two ideas -- statewide funding and smaller organizational units. Once the constitution tells the smaller units (e.g. counties?) that they have the responsibility to create school systems of their own, then it's up to the smaller units individually to decide how to do it. And each smaller unit may have completely different philosophies about how to organize their school systems.
If the constitution tells the smaller units, or even if the legislature tells the smaller units, how to organize their school systems, then in effect it is still a statewide system and it will have to have statewide control over it to make sure each smaller unit does it the way they were told to. Decentralizing means giving up control!

Another comment -- Don't you think the smaller educational units would have to be under the control of already existing political units like counties or cities, rather than complex areas or schools? If the constitution said complex areas would design their own school systems, wouldn't that quickly break down into chaos in the absence of control by any political unit ?

Aloha!

[jk]

John & Jimmy, I am happy to respond to your questions and comments. I apologize in advance for a reply that is so lengthy that I’m putting it in several posts.

1. Continue to finance public education on a statewide basis.

This statement clarifies that statewide financing would continue, even with the creation of small independent units, which would not be given the power to tax.

2. Create small independent organizational units.

By "small independent unit" I mean a high school and its feeder schools, or something of comparable size, that has its own board of education with sole authority and responsibility to set educational policy, along with the authority and responsibility to implement the policy.

3. Create as few organizational levels as practicable.

I agree that the establishment of autonomous units would allow each unit to create as many organizational levels as it wants, so it is impossible to know in advance how many that would be. But if we assume for a moment that the autonomous units would have the same number of organizational levels if it were part of a statewide system, then the statewide system would always have at least one additional organizational level.

An autonomous school complex, at its simplest, could consist of the school complex, with the board of education at one level and the superintendent at another level, and the schools, each with the principal at one level and teachers and other school staff at another level. So the minimum would be four organizational levels within an autonomous school complex.

[jk]

4. Assign each function to the lowest organizational level within reason.

I agree that certain functions need to be placed at the highest organizational level. Each function should be placed at an appropriate level.

Placing any function at the lowest appropriate level would help ensure that it is done in a manner that is most sensitive to the needs of students. For the sake of determining where management functions should be placed, I consider the school to be the lowest organizational level. The staff at the school level know their students best because they are with the students every day. Decisions should be made at the school level whenever appropriate. The staff at the complex level are quite removed from what is happening at the schools because most of them don't spend much time there. At the state level, they are even more removed.

Consider the way the school calendar was determined, which Jimmy has discussed elsewhere on the forum. Up until recently, each school developed its own calendar. Problems arose because families with children in different schools that were in the same school complex complained about having to deal with vacations for their children that occurred at different times. A new school calendar could have been created by each school complex, which would have eliminated the problem. However, the BOE decided to create a statewide calendar. That eliminated the problem but created what is perhaps a bigger problem.

The BOE’s new calendar made the summer vacation so short that many teachers are now unwilling to teach summer school because they won't get enough of a break between regular school and summer school. As a result, many schools have been forced to restrict their summer school offerings, and some schools have even had to close their summer schools.

If each school complex were given the authority to develop the school calendar (as Jimmy recommended), I can't help but think that most of them would have gotten more input from teachers, and therefore avoided the BOE's mistake. This is an example of a single decision making activity, but it is applicable to functions as well.

5. Create accountability through clear lines of responsibility and authority, as well as consequences for substandard performance.

We seem to agree on this one. The existing system has confusing lines of responsibility and authority, resulting in a lack of accountability, and very few consequences for substandard performance.

[jk]

6. Provide greater authority for communities to control their schools.

By "community" I mean parents, members of the neighborhood, not-for-profit organizations that operate within the neighborhood, as well as businesses. Each school should reflect community values and the character of the community in which it is located. What we have now are schools in very different kinds of communities, each trying to emulate some sort of standard concept for a school. As a result, schools are no longer meaningful to many students. As evidence, Hawaii public schools suffer from a dropout rate of at least 20%, although estimates are as high as 35%. An additional benefit of community control is that people are more likely to get involved with schools when they feel they have an impact. More community involvement means that schools will be able to provide a richer educational environment for students.

Teachers should also be more involved in making decisions that affect the school. That’s an important factor in developing collegiality among teachers, a consistent school curriculum, and a unified effort to teach the students at the school.

Instead of the word "authority" maybe I should have used the word "influence" because communities currently have no authority and very little influence over their schools. Currently, communities can influence public education by electing members of the BOE and through School Community Councils. But voters have very little influence over their schools through the BOE because of its convoluted candidacy requirements. Some candidates are required to be residents of certain districts, but voters from other districts may vote for them. As a result, accountability has been reduced to a shambles. School Community Councils have some influence over the schools because the councils have advisory power and may make recommendations to the principal. However, the councils have no actual authority to make decisions. The current state of affairs represents a low level of community influence. As a result, schools are not very responsive to community concerns.

