Along these same lines having children is an incredible responsibility. No one knows this more than you and we all agree on the importance of a quality education. So, if you want to buy a home and you have children, you most likely are concerned with schools.

And even without children, buying a house in a school district known for providing quality education can make a difference in your home’s perceived value.

How does someone go about finding the best options in schools?

At this point some people will tell you to ask your real estate agent. Even though I was a real estate broker and sales person I wouldn’t recommend it. Why? Real estate agents know they can’t possibly keep up to date with every last detail about local schools. They are licensed to sell you a house. Selling homes is their expertise. For determining the quality of schools, it is important to do your own research.

Fortunately, there is a lot more public information available than 20 years ago or even 10 years ago. But before you start looking, determine your priorities and preferences first.

Here are some questions to ponder. How important is it to be close to your child’s school? This can vary greatly depending your family dynamics.

Is your child going to attend public school or do you intend to send them to a private or religious school?

In addition, school options can also include other types of schools. There are themed alternative schools in addition to hybrids of private and public enterprise, charter schools. There are magnet schools and there are some school districts that allow you to send your children to any school you select. Some families choose to home school their children. Most likely you already have some options in mind.

In a word, when looking for information the obvious place to begin is the internet. It is incredible what you can find out these days. For instance, a site called Great Schools provides simple steps to get information about schools throughout the entire United States.

In short, one would enter an address of a prospective home to receive names of nearest pre-schools, public elementary schools, public middle schools, and public high schools. It offers charter schools sorted by closest to farthest away. In addition, it also includes a complete list of private schools. All this information is available by simply searching with the term “local schools” on the particular site.

Searching on the internet is merely the first step. But if you want to be thorough, there is no better way than to put on your hiking boots and head over to a school and check it out for yourself. Potential home buyers who plan a face to face meeting will benefit.

Likewise, call the office ahead of time and make an appointment to talk to the principal. Ask questions. Call the school district. You can discuss what you are seeking specifically based on your son or daughter’s individuality and inquire into the educational performance records. What is an individual school’s track record in test scores and do they provide orchestra, drama clubs, and sport teams. If your child has special needs ask how the school district accommodates those issues.

Naturally, I have discussed several ways in this article to search out school information when you are going to buy a home. But I still have one more idea and I think it is the most important. Word of mouth. The most qualified critics for schools are the parents who actually send their children to these schools. Local PTA organizations, babysitting coops, and sport teams are just a few ways to find parents to compare notes with.

Accordingly, if you already live in the area you intend to buy a home in you may already know the answers to many of these questions. If you are relocating to a different state where everything is new, take heart. One way to meet other moms or dads is through your real estate person. After all, your Realtor may be your only connection to a new community.

Again, when buying a house, schools are deserving of substantial consideration whether you have children or not. If you have children first determine your preferred choices. Then search out the school information using the internet, speaking with school officials, calling the school district, and most importantly asking the best critics of all, other parents.

Pros
Future Needs: The use of computers and an understanding of how to use the Internet are already critical to modern society today in manifest directions. These include, the work environment, information gathering for work orpleasure, shopping, communications etc. and if true today, how much moretomorrow. The Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment predicts thatthe computer industry will continue to show the greatest growth of any industry in the USA. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), more than half of all workers used a computer on the job in September 2001. And nearly three-fourths of those workers connected to the Internet or used e-mail.

Early Skills Acquisition: As with all fundamental skills, the earlier the education system allows students to become familiar with technology the greater will be their depth of understanding and effectiveness in using it. It is immaterial to argue that skills acquired today by a five year old will not be relevant later in life because technology will develop beyond comprehension. This is because skills acquired can focus on an understanding of what computers can do rather than just how to interact with today’s computers. In addition, once the initial ground work has been obtained the potential for adaptation to a dynamic system can be incrementally updated in the same way as adults have to adapt to new technology.

Personalization: Computer based content allows a level of individual engagement and interactivity that comparative learning systems fail to deliver. By its nature learning with the computer is a one-on-one experience or at worst, small groups. This alleviates the paradigm of large classes with minimal personal intervention.

Learning Levels: Computers allow users to individualize their speed of attainment to suite their personal needs and capabilities. The speedy are not held back and those that need greater repetition are not passed over. Additionally special groupings can be more easily and effectively catered for.

