Skip to main content

A Plan to Put Teachers in Charge, Give Parents Choices, and Benefit Children


How much confidence would you have in a law firm that was managed and run by legal secretaries and paralegals? Probably not a lot. Legal support staff constitute a vital part of their firms. A good paralegal can free an attorney to focus on the things only she can do. A bad paralegal can be worse than no paralegal at all. But even the best paralegal lacks the training and experience to formulate and execute a litigation strategy. You don’t want a paraprofessional running the show - their proper role is in support of the professional. So why aren’t teachers running our schools? 


The prevailing education model in this country is puzzling when compared to other industries. But it’s been this way so long it’s difficult to imagine anything else. We group children by age, not by knowledge or ability. We send them to schools based on address, not teaching methodology. Parents, except for the wealthy, have very little say over which school their children can attend. And teachers, the practitioners who are trained to teach, who are in the classroom every day, who are the soul of the education system, are answerable to more and more people who lack the skill and experience to accomplish what schools fundamentally exist to do. 


Teachers have always answered to the principal. He is almost always a former teacher, but does not interact with most students on a daily basis. His incentives are also misaligned. His metric for a successful day is to not have to deal with troublemakers. Rather than maintaining proper discipline and risk a phone call from an angry parent, he can simply shuffle them back to class. Unless he has a deep-seated sense of duty, this “easy” course of action makes the most sense.


Of course, the principal-in-charge model does track with other professional organizations. The senior partner at a law firm might spend so much time doing administrative work and meeting with important clients that he does little legal research. He’s still the ultimate authority within the firm. But he will also defer to an experienced attorney in matters of case strategy. The senior partner hasn’t been in settlement conferences, and hasn’t read the judge’s disposition in case management conferences. And certainly the IT staff, paralegals, and secretaries don’t tell experienced lawyers how to do their jobs. 


But a public school teacher might well be answerable to librarians, counselors, and technology staff, and receive relatively little deference from the principal. As schools have broadened their scope from education centers to one-stop-shops for child-centered social programs, the focus on education has waned. So too has the status of the teacher. They used to be the reason schools existed; now they are little more than cogs in the social-work machine. 


1889 has proposed a solution to put teachers back in the driver seat, and give parents a wide array of options when it comes to educating their children. In a Professional Teacher Charter, a teacher must be in charge of curriculum delivery. It’s in the law. The law gives experienced teachers in good standing the opportunity to open their own school, and be funded on the same basis as other charter schools. It could be a micro school - allowing pandemic pods to receive state funding. It could be a school designed to teach hundreds, competing directly with public schools. Teachers will be free to experiment with new teaching methods. Parents will be free to choose the school that best fits their child. 


Schools will be required to test their students once a year, using any of an approved list of norm-referenced national tests. They must make these results public. This will let parents see how their school stacks up to the competition. Failing schools won’t have to be disciplined by a board of education - parents will simply move to a better school the next year. Educate or die will become the order of the day. 


The freedom inherent in the model bill will allow Oklahoma to become a laboratory of pedagogy. Schools will be able to test and improve their teaching methods. Norm-referenced tests allow parents to compare the these methods based on actual output - how much students know. They will also be free to choose a school that they believe works best for their child, even if it doesn’t create the best test outcomes. Not every child learns the same way, and what works for nine students might not work as well for a tenth.


“More funding to the classroom” is the mantra and excuse for nearly every demand for more funding for public education. But the single most important classroom expense, and arguably the most expensive one, is the teacher. Yet the system, even in other types of charter schools, puts the teacher at the very bottom of the decision-making ladder.


1889’s model, which can be used in any state, flips the ladder and puts teachers in charge of schools and then empowers parents to choose the school that is best for their child. Ultimately, this can only benefit Oklahoma’s schoolchildren. 


Mike Davis is a Research Fellow at 1889 Institute. He can be reached at mdavis@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