Overview
Duncan Wyse,
president, Oregon Business Council, Portland, OR. Wyse describes that
state's recent enactment of legislation creating an "Education
Investment Board" that is charged with improving public education
outcomes through alterations in state financing. He describes the
political compromise involved in such a change, next steps toward
implementation, and the possibility of outcome-based budgeting being
used elsewhere in the state.
For the complete
interview summary see:
http://bit.ly/uV7rl3
Response Summary:
Readers have been asked to rate, on a scale of (0) most disagreement,
to (5) neutral, to (10) most agreement, the following points discussed
by Wyse.
Average response ratings shown below are simply the mean of all
readers’ zero-to-ten responses to the ideas proposed and should not be
considered an accurate reflection of a scientifically structured poll.
1. Seat-time
model inadequate.
(7.9
average response)
Time-based
education, in which students all move from grade to grade at the same
rate, is no longer sufficient if a state is to meet its economic
goals. While some students succeed, too many fail miserably and
eventually drop out.
2. Base path on
learning proficiency.
(6.6
average response)
A new design is
needed that treats time as variable and learning as constant, building
a seamless pathway organized around student proficiency, not seat
time.
3. Base funding
on outcomes.
(5.7average response)
From now on all
types and age levels of education should receive state funding based
on measureable outcomes, not compliance with regulations.
4. Adopt new
funding structure.
(4.9
average response)
Minnesota ought
to consider an all-encompassing education finance structure similar to
Oregon's Education Investment Board.
5. Radical
change unnecessary.
(4.1
average response)
Quality of
education from pre-k through college in Minnesota is not so threatened
as to require radical change such as is occurring in Oregon.
Response
Distribution: |
Strongly
disagree |
Moderately
disagree |
Neutral |
Moderately
agree |
Strongly agree |
Total
Responses |
1. Seat-time
model inadequate. |
9% |
0% |
18% |
18% |
60% |
11 |
2. Base path
on learning proficiency. |
18% |
0% |
9% |
45% |
30% |
11 |
3. Base
funding on outcomes. |
18% |
0% |
36% |
27% |
20% |
11 |
4. Adopt new
funding structure. |
18% |
27% |
0% |
55% |
0% |
11 |
|
5. Radical
change unnecessary. |
10% |
40% |
30% |
S 10% |
11% |
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Individual
Responses:
Pat
Barnum (10) (10) (5) (2.5) (7.5)
3. Base funding
on outcomes.
I am having a hard imagining how this would be implemented equitably.
Truly, inner-city schools have more challenges than their more
affluent suburbs. So an inner-city district, I imagine, would have
different goals than a suburban one. But at what point is that decided
and who would believe that completely unbiased decisions were made? I
foresee trouble and finger pointing from both directions.
4. Adopt new
funding structure.
We need to be open to change, but assuming this model is good for
Minnesota when they haven't even fleshed it out themselves would be
foolhardy.
5. Radical
change unnecessary.
Certainly public education outcomes in Minnesota are dismal. But
assuming the state should be paying for (and) responsible for all
learning from the moment a child leaves the womb until it is a legal
adult is far reaching, expensive, and too much government. We used to
(educate) students at a fairly acceptable level in 12.5 years. Now we
can(not) get the results we want so the solution is to expand the
number of years we do it? Illogical.
Ray
Ayotte (10) (7.5) (5) (7.5) (10)
Chris Brazelton (10) (10) (7.5) (7.5) (2.5)
1. Seat-time
model inadequate.
Portland, Oregon has good Waldorf schools that may have influenced
this new way of looking at progress and rates of learning.
3. Base funding
on outcomes.
Outcomes need to be realistic and based on child's capacity, taking
into consideration variety of mental health statuses and learning
disabilities. We don't live in a cookie cutter world, and cookie
cutter methods of educating children leave many behind.
4. Adopt new
funding structure.
Any structure will need buy-in from all the key players, including
employers, teachers’ unions, principals, communities, parents. All
players can be part of the solution. Any players left out of the
process are likely to become obstacles to success. Treating any group
as the enemy will guarantee formation of obstacles.
5. Radical
change unnecessary.
We do have a high quality system, but that system has been pushed and
pulled from so many different directions as to have lots of holes in
it. We do need a comprehensive approach that takes into consideration
many challenges, including the high cost of addressing disabilities in
small districts, challenging our brightest students, and offering high
quality variety of courses to those in rural areas where there is not
a critical mass of students. Online or virtual classrooms, special
education funding and other issues need more attention.
Don
Anderson (7.5) (7.5) (7.5) (7.5) (5)
5. Radical
change unnecessary.
My main concern not addressed is what happens to the student that
doesn't have the ability, either academically, home background, or
similar factors -- that student has to have a point where the
educational system can no longer continue to fund his or her progress,
or lack thereof. What happens to those persons?
Peter Hennessey (5) (5) (5) (2.5) (2.5)
1. Seat-time
model inadequate.
"Time-based" education has always tried to find a "happy" medium
between fast and slow learners, thereby doing a disservice to both.
The reasons for drop-outs, however, can be many, including boredom by
the likes of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, or cultural imperatives -- for
example, Hispanics who push their teens into physical work, not
academics; ghetto blacks who forcefully discourage "acting white", and
others of any color who for whatever reason consider themselves ill
adapted to a world based on reading books and excellence in academics.
2. Base path on
learning proficiency.
