The controversy over the federal "No Child Left Behind" act (NCLB) has put California discussion over public education back where it was in 2001, before NCLB. That dismal situation was described in a 2001 publication of the Policy Analysis for California Education group:
"The connections between resources and outcomes remain obscure: real spending per pupil has increased steadily without any obvious effect on learning, reform efforts often cost more without any corollary effects, and there is a great deal of evidence that additional resources do not have substantial effects on learning except under special conditions."*
Let's look at the issue of class size. Studies have demonstrated that reducing class size (currently at 33 students per class) does not increase learning until class size is reduced to 10-12 students. In other words, learning does not increase until class size is small enough to permit tutorial instruction for each student. Such class size reduction is beyond the financial capabilities of California. It would require more than doubling the physical plant and instructional funding, just to deal with current enrollments; so reducing class size is out as a way to increase learning.
Another issue concerns instructional time. Studies comparing American public education to public education in other nations have shown that the two most important factors in explaining student achievement are (1) the number of hours of instruction a year, and (2) the number of hours of homework outside the instructional classroom. Students in Japan, for instance, attend school for more hours and do more homework, with the result that they obtain more learning. For schools to increase instructional time, we are again talking about enormous increases in educational funding.
We should assume that increasing educational accomplishment, or just meeting the original NCLB goals, cannot be accomplished within California's current paradigm for public education. Charter schools are an attempt to extend the paradigm, but it is too early to tell whether they will be successful in a large way.
I described networks as the fabric of the healthy community. Of the primary concerns of community, education is conspicuous by not having a major networking component. Private, informal, learning networks could supplement classroom instruction by providing homework supervision and learning assistance after school in private homes.
Networks would substitute for proposed government-funded after-school programs at the schools themselves. While such programs have an appeal, they would require an enormous investment and, like all government programs, once they are in place they are difficult to change or to terminate.
The primary need for private learning networks would be coordination between the classroom teacher and the network. Most schools have already taken a step toward such coordination with school websites. Websites for teachers and classes provide assignments and resources. These would be open to networks as to anyone else. Successful learning networks would immediately be evident in student achievement.
* W. Norton Grubb and Luis A. Huerta, "Straw Into Gold,Resources Into Results: Spinning Out the Implications of the 'New' School Finance," Policy Analysis of Education [University of California, Berkeley], Research Series 01-1, April 2001. Accessed October 24, 2004.
Recent Comments