Are School Districts Worth the Cost

(2/4/2011)

The current economic climate has driven a heightened critique of spending in K-12 education. Some believe imbedding competition through all facets of public education is the panacea to the high costs and low comparative performance of schools. Others, intricately involved in public education, quickly highlight the type of students that potentially will be hurt by allowing the free market to "fix" public education.

However, there are distinct ways in which Utah can optimize public education while simultaneously improving the quality of education every student receives. The most conspicuous area in which competition can increase local control, elevate quality, and lower costs is by privatizing the services otherwise provided by school district offices.

Today, as school districts search for ways to make cuts that result in the least impact on students, the district central offices face pressure to bear these cuts. In part, this results from an attempt to keep cuts from directly impacting the classroom. Less directly, it highlights the sometimes distanced relationship between schools and district offices.

Evidence of this appears in a discussion with the individuals most connected to both schools and district offices. Ask a principal how the district has helped her school and you will likely hear details about the administrative responsibilities the district assumes. From maintaining the email server to facilities and janitorial services, the central office takes on tasks that school leaders are not trained to do. With these tasks off of their plate, schools leaders have greater opportunity to focus on supporting instruction.

Unfortunately, principals are often unable to provide a deeper explanation of the district support they have received and the manner in which it has directly improved student learning. Currently, district offices provide professional development for teachers as their primary lever for school improvement. While these trainings account for a significant allocation of district resources, research notes the embarrassingly small impact such training has on the daily practice of teachers. Teachers note that frequently these investments do not directly address their own needs. Additionally, districts rarely hold teachers accountable for the implementation of new practices. And, even when practices are implemented with fidelity, rarely does a district measure the degree to which these strategies actually improve student learning.

The failure of district administrators to effectively leverage their knowledge to improve instruction and student learning is not the result of a lack of will, interest, or expertise. They, like other educators, enter their professions with a deep desire to improve outcomes for students. Yet, in trying to balance their position alongside the relative autonomy of schools, the responsibilities of their role become muddled. Confounding this dilemma, schools themselves don't always have a clear sense for how the district can best support their improvement efforts. Sadly, the expertise and best intentions of district office administrators rarely trickles down to schools.

The solution is for the state to define rigorous, measurable learning outcomes for which every school must demonstrate sustainable improvement. And rather than sending funds to district offices, all monies should instead be allocated directly to schools based on student attendance and, where there are disproportionate special requirements, based on the degree of unique student needs. Instead of having resources allocated on their behalf by a school district overseeing numerous and disparate schools, each school individually should decide what support services they require. Every school is different -- some will need enhanced professional development in preparing students for college while others may require better training in English as a second language. Some schools will pay for full technology support while others may enlist that support from parent volunteers.

Simply put, we must utilize our already stretched resources to best serve the needs of students in the classroom, even if that means revolutionary approaches to public education. The state of Utah should define and measure rigorous performance goals and accountability metrics that every school must achieve. Individual schools, based on their unique circumstances and needs, should determine how to best allocate their scarce resources. Organizations that specialize in providing optimal support in specific areas will quickly arise. Competition between such service providers as facility management organizations, technology support, and professional development groups will drive prices down while improving the quality of service delivered.

Imbedding competition in the services that are currently provided by district central offices will augment the individualized nature in which schools are served. Local school control will increase, quality of service will improve, and costs will decrease. More importantly, increased funds will be allocated to the classroom, ensuring a higher quality of individual education.