Skip to main content

Introducing a New Plan for Public Education: Put Educational Practitioners (Teachers) in Charge


The author, Kent Grusendorf, served as a member of the Texas House of Representatives for 20 years (1987-2007), all but two as a member of Public Education Committee, which he chaired for four years (2003-2007). His prior elected experience was as a member of the Texas State Board of Education for three years (1982-1984). In addition to this blog, Grusendorf is author of an 1889 Institute report also based on his forthcoming book.

Saving Public Education: Setting Teachers Free to Teach is the title of my forthcoming book, which explores a potentially new professional opportunity for teachers. Most teachers are in the profession because they love to teach. However, far too many leave the profession due to lack of respect, excessive external pressures, and general frustration. Many teachers stay in the profession, but yearn for greater freedom to just do what they love: Teach. Much of that frustration comes from mandates, and a lack of professional freedom.

Well Intentioned, but Wrong-Headed, Reform

Well-intentioned education reform advocates (including me) have attempted to reform the American education system for more than half a century. Most of these reform efforts have been designed to impose top-down mandates on our schools and teachers.

Now, half a century later, despite much hard work by educators, the minority achievement gap remains at unacceptable levels. According to the Brookings Institution, no progress has been made in literacy since the inception of the National Assessment of Education Progress in 1971. Low-income students perform three or four years behind grade level, and far too many teachers are frustrated with a system that fails to treat them as true professionals. 

Perverse Results

Virtually all meaningful reform efforts over the past few decades have either failed to produce the desired results, or have been undone over time due to political pressure. It is time to acknowledge one simple fact: Top-down reform efforts and mandates on teachers have not worked as intended.

Over the past three decades, teacher pay, after adjusting for inflation, has decreased. This has occurred even as spending, also adjusted for inflation, has increased dramatically. Today, Americans spend about $4 billion per school day on public education. Annually, we spend about $350,000 per classroom of 25; however, we only pay teachers about $60,000.

Over the past seven decades, administrative staff has increased by over 750 percent, indicating the system simply has its priorities wrong. It emphasizes process and control over the actual practice and success of teachers actively engaged in educating future generations.

America’s political leaders need to understand the subtle yet distinct difference between what is best for institutions and what is best for student success. Unfortunately, in America today, school funding is based primarily on institutional needs rather than student and teacher needs. Formulas are designed to fund the system rather than fund education within the system.

Today, teachers are paid less than their true market value, in part due to monopsony power, and often due to a lack necessary classroom supplies. Teachers are the backbone of the system, yet many are frustrated by lack of professional recognition, and lack of adequate financial support for their classrooms.

In public education’s early years, teachers were actually in charge of the school. They answered directly to parents and taxpayers. Most importantly, they had the ability to do what they thought best for their students. Today, teachers answer to multiple layers of school administrators, and to local, state, and federal politicians, all of whom impose top-down dictates on teachers and their schools.

A Better Solution: Free Teachers to Teach

It is time to acknowledge that top-down control has not worked well for millions of American students, and has not worked well for thousands of America’s teachers. The answer will not come from above. The answer is in the classrooms of America today. The solution is to set teachers free to teach. 

Teachers are the individuals who actually deliver education services. The system should be organized accordingly. If organized correctly, educators would be set free from politics and be allowed to focus totally on educating children. To accomplish that objective, teachers must be treated as real professionals, not just given lip service that they “are” professionals while they are denied the real decision-making power that other professionals possess.

Saving Public Education makes the case with simple data that the best way to reward teachers is to allow them to practice their trade as true professionals. Teachers would be empowered by allowing for a new optional component to the education system’s current structure.

This new option would be the professional teacher concept. The Professional Teacher Act would provide a new option for teachers – the freedom to practice as true professionals - that would be a win-win for the entire profession as well as for students and our society’s future. 

Once the money already held in trust for students, but sifted through a bureaucratic top-down system, is allowed to follow the child and teacher, there is no limit to the creative initiatives teachers could implement to achieve superior results for their students, for the education system, and for society.

The professional teacher concept would be a new option only available to certain public school teachers. It would allow a public school teacher who has been rated as proficient, or better, for three years to enter into “private practice,” much like a doctor, or lawyer, who is in private practice. Students would not be “assigned” to any teacher in private practice. If students choose a teacher in private practice, the state money would flow directly to the teacher.

