Why Public Schools?

In a host of graduate courses in departments of educational administration and on almost every employment application for an administrative position is a requirement to write a philosophy of leadership, a philosophy of administration, and/or a philosophy of schools.  Such requirements have always perturbed me.  Not that I do not have such philosophies because I do; but because each philosophical question is so different and includes so many various perspectives and nuances.  This may all sound like irrelevant, esoteric BS and leave you wondering if I have slipped off the deep end.  I must always consider the possibility that I have slipped off the deep end confirming that one cannot consider such a possibility and actually slip off the deep end. 

I believe this discussion is incredibly important to every parent, every child, every employee of a public school system, and in fact, every citizen of the state and nation.  Description of our philosophy, what we believe, determines what we do.  If we do not examine our belief system regarding public schools we will continue to operate in crazy and circuitous ways, seeking success on multiple goals to appease multiple constituencies who all have a different philosophy of education.  We can stop that nonsense with a clearly defined philosophy of public schools.  Why do we have public schools?  What is their purpose?  How shall we lead and direct such an institution?  Answers to these questions reveal our philosophies, reveal why we do what we do, and more importantly reveal what we should consider doing.

We have public schools in Texas because our Constitution, ratified in 1876, requires us to do so.  Article 7, EDUCATION, Section 1 states the following: 

“SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE OF SYSTEM OF PUBLIC FREE SCHOOLS.  A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools.”

The responsibility for public schools falls squarely on the Legislature.  The Texas House and Senate are constitutionally mandated to establish public schools.  They are mandated to provide for the support of public schools, the maintenance of public schools, and they are to do so in an efficient manner.

Why?  Because the authors of the constitution believed that an essential component of preserving our liberties and rights is knowledge.  That is powerful.  Without knowledge our very liberties and our civil rights are at risk.  For me that places the importance of public schools way up there beyond defense spending.  Dictatorships have defense spending, but do not have free, open public schools charged with preserving liberties and rights.

We are to provide for a general diffusion of knowledge in a free public school system.  Diffusion is an interesting word choice.  Diffusion may simply mean “spreading” knowledge around.  Scientifically diffusion means movement from an area of high concentration to an area of low concentration.  Either way, people with knowledge are to share and/or spread that knowledge with folks who do not have such knowledge.

One constitutional sentence opens the door to a wide array of discussions.  Does the responsibility for a public school reside in local school boards?  No.  Are public schools a state function or a local function?  State function.  In fact, the state assigns certain responsibilities to local officials, but local failure to achieve those requirements can result in the state taking over the local school system.  Most local school boards do not want to think about that.  All professional educators are certified by the state, not the local board. 

More controversial to me is the general diffusion and efficiency requirement.  If a school system is able to demonstrate that certified teachers have spread knowledge to every child have we met the constitutional requirement?  Not anymore.  Now, to verify the veracity of our general diffusion of knowledge we must produce evidence the reception of that general diffusion via a high stakes standardized test.  There is a vast difference in the requirement to spread and the requirement to receive.  Some seeds land on fertile ground, some seeds land on rock, but in Texas all seeds must take root and grow and the responsibility is on the schools, the superintendent, the principals, and the teachers.  In other words, from my humble point of view, a high stakes standardized test that measures the outcomes of learning for the purpose of judging schools is unconstitutional.  All the constitution requires is the shipping of knowledge, not the receipt. 

Further, in what ways can a Legislature justify the creation of charter schools while honoring the mandate to support and maintain public schools in an efficient way?  Charter schools are run by agencies other than public school systems.  They are run by private sector folks under the guise of providing parents “choice” in public schools.  Using a neat intellectual trick, the Legislature has deemed these privately run schools “public schools” so that they are perceived to be legal and eligible to be supported by tax dollars.  In reality, every time a charter school is funded money is redirected from public schools to the charter school.  That is not efficient.  Nowhere in the constitution is there a requirement to provide choice in public education any more than there is a requirement to provide choice in tap water, law enforcement, and road maintenance.  Most amazing to me is that the very Legislators who annually consider requiring small school systems to consolidate for the purpose of efficiency are the very ones who support the creation of smaller charter schools running parallel to the public schools.  In other words, in my humble opinion, funding charter schools is unconstitutional.

