Reason Foundation - Authors > Richard C. Seder

Balancing Accountability and Local Control

info@reason.org (Richard C. Seder) — Wed, 01 Mar 2000 00:00:00 EST

Executive Summary

States continue to search for ways to hold schools accountable for results. Financial management and academic performance are two areas where state legislatures gauge school district performance. There are several cases across the nation where school districts failed to maintain sound financial and academic strategies. Financial and academic bankruptcies indicate failure on behalf of local school districts.

In response, states, which have final responsibility for the provision of public education, have proceeded with different intervention and accountability strategies. District takeovers, mayoral control, third-party partnerships, and reconstitution of schools are some of the policies pursued to address school district failure. In all, 22 states have passed academic bankruptcy laws that hold school districts accountable for student results. Since the first state takeover in 1989, more than 25 interventions in school and district operations have been made across the nation.

The track record of these accountability mechanisms is mixed. State takeover of a school district in West Virginia is widely considered a success for the turnaround in financial and educational management of the district. On the other hand, takeovers in New Jersey have failed to bring districts up to state standards in student achievement.

State intervention strategies return fiscal soundness to districts typically in three to five years, but student achievement often lags behind. This mixed bag of results should come as no surprise. Financial-management techniques are standardized and can be replicated. For this reason, returning a district to a sound financial position should come with relative ease. However, student learning is more dynamic in nature and, therefore, not easily rectified by a single, standardized approach. Understanding the scope of student and community diversity leads us to believe that traditional intervention strategies have failed, and will continue to fail, student learning because of the lack of strategic innovation.

What are needed are new options available to educators, parents, and students. These strategies must have the goal of improving student performance at their cores. Ultimately, these programs should no longer operate if unsuccessful in this mission. The ambiguous results of the different state takeover strategies should lead policymakers to seek alternative accountability strategies. The efforts of Chicago Mayor Daley and the ambitious public-private partnership between Chelsea (MA) schools and Boston University offer options for other states and schools to learn from. Without genuine accountability, poor student achievement will continue to plague many of our nation’s public schools.

Satellite Charter Schools

info@reason.org (Richard C. Seder) — Thu, 01 Apr 1999 00:00:00 EST

Executive Summary

Charter school legislation exists in 34 states and the District of Columbia. School year 1998-99 saw nearly 1,100 charter schools open their doors serving over 250,000 students in 26 states. This fastgrowing reform movement has not been without its bumps in the road. All charter schools report financial barriers such as a lack of start-up funds, inadequate operating funds, and inadequate facilities to be the three largest barriers in developing and implementing their charters.

These fiscal and resource barriers tend to affect newly created charter schools more than converted (former public and private) schools. Over 80 percent of newly created charter schools reported at least one financial or resource barrier. Facilities challenges are especially acute for newly created charter schools. According to a U.S. Department of Education study, in “cases where schools have difficulty finding appropriate facilities, our fieldwork suggests that the entire school start-up process can be impacted.” The importance of facilities cannot be underestimated. As the number of charter schools increases, the need for adequate facilities will also increase.

To address this problem, states with charter schools can learn from the satellite school partnership experiences between private-sector businesses and traditional public school districts. To help alleviate crowding in schools, and with greater demands on school-district resources, the private sector has formed over 30 public-private partnerships nationwide, providing school facilities at the work site to serve the children of employees. These investments are paying off for the sponsoring companies, the school districts, and the children being served.

Companies investing in facilities and maintenance for schools at the work site experience reduced absenteeism, lower turnover rates, and increased productivity. Employee-parents tend to be more satisfied at the job. Savings experienced through lower turnover and increased productivity provide employees with returns on their investment that more than make up for the costs.

Students at these satellite schools also appear to perform better than their traditional school-district peers. In math and reading, students in the Dade County School District satellite schools consistently perform better than the national average and other Dade County School District students on national standardized tests.

Florida, the pioneer in satellite schools, is also the pioneer in stimulating charter school-business partnerships. Newly passed legislation allows for businesses and charter schools to come together to serve the children of the host business. Other states should consider following the lead of Florida in legislative action as one providing adequate facilities for charter schools.

Pennsylvania School Finance

info@reason.org (Richard C. Seder) — Thu, 01 Oct 1998 00:00:00 EDT

...

Bilingual Education

info@reason.org (Richard C. Seder) — Fri, 01 May 1998 00:00:00 EDT

Introduction

Obscured in the political rhetoric is the term bilingual education. What constitutes bilingual education instruction? The various sides of the debate clutch to their anecdotal and empirical evidence that definitively proves that bilingual education is either a rousing success or a dismal failure. Estimates of the expenditures on providing special services range from not-nearly-sufficient to an extraordinary and growing burden on state and local resources.

Can both sides of the argument be correct in their assertions?

What is clear in the debate is the need to meet the special circumstances of this diverse and growing population.1 Both bilingual education proponents and opponents agree that accountability in the current system is almost nonexistent. Both sides agree that poorly implemented programs are resulting in the failure to provide a meaningful education to these students.

This policy brief provides a brief overview of:

the status of limited-English proficient students;
the nature and definition of services being administered;
the policies that govern how these students are served; and
a synopsis of research evaluating the effectiveness of special instructional services provided to LEP students with an emphasis on California.

The purpose is not a pedagogical endorsement of one form of instruction over another. Rather, the purpose is to provide an objective understanding of the issues for sound policymaking at the local, state, and federal levels, and by parents concerned about the nature of services being provided to their children.