Wide Distribution of Quality Teaching: Computer based learning allows the maximum effectiveness and distribution of the best quality teaching and content. A great teacher is not limited by the classroom but can reach out across the Internet to thousands either through building digital lessons or distance learning software and programs. Most distance learning systems today can be configured as live broadcasts with high levels of interactivity with the teacher. Now, here are the equally strong arguments against.

Con’s
Accessibility and Suitability: If an individual does not have access to a computer or does not understand the content through a language deficiency or cultural differences, they will be relegated to the digitally divided, 44 million at the last count just in the USA according to Professor Howard Besser, The Next Digital Divides.

Interfering with Natural Development: Young children should be utilizingtheir natural propensity for physically based activity rather than be ‘stuck’ infront of a computer. They already spend damaging amounts of time glued to televisions, as researchers have discovered, that impairs development. Our children, the Surgeon General warns, are the most sedentary generation ever.

Lack of Depth: Computer based content is a long way from offering the depth, flexibility and tried and tested results that a trained, dedicated and experienced teacher can offer children. In addition, the interaction with a sophisticated adult allows critical advanced vocabulary and personalization skills.

Quality of Content: Most digital content is overly simplistic in its structure. For example, a sum can only be wrong or right. The content will not explain to the student why the sum was wrong. A real teacher will mark a piece of work and offer the essential logic reasoning for the decision that will enable the student to gain a fundamental understanding of the system behind what constitutes correct/incorrect.

Health Hazards: Computers pose health hazards to children. The risks include repetitive stress injuries, eyestrain, obesity, social isolation, and, forsome, long-term physical, emotional, or intellectual developmental damage.

Safety: Children must be protected from the dangers of the Internet, stalkers, adult content, hate and violence. Filtering software is notoriously inefficient.

By no means am I attempting to articulate all the arguments or cover them inreal depth but just to raise some of the issues we all face. In my opinion both the Pros and Cons are very strong arguments all of which need serious consideration and answers.

Now to put this in to an importance perspective, digital technology is invading virtually every aspect of modern society and its impact is becoming fundamental to how we work, play and learn. Technology within education also has a huge role to play but its’ effectiveness and impact has not been studied in the depth and breadth that such a fundamental development requires.

In the work environment, mistakes in the use of technology are paid for inmonetary terms. How much less can we afford to make mistakes with introducing technology to our children, mistakes made here cost far more than damaged business, with education we are talking damaged lives. At the moment we just seem to be ‘throwing’ computers and the Internet at teachers and children, as I state above, without any real understanding of what we are actually doing to the children or should I call them ‘guinea pigs’.

The logic seems to be, at least on the governmental level, that we cannot afford for the coming generation not to be computer enabled, as this ability will be critical for a country to be economically competitive. In fact every country is being driven to ensure it’s digital competitiveness. At a governmental level this logic is difficult to fault but it is our job as educators and parents to ensure thatthe effectiveness of the headlong plunge is in the best interests of all the children.

My opinion is that large-scale research in to the issues needs to be carried out. Not on the scale of a few dozen subjects over weeks as many examples of current research do, but thousands or even tens of thousands of subjects over years.

These subjects need to be from 2 years to 8 years old. They need to bewidely dispersed geographically. Come from all levels of the social andattainment spectrum. In fact technology and the Internet is a perfect platform to carry out this type of research. I founded the Internet based Kindersite Project to enable researchers to accomplish this type of wide-scale program.

I believe that only significant research that studies thousands of subjectchildren over a long-term, years probably, will allow the educational community to really gain full and meaningful answers to the questions such as:

Does the early introduction of digital content positively or negatively affectyoung children?
What should be the parameters of the introduction (if any)?
What content types should be employed within the introductory process?
What constitutes ‘good’ or ‘bad’ content and why?
What parameters define ‘good’ or ‘bad’ content?
As a result of sustained and profound research, guidelines should be drawn. These guidelines should offer teachers and parents tried and tested parameters for the use of computers for their children at each age level. It should include areas such as; how long should a child use a computer over a period, maximum and minimum attainment levels to be expected for each age group based on set proficiency standards, how digital content should be integrated in to standard lesson plans in a similar way that other media isused.

Most importantly, set standards for educational content providers must be laid down that they must adhere to if they wish to produce educational content utilizable by educationalists.

In addition all young childrens’ content, educational or leisure should be labeled with its appropriateness for each age group. These standards should be defined by the research.

