A democratic constitution for public education PDF
Preview A democratic constitution for public education
A Democratic Constitution for Public Education A Democratic Constitution for Public Education Paul T. Hill and asHley e. JocHim The University of Chicago Press y Chicago and London Paul T. Hill is research The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637 professor at the University The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London of Washington Bothell © 2015 by The University of Chicago and former director of the All rights reserved. Published 2015. Center on Reinventing Printed in the United States of America Public Education. He is the author of many books, 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 1 2 3 4 5 most recently Learning as We Go, and coauthor ISBN- 13: 978- 0- 226- 20054- 5 (cloth) of Strife and Progress. ISBN- 13: 978- 0- 226- 20068- 2 (paper) Ashley E. Jochim is a ISBN- 13: 978- 0- 226- 20071- 2 (e- book) research analyst at the DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226200712.001.0001 Center on Reinventing Public Education. Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data Hill, Paul T. (Paul Thomas), 1943– author. A democratic constitution for public education / Paul T. Hill and Ashley E. Jochim. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978- 0- 226- 20054- 5 (cloth : alk. paper) — ISBN 978- 0- 226- 20068- 2 (pbk. : alk. paper) — ISBN 978- 0- 226- 20071- 2 (e- book) 1. Education and state—United States. 2. School management and organization—Law and legislation—United States. I. Jochim, Ashley E., author. II. Title. lc89.h555 2015 379.73—dc23 2014012243 o This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48- 1992 (Permanence of Paper). Contents Preface vii Acknowledgments xi 1 Why Governance? 1 2 What Governance Must Accomplish and Avoid 13 3 Constitutional Governance 24 4 Checks and Balances: The Roles of Other Entities 49 5 School Rights and Obligations 64 6 Reimagining the Central Office 77 7 Allocation and Control of Public Funds 89 8 Enacting the System into Law and Managing Implementation Politics 103 9 What Governance Change Can and Cannot Accomplish 117 Notes 123 Index 139 Preface This book is the product of twenty years’ work on one question: Can a different kind of governance lead to better outcomes in public education? This question stems from the consistent find- ing that mandates and rules intended to improve schools instead prevent problem solving and adaptation to students’ needs and educators’ abilities. We knew about, and felt a degree of sympathy for, proposals to abandon public oversight entirely, in favor of a social market in which government would fund public education but not regulate it. However, we were convinced that as long as K–12 education was publicly funded some form of public oversight was necessary to ensure taxpayers’ funds were spent defensibly and children’s interests were ultimately served. In the course of our twenty- year inquiry we investigated a number of ideas. Site-b ased management of schools within the existing governance framework is one.1 Another is a more radi- cal transformation of governance based on the idea that public schools could be redefined as schools operating under funding and performance agreements with government agencies.2 We also closely tracked what happened when localities and states tried to put these and other governance reform ideas into practice. What became increasingly clear over time is that the pressure viii Preface for political accommodation, and thus to accumulating regula- tion, is strong. Local school boards and state governments may promise to give schools a great deal of freedom, but over time they take it away. The takings of freedom are incremental and often based on the worst cases rather than on general problems. But it is striking that they are not based on any proof that a given constraint is good for all schools or makes them more effective. Public governing bodies tighten the screws over time because issues come up that get their attention, and because they can. This first became evident with site- based management. In the early 1990s, many school districts encouraged schools to use time and money in novel ways to meet the needs of a changing student population. Superintendents encouraged principals and teachers to think big, but no rules were changed. Schools were encour- aged to think of new ways to organize teaching, but they were still bound by the collective bargaining agreement. That meant school leaders had little control over who was assigned to teach in the school and the kinds of work they could do. Schools were encouraged to use time and materials differently, but they did not control their budgets or make purchasing decisions. And so on. In any clash between school autonomy and actual practice, school leaders soon learned that for every freedom they were promised, a rule existed that effectively took it away.3 Starting in 2003, some mayors and superintendents tried to redefine their local school districts, to give all schools freedom of action, allow people with new ideas to start schools, make all schools performance contingent, and give families real op- tions. (Leading cities include New York, New Orleans, Denver, and Hartford.) Leaders in these cities recognized that without deep and permanent changes to governance, public schools will be hamstrung by factors like • restrictive district- wide collective bargaining agreements, • large central office bureaucracies that control as much as half of all the money spent on public education, and • state regulations on how schools must use time and money. Preface ix These local leaders, in part informed by our concept of a port- folio governance strategy,4 started transforming public education. Their goal was to transform it from a rule- bound bureaucracy into an innovative, problem- solving public enterprise and, in the process, balance the need for government oversight on the one hand and effective public schools on the other. In 2012 we published a book on what the pioneer portfolio districts had learned, about how to make public education more open, responsive, and, ultimately, effective.5 Under a portfolio strategy, city leaders empower schools to control their own staff- ing and budgets. City leaders also invest in new school devel- opment and enable parents to choose among different school options, including charters and traditional public schools. Our research for that book made it clear that the portfolio strategy itself is ever evolving and best understood as a process in transi- tion to a very different end state. Cities now using the portfolio strategy are in a constant pro- cess of change, as control of funds is shifted from a central bu- reaucracy to school leaders and central offices shrink and abandon many control functions. Portfolio cities also experience changes in the size and composition of their education labor forces. As in- creasing numbers of students are educated by schools not directly run by the school district, the numbers of teachers covered by a single district- wide collective bargaining agreement decrease. As city leaders seek new schooling options for the students most in need, and withdraw support from the least effective schools, the local supply of schools changes constantly. In the long run these processes will play out; what then does the resulting public school system look like and how does it work? This book intends to show what that end state will be and how the portfolio strategy can lead to it and reveal what prob- lems and dilemmas will emerge along the way.6 It does not so much supersede our work on the portfolio strategy as acknowl- edge its limitations and show where it might be leading, and what policy innovators, philanthropists, and innovative educators can do to build on it.
The list of books you might like
