Skip to main content

Is Effective Education Reform Even Possible? The Answer is “Yes.”


Education Reform. Every time a legislature meets in this country, education reform is a topic of discussion. It’s easy to see why. Our schools, especially when you consider the amount of money we spend, don’t do a very good job. It’s really not that hard to casually look around the internet and find that the U.S. ranks in the top five of all nations, year after year, in average per-student spending in public education. Unfortunately, that does not translate into results. Many nations that spend a fraction of what we do outperform us in international academic comparisons. China’s students outperform ours by four grade levels. Oklahoma’s performance is below the national average.

Anybody who knows one or more active public school teachers also knows that most of them work hard. Yes, they get longer holidays than most, and there are those relatively few who do the minimum, but there are the many who are conscientious. The problem is, they are swimming upstream in an institutional system that automatically flows to the lowest common denominator and frustrates efforts at attaining excellence.

Teachers and students (and their parents) actually work outside of education’s iron triangle – a triumvirate of organizations, companies, politicians, and professionals whose personal interests are interlocked to perpetuate the public education system as it is, regardless of how it performs. One side of the triangle consists of lobbyists, including unions and the people who work for various education-related associations, who know and understand the current system and want to preserve it in order to preserve their own worth. Another side of the triangle consists of education’s bureaucracy, especially state agencies and school district central office administrators, who stand between policy makers and teachers, and can frustrate reform efforts before they get started. And then there is the side with elected officials – school board members and legislators – whose political fortunes are often tied to the other sides. Teachers, students, and parents are generally too busy to have a real voice and serve only to camouflage the selfish motives of those who are part of the triangle.

The iron triangle is why reforms delving into the minute details of teaching, testing, curriculum content, spending, and personnel have not worked. And this is why the only reforms that have a chance of working are those that at least weaken the iron triangle. This is the intent of seven reforms, listed below, that are recommended and more fully explained in 1889 Institute’s new publication, Education Reforms to Make a Difference, first in a two or three part series of publications recommending institutional reforms for education. 

Allow for Teacher Charters – trust teachers by allowing them to independently establish charter schools on the strength of their experience and ability to assemble the financial support necessary to do so; a new concept. 

Move School Board Elections to November – end obscure, shifting election dates so voters without a financial stake in the system will show up.

Make Moving into Teaching Seamless – remove logistical obstacles to obtaining the training necessary to enter the classroom where doing so means changing careers.

Provide State-funded Teacher Professional Liability Insurance – teachers who just want liability protection should not have to pay extra dues to radicalized organizations to get it. 

Promote the Conversion School Option – inform school board members of the option to convert schools to the rough equivalent of a charter school where schools are failing; allow the State Board of Education to sponsor conversions of certain failing schools.

Reform the State’s Funding Formula – remove perverse incentives in the funding formula and require auditable contact-hour funding for students needing extra help.

Stop Requiring Superintendent Education Certification – they’re business administrators, so emphasis should be on hiring people with business administration skills.

Each of these changes would contribute to creating the kind of positive disruption of the education system that can lead to the softening of the ossified, tempered, and hide-bound education iron triangle. If we keep attempting the old reforms, depending on the goodwill of members of the iron triangle to violate their own selfish interests, those reforms will continue to shatter against a solid barrier of entrenched interests whose main interest in education is how they can profit from the system.

Byron Schlomach is Director of the 1889 Institute and can be reached at bschlomach@1889institute.org.



Popular posts from this blog

Muddy, Shallow Thinking Versus Clarity in Education Reform

Monopolies are the best! If we are to gain maximum efficiency and create the greatest value for people, monopoly is the way to go. Competition creates administrative inefficiency since instead of one set of managers, there are as many as there are companies, and all of them cost money. Competitive companies make products that do the same basic things, but waste resources by making products with different features. Standardized products would save money. Were research and development under one roof, instead of many competitive ones, researchers could coordinate more closely, saving money and ultimately being even more innovative. Monopolies would therefore benefit everyone. Everything in the first paragraph is, of course, balderdash . Monopolies, especially those created by government, stifle innovation, develop bloated management, produce too little at low quality, and charge too much. Why? Because they can. They’re monopolists. Without competition and with nearly guaranteed ...
Read more

Lies We Tell in Government, and Our Debts to Truth

HBO’s mini-series,  Chernobyl ,  is a drama depicting  the disastrous  1986  explosion ,  and  hero ic efforts to control the  resulting  meltdown ,  of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine  (then part of the Soviet Union ).  A flawed man, but true hero,  Valery  Alexeyvich   Legasov , worked tirelessly to ameliorate the disaster’s consequences and  chiefly  investigated its cause. He was  Deputy Director of the  Kurchatov  Institute of Atomic Energ y , a Soviet elite, who  is portrayed at the end of  the  series making a dramatic speech at a trial about how the nuclear reactor exploded, when  such an explosion in that type of reactor  should not have been possible. In the course of the series, the audience  learns  that the reactor had a design flaw that had been covered up by the Soviet State (true).  The audience also learns  that...
Read more

Oklahoma Is OK, but Seriously, That’s Not OK

The Americans at the table, negotiating a business deal, ask one of their number, “You can speak Dutch?” He replies, “I’m OK.” With his fellow Americans looking doubtful, he proceeds to mistranslate what they want him to say to their Dutch counterparts. The “OK” translator tells the Dutch that the Americans really need a hug, when he was supposed to tell them they really need the deal. With that, the AT&T commercial ends as one of the Dutch negotiators gives an American a hug with the announcer saying, “When just OK is not OK.” There are several of these commercials, each with a different scenario, in which, indeed, just OK is not OK. And every time I see one of these commercials I think of the license plates that were once so common – “ Oklahoma is OK. ” As someone who works to develop policy suggestions intended to make Oklahoma better, and hopefully, the best that Oklahoma can be, it often seems that slogan – Oklahoma is OK – gets in the way. The fact is, in most r...
Read more

The Unfairness of Concentrated Wealth is NOTHING Compared to the Unfairness of Redistributing It

Socialist types like to accuse rich corporate types of having “too much” wealth. Simple fairness, they claim, dictates that one person should not have so much when so many have so little. But if we’re going to talk about fairness, let’s really give it fair consideration. That means looking beyond the petty jealousy and thinking about the fairness of seizing wealth from those who earned it and giving it to those who did not.   How did the wealthy get that way? The socialist types claim that the greedy capitalists exploit their workers and their consumers. Is that true? Let’s start with the workers. Jeff Bezos may be greedy. I wouldn’t know, I’ve never met him. But I did work for him - in fact I hired other people to work for him. So I can say with reasonable certainty that he hasn’t created his enormous wealth by exploiting his workers. They were all there voluntarily.   Before attending law school, I spent several months working for the temp agency that hires seasonal workers ...
Read more