Ed Research and Relevance

Educational researchers are increasingly being forced to answer the question: what do we do now? Proponents of the scientific theory movement, have no choice but to in some way embrace more qualitative approaches to inquiry. The resulting pluralism (big tent solution to education inquiry) seems to serve a dual purpose: satisfy the various intellectual camps deeply entrenched in the institutionalized educational research field, and serve as an indicator of the complexity of inquiry in education—perhaps more as an externality than by intention.

To the first point, this big tent solution requires educational researchers to support “proposals with contradictory goals in an effort to garner broad-based support and build winning coalitions,” (Donmoyer, 1999, p.31). For a field battling illegitimacy in the eyes of many scholars of the hard sciences and struggling to adopt a defined methodology for the purpose of establishing a knowledge base, the big tent is a convenient compromise. It appears to placate both camps, suggesting there is room enough for all. In doing so, researchers no longer have to debate the validity either method over the other establishing, instead, a “winning coalition” (Donmoyer, 1999, p.31) thereby expanding the knowledge base in one broad stroke. This thinking, however, does not advance the field’s understanding the definition of knowledge. On the contrary, it merely serves to exasperate the perception of illegitimacy haunting the field in the first place. The primary issue is that the big tent is viewed as a possible end—the solution to the quest. If this is the case, educational research falls into an abyss of irrelevancy.

As bleak a picture as this analysis paints, there is a second, perhaps unintended purpose for the big tent concept—it serves to underscore the complexity of inquiry in education. That is, the perceived need for a big tent (or pluralism at all) expresses the very real need for continued debate. The true value of the big tent concept is not, therefore, in the placation of competing intellectual camps, but rather in the subsequent increased participation in the establishment of a knowledge base. In this way, the big tent solution is simply a round table discussion rather than the end of the search for acceptable methodology. The field of education and the supporting role research should play in that field is served well by a protracted debate. For scholars to assume that quantitative methods of inquiry in education can deliver concrete insight into the governing dynamics of human constructs not only disregards the complexity of human behavior but this assumption may also be dangerous. On the other hand, for scholars to disregard the notion that there may be governing dynamics inherent in human constructs (particularly within given contexts) is to also disregard the complexity of human behavior and may very well be equally as dangerous. A continued healthy spirit of discontent in the field of educational research forces the scholars and practitioners to be open to continued understanding of human behavior. The key to success in such discourse is in the academy’s willingness to continually and openly debate methodology for the purpose of finding a solution. Competing schools of thought are necessary provided the scholars within are not so entrenched that they are unwilling to shift from one to the other given new understandings. A new definition of the big tent must therefore be realized. Rather than suggesting that all methods have legitimacy, scholars must agree that all methods have a legitimate seat at the round table. Educational researchers and practitioners alike must continue to debate methodology and understand that protracted debate in the field is beneficial in the long run.

REFERENCES
Culbertson, J.A. (1999). A century’s quest for a knowledge base. In J. Murphy & K.S. Louis (Eds.). Handbook of research on educational administration: A project of the American Educational Research Association, (2nd ed.). (pp. 3-25). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Donmoyer, R. (1999). The continuing quest for a knowledge base: 1976-1998. In J. Murphy & K.S. Louis (Eds.). Handbook of research on educational administration: A project of the American Educational Research Association, (2nd ed.). (pp. 25-44). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

On the Expectation of Return

There is an ongoing discussion about the degree to which the educational system is a financial investment complete with the expectation of a financial return. Ignoring the rate of return on the utility benefits of education, is it possible to use an economic consumption-good model for educational accountability systems - or, at least as a part of a larger system of accountability?

There are studies out there (I'll be happy to cite if anyone is so interested) that demonstrate correlations between dollars spent and dollars gained. These pseudo cost-benefit analyses of educational programs produce fodder for tracking specific economic returns in education. Understandably, these studies make sure to point out that correlation does not necessarily represent causality; however, these correlations should be used to help us understand education's effectiveness... right?

Given that research can now differentiate (to some degree) between financial return on specific compulsory educational programs and levels of education, the next potential step is the integration of this research into accountability. Would financial return comparisons of schools in like communities, or even schools within the same district, yield insight into how we should spend tax dollars? Some would suggest that an increased understanding of, and reliance on, the financial value of schools might positively increase community involvement, ownership, and educational efficiency. There is some merit to the argument that scores such as novice or proficient (or even "A+" or "B-") on writing tests and portfolio assessments are nebulous and disconnected to anything the paying public respects. Financial cost-benefit analyses can, on the other hand, be concretely connected to something the public respects - their tax dollars.

I think it is inherently good that tax payers begin to own the education system within the community. The question is, how do you integrate this consumer sovereignty concept into the current social system? Of course, I am working from the position that consumer sovereignty in education is necessary at all. What do you think?