In conclusion, it is fairly obvious that computer based educational content is becoming a feature of schools, whether we like it or not. In the home we see increasing evidence that even the smallest children are gaining access to computers either with parents or through watching older siblings. It is unreasonable to expect to turn back the clock and bar children below a certain age from computers, this is unenforceable and ineffective.

It is our duty to ensure that clear usage standards are set, content guidelines are drawn and sites rated at a governmental level so that children, parents, caregivers and educators have a clear and safe basis for using computers and the Internet with their charges. Anything less is an abrogation of all our responsibility.

Canadian prep schools offer high school students a unique experience. Approximately six percent of all students in Canada attend prep school. In prep school, your child will get exposure to a wide variety of programs designed to make him or her a well rounded person. Prep schools traditionally have a strong academic and athletic focus, as well as providing opportunities for cultural and leadership activities. If you are considering prep school for your child, you should carefully evaluate the pros and cons of your decision.

Private School Advantages

Academics – Private schools are sought out by parents because of their rigorous academic programs. Statistically speaking, more students from prep schools attend college and earn high marks on their college entrance exams than those from private school. There are a wide range of choices including International and French Baccalaureates, Advanced Placement and British O and A levels. There are traditional British style prep schools, Christian schools, Montessori schools and Waldorf schools, as well as liberal education schools with specific educational philosophies.

Athletics – Most prep schools require participation on an athletic team in order to attend the school. Prep schools give a lot of support to their athletic teams and they often have a wider variety of sports than public schools, like diving or golf.

Language development – Most Canadian prep schools offer extensive training in English, French and other languages. Some require that students be proficient in at least two languages in order to graduate. The language training at prep school goes above and beyond what is experienced at public schools.

Low student to teacher ratio – Small class sizes mean that your child gets more attention from his or her teachers. Teacher and student interaction is a vital part of the learning experience. In prep school, your child’s teachers will know him or her very well and are able to keep students on track with their studies.

Parental involvement – Since parents are the “customers” of prep school, they are highly involved in the lives of their children and the school. Parents participate in school wide events and other activities. Unlike in public school, where vocal parents are sometimes seen as a nuisance, private school administrators welcome parent feedback.

Private School Disadvantages

Cost- This is by far the biggest deterrent to private prep school. Prep school can cost $10,000 to $28,000 per year. This cost can be increased if you choose a private boarding school. These schools are a major financial commitment and this should be the biggest factor in your decision.

High pressure – The academic pressures of prep school can be a lot for a teenager to handle. The increased homework load and high expectations from students can create a high pressure environment. If your student isn’t used to college preparatory classes, he or she may have trouble adapting to the more rigorous curriculum.

Keeping up with classmates – In prep school, your student may be exposed to a completely different social class than the one they are used to. The spending limits and lifestyles of their extremely wealthy classmates may provide extra pressure on them to fit in. Your student may want to spend extra money on clothes and activities to keep up with the rest of the class.

Fundraising – Even though private schools are funded by parents, there’s no shortage of fundraisers to sponsor various extracurricular activities or new building projects at the school. Expect to be invited to many dinners and events where are expected to fork over donations.

The largest high schools in California are mostly located in Los Angeles.

California has a total number of 13,014 schools and out of this there are 2079 high schools.
1. Belmont Senior High School is the largest high school in California due to the heavy population of Westlake district. It has total enrollees of 5,336 in 2006. It is located in downtown Los Angeles and caters to students from grades 9 to 12. It was established in September 11, 1923 and is now led by Gary Yoshinobu as their District Principal. Team members represent the school as Sentinels. Heavy enrollment will soon be distributed to another center, the Belmont Learning Center now known as Vista Hermosa Learning Center.

2. Theodore Roosevelt Senior High School is the second largest school in California with a total number of 5,126 students and 220 full time teachers. A regular school that belongs to the Los Angeles unified district, which caters to grades 9-12 and a teacher student ratio of 1:23. Ethnicity is composed of Asians, American Indians, Non-Hispanics, Hispanics, and the Whites. As of date, the school is populated the most with Hispanics.