An example of something at the other end of the spectrum would be independent school complexes, each with its own elected boards of education that has responsibility and the sole authority for setting policy. A likely scenario would be that the board would select a superintendent to implement its policies. The superintendent would select the principals of the various schools, who would in turn select the teachers. There’s a clear line of responsibility and authority from voters to teachers. Using John’s idea the concept of accountability involves consequences, there’s accountability in this example because if the community doesn't like what is going on in their schools, they can elect other board members at the next election.

It is my feeling that some of the school complex boards – or perhaps many of them -- would encourage parent participation in the schools. I feel this way because I believe that many parents of students enrolled in school would be elected to the boards, and these boards would be inclined to try new ideas. I am aware that the DOE has established Parent-Community Networking Centers that are intended to encourage parent participation. However, their performance has been less than spectacular. I am also aware that parent participation can’t be mandated in the Constitution. However, the Constitution can create an organizational structure that is more likely to encourage parent participation than other structures. Parent participation is important because it is the factor that correlates most strongly with student achievement – even more than social or economic status.

An example of something that is at about the middle of the spectrum of community control/influence would be School Community Councils that have some actual power, such as the authority to adopt school budgets.

[jk]

7. Create additional competition for public schools.

Charter schools have already created some competition among public schools, especially since charter school enrollment has risen dramatically in recent years. Parents are voting for charter schools with their children. However, the number of charter schools is limited by law, and the Constitution should be amended not only to affirm the establishment of charter schools, but to preclude any limit on the number of charter schools.

Vouchers would further increase competition – and considerably so. Since the charter school enrollment is still only somewhere around 4%, the regular public schools still have more or less of a monopoly. Interestingly, Kamehameha Schools recently created something very similar to a voucher system that enables children of Hawaiian ancestry to attend schools other than those built and operated by Kamehameha. It was done for reasons other than to increase competition, but this initiative has been well received.

Re: John’s question about whether smalll independent units should be placed under the control of a larger political jurisdiction.

I have to admit that I don’t know much about the small independent school districts that exist in other states, so I did a bit of research on the internet. I found that although Vermont has a population that is much smaller than that of Hawaii, it has more than 200 independent school districts. Also, Vermont’s schools are among the best in the nation. I don’t think Hawaii has to duplicate what is happening in Vermont or any other state, but the fact that small independent school districts exist elsewhere in the United States makes me believe they can be created in Hawaii.

I hope you have been able to endure this excruciatingly long reply. You might have had to take a nap or two here and there, but I hope I have answered your questions.

[John Mussack]

Aloha everybody!
There seems to be a lot of advocacy of school's being more under the influence of the local community. I would like to advise careful thinking about what exactly constitutes local community influence, and whether that is necessarily better than outside oversight, in all cases. Consider this true life story:

In 2000 the principal of Makaha Elementary School did something about the low reading ability of most of his student body. At his own initiative, he adopted the policy advocated by all of the most respected remedial reading experts in the country, as the right response to low school wide achievement, which was to add time to the daily schedule which would be devoted to reading instruction. The research in this area of curriculum reform overwhelmingly demonstrates that increased instructional time, as implemented by this conscientious principal, was the single most effective way to raise the overall reading ability of a whole student body.

A success story for the DOE, you might think. But then "community values" enters the scene.

Across the street from Makaha E.S. is a farm. The owner has for many years used the students from across the street to run his farm for him. They come over to learn about the land and grow crops on a regular basis, class by class, during school hours. It is designed to be an educational experience.

The increased reading instruction cut into his farming hours. He responded with a character assassination campaign against the principal. He and his cronies in the neighborhood, who were many in number, testified to the BOE that the principal was callous toward the students and the neighborhood. After an initial stunned silence, upon seeing this personal attack from out of the blue, some community members rallied to the principal's support. But it was too late. The DOE knew the principal was doing the right thing, but they removed the principal under the nebulous rationale, "for the good of the school."

Today, he is a very successful principal of a private school. Today, Makaha E.S. is close to the bottom of Hawaii's failing schools, and is under restructuring. But a few weeks ago, the Advertiser ran a glowing story about all the good which the farm supposedly is doing for the students.

Jk and everybody else, I know that is not what you mean by each school being under the control of the local community. I know that you don't want to give power to local elements that have a selfish agenda and are not knowledgeable about education.

Aloha!

[jk]

Aloha John,

Thank you for describing the Makaha case.

I’m sure there are occasional examples where a centralized structure might be preferable to a decentralized structure. Overall, however, I believe that a decentralized structure is superior, especially compared with the existing centralized system.