Centralization v. Efficiency

In an attempt to create equity, Kentucky has (as have many other states) adopted a state per pupil funding calculation. The goal is to ensure that each student receives at least the (as decided by the state) minimum amount of funding for their education. The idea being that the quality of one’s education should not be dictated by the area in which one grows up. The lack of local funds, in many communities, dictated the poor quality of local schools. With the aid of state funds, local schools now have a guaranteed base amount of per pupil revenue to spend thus creating equity (according to this particular definition of the word). So, in the state of Kentucky for example, roughly 20 percent of rural districts’ funding comes from local revenue, while 66 percent comes from the state and 13 percent from the federal government.

Here’s the catch – centralization breeds a lack of accountability and concomitant inefficiency.

Why is it that many private schools are able to do considerably more with considerably less? I would argue it is because of accountability. Now, I’m not suggesting that the clientele is comparable; however, the fact remains that where there is an understood vested financial interest stakeholders will seek transparency and steer away from apathy. That is, they will (and do in the free market) want to know how their money is being spent and remain proactive in the pursuit of efficiency.

The idea of a common school system is in contrast to an efficient school system—we cannot have it both ways. If we seek to have uniformity in education (or as some may argue, equity) then we must sacrifice efficiency in education. If we sacrifice efficiency then we will continue to drive down the quality of the product, all the while consuming more and more resources in the process.

The solution, as far as I can tell, is to move back toward local control of schools. However, the pendulum need not swing too far to the right (i.e., total private market education). Rather, solutions such as open districting, school choice, voucher systems, and charter schools are all viable concepts. The common thread is consumer choice. And choice breeds competition, accountability, and efficiency.

Capacity?

In conversation after conversation with educator after educator I hear a common theme – capacity, or the lack thereof. Local systems, building administrators, teachers and staff all share the feeling of inadequacy. Not as though the system and all the individuals within it are incompetent; rather, the struggle to overcome the affective needs of the population we serve has become nearly insurmountable. We are falling farther and farther behind in our attempt to usurp the negative effects of our own culture.

OK, so where did this come from? First, let me say that I have been more than out of pocket as of late (sorry Nate, and you did not kill the blog – I did) for a myriad of reasons. I have become extremely overwhelmed this semester to say the least. But, as I wrap up the year and reflect, I feel that a portion of my weariness comes from an ever-looming feeling that we (as a system) are losing the battle. That is, I am understating more fully the extent to which I am required, as a part of my unspoken job description, to manage the affective needs (or at least minimize them) of my students so that they can learn the standards. And the fact is, we are simply not capable of overcoming these needs.

Just tonight, as I spoke with a 4th grade teacher, I was confronted with the brutal facts once again. She has a student with so much pent up rage that he is virtually unmanageable in the classroom. This child watched his mother and father as they were dragged to jail for dealing drugs out of the home. This child, who has never seen what functional families look like, has a bitterness toward the school for calling social services. Are we (the school system) designed to handle this?

I say no.

I also say we don’t have a choice. It is not this child’s fault, but it is our problem. I just wish I could manufacture capacity… for teachers and the system.

Choice

Choice and the resulting competition inherent therein is a central concept of a growing school reform movement. Does this combination have positive impacts on school performance? Does this reform movement create inequity for stakeholders? Do all stakeholders have the same choices? Will inequity drive innovation? That is, will the lack of choice create a “market” for a better product? Must, or should, school choice be coupled with merit based pay for teachers?

These are a few questions I have been pondering and I feel this elephant requires a few nibbles at a time. So here goes.

The concept of choice is fundamental in our society. It motivates innovation and inspires greatness. Choice is hope. The school choice movement seeks to afford to all families that which is currently utilized primarily by people of means. Families with resources can place their children in the schools they feel will best meet their child’s needs. People without means place their children in the schools assigned them through zoning. So why not offer vouchers?

According to the NEA, the voucher system is detrimental to student achievement. However, according to a comparative study from 2001-02 and 2005-06 by Dr. Greg Foster of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, the voucher system in Florida motivated a substantial increase in student achievement. In fact, during the 02-05 years when vouchers were removed, student achievement declined.

There is also the argument of de facto segregation. Opponents of the voucher system claim that such a system encourages economic, racial, ethnic, and religious stratification in our society. Because there is limited space available and students must compete for a seat in private schools, those students who are the most articulate, most informed, and least in need of improving their lot tend to be favored. So what is the answer?

My argument is more choice! Econ 101 explains that where there is high demand, supply will eventually rise. These schools with limited seating will reap the benefits of government monies and that is incentive. More demand, more choice.

For my final thought (in round one), I pose the question: how does parental choice deliver rigorous standards and accountability, while centralized control of American education does not? The answers lay in the convoluted web of politics. Politicians want the appearance of rigor and accountability. Schools and teachers fight the inaccuracy and inappropriateness of said accountability. All the while the local community is silenced. The reality is that the local community has a much greater vested interest in the performance of their school and, therefore, will often demand greater rigor and accountability. The difference is in proximity.

This is, by far, a cursory discussion of the issues surrounding school choice. But the ball is rolling so let us see where it takes us. Comments?