The new design that is needed should be based on a re-examination of
the very idea that the state must provide for the educational needs of
our children. There are other alternatives, for example private and
Catholic schools. Why do education reformers never examine why
Catholic schools turn in consistently better performance, and have
done so for about two thousand years? Why don't education reformers
ever consider applying the only remedy that works in all other realms
of human endeavor, the free market? Why don't education reformers ever
consider letting the consumer have a choice?
3. Base funding
on outcomes.
Correct -- no on "compliance," yes on "measurable outcomes." No on
State funding. But the devil is in the details, in this case, the
definitions of "compliance" and "measurable outcomes." Why don't
education reformers ever consider letting the consumer have a choice?
Why don't education reformers ever consider a free market model of
funding? Why do "education reformers" always see the world in
dictatorial, theocratic, top-down terms, and never even consider
alternatives? A better model would be more in line with another of
their pet doctrines, the theory of evolution, in which individuals
adapt to their circumstances in their own way and therefore the system
survives because of the inherent variety in it, so that one fatal
mistake does not collapse the entire system and one fatal flaw does
not victimize the entire population. Even this would be more in line
with their fundamentally anti-individualist attitude prevalent in the
educational and political establishments.
4. Adopt new
funding structure.
No, the theory of "experiments in democracy" works if Oregon tries
whatever Oregonians want and Minnesota tries whatever Minnesotans
want. Don't just copy anything until you see that it works. In the
meantime, consider letting the consumer have a choice, consider a free
market model of funding. And let's just get one thing straight;
spending on education is not an "investment," it is spending. Spending
is not an "investment" just because it goes for a necessary and
worthwhile purpose. What's next, reclassifying welfare as an
"investment" against social unrest? Reclassifying military spending as
an "investment" against war? Reclassifying doctor bills as an
"investment" against sickness and death? Reclassifying food bills as
an "investment" against starvation? Reclassifying clothing bills as an
"investment" against nakedness? Reclassifying water bills as an
"investment" against thirst and filth? Reclassifying heating bills as
an "investment" against winter? Where is the return on investment?
What product is created that can be sold and resold in the
marketplace? For how much can I sell my PhD diploma to someone else?
The money I spent getting it may be an investment in myself
personally, because it opens (different) doors, it may even qualify me
for a higher paying job, and if I am lucky it may eventually return
the amount I spent on getting it. But when I get a job, it is my
employer's expenses on my salary and benefits that are his investment
in me, in exchange for which he expects to see me produce something
valuable that he can sell so he can at least recover his expenses and
keep paying me. Nothing in the concept of "investment" applies to
expenses and spending for education, welfare, national defense,
infrastructure, utility bills, food, clothes, etc. These are just the
basic costs of being human, living in a human society. Insistence on
calling education an "investment" only reveals a fundamental ignorance
of and hostility to basic economic principles, especially to any
concept of a free market.
5. Radical
change unnecessary.
Yes, on the quality of education being threatened everywhere. No, the
changes occurring in Oregon are not necessarily the right ones.
Consider letting the consumer have a choice, consider a free market
model of funding.
Scott Halstead (10) (7.5) (7.5) (7.5) (2.5)
3. Base funding
on outcomes.
There needs to be an incentive system for the school district, leaders
and instructors. How do you design a good system that properly takes
into account student, community and parental variables?
W.
D. (Bill) Hamm (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
1. Seat-time
model inadequate.
A regurgitation of the same "Mastery Learning", "Outcome Based"
garbage that got us into the third world education system we have now.
2. Base path on
learning proficiency.
More senseless ignorance not worthy of discussion as every bit of this
garbage has already failed repeatedly.
3. Base funding
on outcomes.
Outcomes as this (person) describes them are subjective analysis not
objective.
4. Adopt new
funding structure.
This is more socialist centralization of control and power, the very
thing that has undermined our present education system. We need local
control not State control.
5. Radical
change unnecessary.
It needs to be radically changed back to the local control and
competition model that made Minnesota a recognized leader until this …
was forced down our throats.
Chuck Lutz (9) (8) (10) (9) (5)
Ralph Brauer (10) (0) (0) (0) (na)
The Wyse
interview (is) a very scary one, which I hope will not be adopted in
Minnesota. The notion of time as the currency for education is not
new. It was developed by our group, the Transforming Schools
Consortium, in 2002 and was published in several professional journals
in the early 2000s. The idea actually came from Mark Davison of the
University of Minnesota. The time model has been presented to the
Minnesota legislature several times, most recently the session before
last, to the House Education Committee.
By the way, any one who thinks learning is a constant needs to examine
learning theory a bit more. If learning were a constant there would be
no need for
schools.
Funding based on outcomes without a systemic notion of the feedbacks
between available resources and student needs is counter-productive.
It gives more funds to those who do not need them and withholds them
from those who do.
Terry Stone (10) (10) (10) (7) (1)
R.
C. Angevine (5) (7.5) (5) (2.5) (5)
1. Seat-time
model inadequate.
I believe that we need a system that allows those with the drive and
skills to advance faster to do so while at the same time encouraging
those who need to proceed at a "normal" pace or who require additional
assistance to do so as well. I do not believe that time-based
education itself is the reason that "too many fail miserably."
2. Base path
on learning proficiency.
See response above.
3. Base
funding on outcomes.
We definitely need to move to a more results based process but I'm
unclear how the system discussed accomplishes that. Simply providing
more funding to systems that do well sounds good on the surface but
may not address any of the real issues (such as home situations, area
socioeconomics, etc.) that lead to poor performance and may be beyond
the control of the local school district.
4. Adopt new
funding structure.
I would need to understand the proposed process a lot better before I
would agree. |