At any rate, based on your description of the Makaha case, the centralized system did not come up with the correct solution. The principal was removed, after all. Also, I would hesitate to characterize the farmer’s attitude toward the principal’s reading initiative as the prevailing community attitude because you report that community members rallied to support the principal at the BOE meeting.

That situation may never have arisen if the school were part of a small independent school district. Small districts are intended to increase the interaction between school and community. If the principal had made his intentions known to the community before implementing his initiative, he might have received community support for it and precluded the attack by the farmer, especially if the community were convinced that the initiative would improve student performance in reading.

jk

[John Mussack]

Aloha jk!
The point of my narrative about Makaha E.S. was not centralized vs. localized, but community control vs. professional control.
Aloha!

[jk]

Aloha John,

Thank you for your insights. I appreciate your perspective from the inside.

You may not agree with me, but in my opinion Hawaii’s centralized school system is controlled by professional educators. It’s supposed to be controlled by laypersons through the Board of Education. However, the DOE bureaucracy is so huge and so intractable that it has been successful in nullifying all efforts by the BOE to make significant changes. As a result, the BOE no longer even tries to change things. All it does is maintain the status quo. For all practical purposes, the BOE has been reduced to a symbolic entity that is merely going through the motions of a policy making body. Most of what it does consists of ceremonial activities that have no actual effect, sort of like the Queen of England. Just take a look at the minutes of its meetings:

http://www.boe.k12.hi.us/STATE/BOE/Minutes.nsf/ebb43af14ca5cdb30a25...

Consequently, the bureaucrats in the DOE are really in charge. Most of them are professional educators who have moved up the organizational ladder, where they originally started as teachers. Of course, they now act like bureaucrats. Their main mission in life is to protect their own personal interests, even though they may say they are trying improve the quality of education (and many of them may even believe it). As a result, the bureaucracy and the status quo are preserved. Maybe I’m overly pessimistic, but that’s my take on things.

jk

[John Mussack]

Aloha jk!
I agree completely with the following statement you made:

"Consequently, the bureaucrats in the DOE are really in charge. Most of them are professional educators who have moved up the organizational ladder, where they originally started as teachers. Of course, they now act like bureaucrats. Their main mission in life is to protect their own personal interests, even though they may say they are trying improve the quality of education (and many of them may even believe it). As a result, the bureaucracy and the status quo are preserved."

If I may presume to develop your thought a little further -- protecting "their own personal interests" consists of protecting the bureaucracy they are part of, along with all of their fellow bureaucrats. Their mindless loyalty to each other makes accountability impossible. They get promoted to positions which they are not professionally prepared for, by reason of their personal relationships. And then when they make a mess out of everything, they close ranks and defend each other. As I said at the beginning of this website, the DOE is a social club, not a results-oriented organization.

As a result, what I personally would like to come up with is a way to crack through their granite wall of loyalty -- in other words, create accountability. (And by "accountability" I mean punishment for knowingly and intentionally doing the wrong things.)

Mahalo!

[jk]

Hi John,

At last, someone agrees with me.

I also think that accountability is missing from the current system. But I hope you don’t think the bureaucracy can be fixed with a mere Constitutional amendment. If someone can devise such an amendment, that would be a miracle, and they should be elevated to the level of sainthood.

Assuming that more or less normal human beings are going to work on the amendment, the strategy should be to dissolve the existing bureaucracy and replace it with a decentralized structure. In my opinion, it would be a lot easier to create accountability by starting from scratch than to reformulate the existing huge bureaucracy that is plagued with defects.

I realize that a lot of people are accustomed to the statewide system, and there’s almost an instinctual urge to retain it. But if people are willing to go beyond their comfortable conceptual horizons, they will discover that they won’t fall into oblivion. There’s a whole new world of alternative organizational models out there.

It’s the statewide system that is the problem. Bureaucrats sitting in their air conditioned offices in Honolulu are making educational policy decisions that affect what and how teachers are required to teach at schools in Honokaa, Hana, and Hanapepe. And it is likely that those bureaucrats have never even set foot on the campuses of those schools.

It reminds me of the clothing store in Honolulu that is part of a national chain that sells thick woolen coats. The bureaucrats in the central office somewhere on the mainland must have made a policy that all stores sell woolen coats in the winter, not realizing that they can’t be sold in Hawaii’s warm weather. And then there’s the athletic supply store in Honolulu, which is also part of a national chain, that sells duck decoys during duck hunting season on the mainland. I couldn’t stop myself from laughing when I saw that.

But it’s sad to know that the same kind of decision making is going on all the time in Hawaii’s school system. Bureaucrats are making policy decisions for all schools, even though all schools are different, and those policies may be inappropriate for many of them. Ultimately, the quality of education is adversely affected.

The bureaucracy should be eliminated wherever possible. Where not possible, the bureaucracy should be limited to specific narrow functions.

Every school is different. Educational policy should be made at the school level whenever possible.

jk