3. Long Beach Polytechnic High School is the third largest school in California. It is located in Long Beach. It accommodates high school students from not only Long Beach but also Bixby Knolls, Signal Hill and Lakewood. It was founded in 1895 and was formerly known as Long Beach High School and now more popularly known as Poly it belongs to the Long Beach Unified District. It is populated with more than 5000 students. This school is not only geared towards the academics but also in athletics because of which Sports Illustrated Magazine named it as “Sports School of the Century” in 2005. It has also won multiple Grammy awards for its music program. Famous alumni include Snoop Dogg, Tony Gwynn, Billie Jean King, and Cameron Diaz.

4. James A. Garfield Senior High School is the fourth largest high school in California. It caters to grades 9-12 with a total of 4569 students.

5. John H. Francis Polytechnic High School is the fifth largest high school in California. It is a comprehensive school from the Los Angeles Unified District, which is located in the Sun Valley of Los Angeles. It was founded in the 1900′s and a known rival of North Hollywood High School. It has a parrot mascot named Joe Poly.

6. John Marshall Senior High School is the sixth largest high school in California. It is a public school, which caters to students in grades 9-12 and has a total population of 4561 students. It was founded in 1931, named after the Great Chief Justice John Marshall who built the American system of constitutional law. The motto of the school is veritas vincit or truth conquers. Students are known as barristers since the school’s mascot is Johnny Barrister. Recently, it launched programs to help supply school funds one of which is Parent Involvement. This mandate indicates that parents are required to actively participate in planning and evaluation of school budgets and programs.

7. Bell High School is the home of the mighty eagles and is the seventh largest high school in California. It is another member of Los Angeles Unified District, which caters to students in grades 9-12. It was founded in 1925 and has 4778 number of students as of the last survey.

8. Los Angeles Senior High School is the eight largest high schools in California. It’s a public school, which caters to students in grades 9-12 and has a population of 4405 students.

9. James Monroe High is the ninth largest high school in California. It is also under the Los Angeles Unified District. It is popular for its small learning communities and magnet schools. It was founded in 1958 and it located in North Hills California.

10. Wilson High School, the tenth largest high school in California is another member of the Los Angeles Unified District, which was established in 1937. Popularly known as Woodrow Wilson High School, it is a public school, which includes students in grades 9-12. It is open to students from Hillside Village, El Sereno, and University Hills, plus City Terrace and Ramona Gardens. It has a population of 3000 students with a Seymour mascot called Mule.

A civilized student revolution is the place to start.  

As the quality of our public schools and Universities plunge, the academic morons chant endlessly the three big lies; that the problem is the government doesn’t provide enough money, classes are too large and, of course, the really big problem is the parents! They say if lazy parents would just teach their unruly children a little respect and discipline they would behave in school – riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

 Most of you will probably agree that you can get away with a lot more at school than you can at home. If the blame can be laid at the feet of the parents it is only because they have allowed the schools to usurp their parental responsibility. Mychal Massie agreed that parents need to step up and take a larger role in managing their children’s education when he said, “Not every public school is bad, and not every private school is good. I agree that, thanks to Jimmy Carter’s creation of the Department of Education, we now have commissioned centers of agitprop, i.e., government schools that have taught state-sponsored liberalism and misinformation for nearly four decades. I still argue that this only takes place because parents have abdicated their responsibility for the education of their children.” Amen.

In good faith, most parents have assumed the schools were in fact teaching their children the skills needed to go out into the world and function as responsible productive members of society. They believed in their hearts that the schools were teaching their children the same skills they were taught. Historically the foundation of K-12 education in the United States has been the three “Rs” – reading, writing and arithmetic (for this generation: that is an old tongue in cheek joke:  “reading, ‘riting & ‘rithmatic”). Unknown to most parents, these basics have been steadily supplanted in recent years with a “progressive curriculum” emphasizing social and political issues, with devastating results. The academic skills of the average American student has been seriously degraded. You students are the ones who have been shortchanged by the very people entrusted with your education.

Without a basic competency in reading, writing and ciphering it will be difficult for you to learn much of other subjects like geography, literature, political science, biology, or anything else, yet our schools continue to obsess on socio-political indoctrination at your expense. They have become propaganda mills rather than true centers of learning. They are much more interested in pushing their nanny-state political ideology and sexual values than teaching skills that will help you succeed in life. As American students continue a 40 year decline in academic achievement our schools continue to sacrifice real life skills on the altar of liberal ideology.