Other items are blatantly missing in our constitutional requirements of public schools.  Nowhere in the constitution, nor in state law, is there a requirement to provide an athletic program.  We are required to diffuse knowledge regarding the core curriculum, physical health, provide physical activity, fine arts instruction, etc., but we are not required to provide a winning football team performing in a state of the art football stadium.  All of that is above and beyond constitutional requirements.  Because athletic programs are so important to some parents and because athletic programs have demonstrated that low performing kids are more motivated to remain in school and perform better, I believe having an athletic program is important.  I do not believe it is constitutionally required, nor do I believe funding of such a program should take precedence over the academic or general diffusion of knowledge program.  Like charter schools, every dollar we spend on athletics is a dollar diverted from the classroom and the teachers who work therein.  That really bothers me.  Athletics may be the “face” of a public school system, a face that somehow annually requires additional face-lifting, but athletics is not the heart of the public school systems.  The heart is teaching for learning.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Legislature should define what is taught and how it should be measured.  The state Legislature has decided that it is appropriate for them to define what is to be learned.  They do so in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, the TEKS, (and for those of you with a shortage of learning in phonetics, that is pronounced “Tex.”  Get it?)  The TEKS are the Texas version of the national common core.  In Texas we hate the common core and love the TEKS.  Go figure. 

The Legislature has also decided that schools have value only if their students demonstrate mastery of the TEKS, and the way to do that is via a high stakes testing system called STAAR.  There is so much wrong with this philosophy it is hard to know where to begin.  For brevity, (not my strong suit) I shall say that holding kids, teachers, principals, and superintendents accountable on such a test is akin to holding oncologists and plastic surgeons equally accountable for patient survival rates.  We have a responsibility as professional educators to do all that we can to ensure student learning.  However, I would argue we cannot learn for our students, we cannot take the test for our students, and the test does less to measure learning than it does to make the test manufacturer (Pearson) very rich.

Worst of all is that when the state writes the TEKS they do not tell us what those TEKS really mean, and when they develop the STAAR test they keep it a secret.  This works as a “Got cha” system, not a system of support.

Other embedded state oxymorons for me are the notions that public school systems are required by law to form groups of teachers, parents, business and community members who will collaborate with and advise the administration on a host of issues that will become policy, procedures and funding.  Such a collaborative requirement is not required of the Legislature.  I love it: a mandate to be open and collaborative in decision making from a group who refuses to do the same.  The local board is legally required however to ensure that the superintendent has such a collaborative group in place that functions in this capacity.  The state is looking for ways to up the requirements to be a teacher at the same time they have not touched the requirements to be a school board member, or to be a legislator writing school policy.  The state has a one-size-fits-all mentality in that districts are held accountable for the percentage of kids designated as special education, the percentage of kids by race sent to disciplinary alternative schools, the percentage of kids who receive a different test based on the abilities and handicapping condition of the kid, etc., etc.  This love of statistics for the purpose of judgment is not applied to legislators. 

In short, when it comes to the funding of charter schools, the mandated high stakes standardized tests, and a host of accountability requirements I believe the Legislature is operating in ways that are unconstitutional.  I am as likely to value Legislative mandates regarding public schools as I am to value an atheist’s recommendation on how to improve my church.  I will not break the law, but I do not have to value such idiocies.

So, what am I to do when I write my philosophy of public school leadership?  Shall I say my job is to improve student outcomes as measured on a test of state defined curricula and create a winning football team?  Such a statement will likely get me hired.  Or, shall I say that what the state requires professionally speaking is wrong, and shall I say what I know from professional practice and research to be accurate? 

So, this is what I say, best described in bullets:

• All kids do learn.  Our job is to determine and provide the learning that is important to us.
• Learning best occurs in a classroom where a dedicated, caring, committed professional educator is working with small numbers of kids.  There are no magic bullets, no guarantees of success via hardware, software, paper, books, strategies, etc.  As every kid is different so is every teacher.
• Committing our resources first and foremost to teachers and classrooms supports keeping the main thing the main thing.  We must listen to teachers.
• Schools, school systems and communities should be organized to support teachers and instruction.  Increasing accountability does not improve instruction or learning.  There must be accountability, but it must be using models other than ones prescribed by the state.  Threatening teachers, creating a climate of fear or disrespect of the profession does not improve instruction or learning.  Mandating that scores improve is not only unprofessional, it is unethical.
• Collaborative decision making in a climate of mutual trust and respect will always be more powerful than top down mandates. 
• The role of school leadership is to create a climate of support, collaboration, and mission driven instruction.  School administrators should no more micro-manage teachers than superintendents should micro-manage principals, than school boards should micro-manage superintendents or than Legislature should micro manage school systems.  No Legislature, School Board, superintendent or principal can possibly know that needs and challenges present in every classroom.  Without an arena of trust we will not be able to improve instruction.  If we do not promote leadership in each classroom we are promoting the automization of instruction, which we know does not work for diverse student bodies.
• Degreed, certified, professional educators are always more likely to know what should be done and how it should be done to most help and support kids than lay people, including parents and elected officials.
• The true role of leadership in a learning organization is to collaboratively define where “West” is and keep the herd moving “Roughly West.”  (Will Rogers)  Leaders do the right things, managers do things right.  Leadership and compliance are antonyms.
•  We cannot promote the freedom, liberties and rights of the people via a public education system dictated by central mandates and accountability.  Such thinking is counter intuitive and illogical.

OK, those are the key elements of my philosophy.  Would you hire me?