This professional teacher concept is a win-win for the entire education profession, for children, and for society. Educators would be empowered to specialize and innovate to meet the individual needs of their individual students. Teacher pay would be enhanced as well, both for those who participate in the program and for those who remain in the current system. This is because the monopsony power, held by school districts, represses teacher pay to a level below market value. Setting teachers free to practice their trade would change that dynamic for the entire profession.

Bottom line:  The purpose of such a new professional opportunity would be to give education professionals the opportunity to function independently, with property rights similar to those afforded other professionals and the rewards inherent in those rights. Further, by allowing teachers to become the professional education practitioners they long to be, they will have the opportunity to innovate and create educational programs suited for the specific needs of their student clientele.

Comments should be addressed to bschlomach@1889institute.org. 

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

Licensing Boards Might Violate Federal Law: Regardless, They Are Terrible Policy

Competition is as American as baseball and apple pie. “May the best man win” is a sentiment so old it doesn’t care about your pronouns. The beneficial effects of competition on economic markets are well documented. So why do we let powerful business interests change the rules of the game when they tire of competing in the free market? Most of the time when an occupational license is enacted, it is the members of the regulated industry who push hardest in favor of the license. Honest competition may be fundamentally American, but thwarting that competition through licensing seems to be fundamentally Oklahoman. Oklahoma doesn’t have the most occupational licenses, but when they do license an occupation, the requirements tend to be more onerous than the same license in other states. But what if, instead of merely breaking the rules of fair play to keep out would-be competition, Oklahoma licensing boards are also breaking the law? Normally a concerted effort to lock out competition would v

Undo 802

Why is it that when conservatives suffer a major loss, they give up, accept the new status quo, and fall back to the next retreat position? When progressives suffer a major loss, they regroup and try again. And again. Until they finally wheedle the American public into giving in. I propose a change in strategy. The Oklahoma Legislature should make undoing State Question 802 its top legislative priority for 2021. This will not be an easy task (legislators seem to prefer avoiding difficult tasks) but it is a critical one. The normal legislative process, with all its pitfalls and traps for the unwary, will only bring the topic to another vote of the people. So why spend so much political capital and effort if the same result is possible? Three reasons.   First is the disastrous consequences of the policy. Forget that it enriches already-rich hospital and pharmaceutical executives. Forget that it gives the state incentives to prioritize the nearly-poor covered by expansion over the des

Oklahoma Mayors Acted Unlawfully With COVID-19 Orders

In response to COVID-19, the mayors of Oklahoma’s three largest cities subjected their citizens to draconian shelter in place orders, restricting their freedom, damaging them financially, and undermining their constitutional rights. The mayoral decrees were more restrictive than those of the Governor, and in significant ways contradicted his policy. To this day, city-mandated social distancing rules remain in place in Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Norman that are not required by the state’s reopening plan. The mayors claim that where their rules are more restrictive than the state’s, the city rules apply. Was any of this unilateral mayoral activity legally valid? For the reasons examined in my paper published today, An Argument Oklahoma’s Mayors Acted Unlawfully During COVID-19 , the short answer is no. (A summary of the paper can be found here .) A close examination of relevant city ordinances and state laws governing the mayors’ COVID-19 decrees forces the conclusion tha

Higher Home Prices, Brought to You by Oklahoma's Occupational Licensing Machine

Increasingly, people across the ideological spectrum recognize the costs of occupational licensing. Almost since its inception, the 1889 Institute has highlighted several of the least justifiable licensing regimes in Oklahoma. Each individual license may seem, if not harmless , then at least only slightly harmful on its own. But the effects add up. It is estimated that licensing costs $203 billion each year, and results in up to 2.85 million fewer jobs nationwide. One of the principle ways Americans build lasting wealth is through home ownership. So a license that interferes with this process is particularly galling.  The transaction costs of buying and selling a home in Oklahoma are too high. This is not a matter of opinion, like “the price of gas is too high” or “the luxury goods I would like to own cost too much.” It is an empirical fact. The way Oklahoma regulates the Abstracting and Title Insurance industries tangibly and demonstrably impacts the cost of buying and