|
Handicapped
American Schools
by Herbert J. Walberg
The United States school system is distinctive
in lacking a national ministry of education that
sets forth uniform education goals and standards.
Our Constitution leaves authority over schools to
the states. The states delegate much authority to
local school districts, which leave much discretion
to principals and teachers. This local control
makes for great diversity in student learning, but
students who move from one school to another
often lack the knowledge necessary for success in
their new schools.
Our system is distinctive in other ways that
handicap efficiency. Ludger Woessmann of the Kiel
Institute of World Economics reported the largest
study of educational efficiency ever conducted. His
analysis of thirty-nine countries showed that close
attention to test results, school control over
staff and operations, teacher discretion over
teaching methods, and competition from private
schools fostered high achievement. The influence of
teacher unions on curriculum had negative effects,
and spending made no difference.
The findings help explain the U.S. oddity of
high costs but poor student progress during the
school years. In his 1776 book The Wealth of
Nations, Adam Smith suggested that "division of
labor" promotes efficiency. In many efficient
organizations, three groups divide their efforts:
external boards establish their distinctive
mission, set goals, and measure progress;
responsible and responsive to boards, management
hires staff and directs operations; staff members
hardly invent their own idiosyncratic goals but
concentrate on carrying out their responsibilities
to attain board goals. Sustained failure of any one
of these three groups at their respective tasks
means the organization fails.
Nearly the opposite is true of the U.S. public
school system. No goal is too remote from academic
learning to adopt; no "stakeholder" too removed
from having a say about the mission and goals.
State and local school boards fail to set clear
goals and measure progress. At the same time, they
tend to interfere with school management.
Teachers, principals, boards, and national
interest groups compete to set priorities and
control teaching. Yet when everyone is responsible,
no one if responsible, and having twenty-three
priorities means having none. Contention, noise,
and fads prevail. In the end, teachers cannot
depend on what their students were previously
taught. Boards, leaders, and staff all overreach,
and yet each group tends to fail at its distinctive
task. A thousand flowers bloom but do not a garden
make.
Other countries provide much better
accountability. While making goals clear, they
allow parental choice of privately and publicly
governed schools, both publicly financed.
Competition encourages educators to identify the
best practices and helps parents choose the best
schools. We spend public funds only on public
schools, which limits most parents to the beggar's
choice of only a single school, which has little
incentive to improve since its customers have
nowhere else to go.
The answers to these problems are clear:
measurement and accountability for results, public
support of schools that compete with one another,
and parental choice of schools.
Herbert J. Walberg is University Scholar at the
University of Illinois at Chicago, a distinguished
visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, and a
member of Hoover's Koret Task Force on K-12
Education.
Courtesy: Hoover
Institution
|