Outside of a few breakout schools providing exceptional schooling – schools producing students consistently ranking high internationally – the trend for several decades has been a decline in the scholastic ability of American students compared to foreign students. Our world ranking has dropped like a stone and yet we continue to graduate students lacking basic remedial skills.

American schools which once led the world have now fallen behind many third world institutions. Incredibly, the more time American students spend in public school the more they fall behind the rest of the world. As fourth graders, U.S. students rank in the top four or five countries in the world, but as they continue on through the system they fall farther and farther behind. By the time they graduate from high school their international ranking has dropped below another forty or fifty Countries. And this gap continues to widen right on into college.

The unabashed educational establishment has all but abolished teaching its charges the skills necessary to function as independent and productive members of society in favor socio-political indoctrination. Buzz words, talking points and sound-bites that promulgate liberal ideology have replaced the traditional curriculum.

Take “diversity”, the new uber-concept. The obsession with “diversity” is a perfect example of the institutional academic retardation rampant in today’s public education system. If you attended a public school during the last ten years or are presently a student at most universities then you have been programmed like Pavlov’s dogs to respond positively to this word. Teachers, professors, schools and universities boast endlessly of their commitment to “diversity”. And now after being captive since early childhood to these academic lemmings, you know in your heart that diversity is “good”, but is it always?

Look it up. Diversity literally means “different or varied”. It implies a range of differences. Is a range of differences always a good thing?  Or can it sometimes prove an obstacle to success? Have you ever heard that too many cooks spoil the broth?

A diversity of elements in a metal alloy can give added strength or flexibility. On the other hand a diversity of elements in a metal alloy can also lead to structural weakness or too much rigidity. Exactly what influence the diversity of elements has on the alloy depends on what those “diverse” elements are and how they interact with each other. Just the fact that the elements are “diverse” has little or no bearing at all on the quality of the alloy.

A diversity of opinions in a political forum may lead to a strong consensus as well as an ideological impasse. On other occasions it can lead to chaos or anarchy. A diversity of political opinion can be desirable or make it impossible to forge a cohesive effort – again, depending on the nature of the diversity of the elements involved.

I seem to remember an ancient story of a great tower being built that was halted after a great deal of construction due to the chaos caused by the many different languages spoken by the workers. Communication became so difficult the entire project was abandoned. Apparently a diversity of languages was not a plus in the Babel construction industry.

Try an experiment – hold a pencil with one hand firmly gripping each end. Bend it until it breaks – not too difficult, huh? Now bundle as many of the same uniform size as you can comfortably hold and try it again. This time it will not be so easy.  If your bundle is sufficient you probably will not able to break it. One pencil is easy to destroy, but many together are strong enough to withstand the effort to break them because there is strength in unity.

Now take it one step further and bundle up a couple different size pencils, a piece of celery, a straw, two red vines, a dog turd and a breadstick and try to break it. That is a pretty diverse bundle and yet you can probably break it easily – Not much strength in that diversity.

Next, bundle a couple of different sized pencils, a piece of hard rubber hose, a plastic ruler, an iron rod and a steel rod (roughly the same dimensions as the original pencil) and try to break it. You will probably be unsuccessful because there is more than sufficient strength in this diversity.

So diversity by itself is neither good nor bad. It is nothing more than the definition of a range of differences. Allow me to repeat that for students who have been brainwashed into believing diversity in and of itself is a panacea: Diversity by itself is neither good nor bad. It is nothing more than the description of a range of differences. It is what that diversity brings to the process that defines its value.

“E Pluribus Unum” is our National Motto. It was adopted by our Founding Fathers in August 1776. The translation of this Latin phrase is, “Out of many, One”.  It
describes an action of many uniting into one. This profound concept celebrates the value of diversity as a source of strength when used as a foundation to forge unity because there is strength in unity and as a Nation we need to be strong to survive. Remember – one pencil is easy, but many together are strong and hard to break.

This bastardization of “diversity” is only one of the many political agendas promulgated by an educational establishment apparently aimed at molding students into good little political drones instead of teaching them to think for themselves. Independent thought begets diversity. Our public schools and universities are anything but diversified. Progressive political groupthink is pervasive. “Diversity” to them, really means anything non-conservative. Try challenging your teachers to define “diversity”. Chances are, they will be unable to do so without using liberal talking points.

Surprisingly, the universities (our vaunted institutes of “higher learning”) easily outstrip the K-12 public schools in their groupthink bias. If you think the media is leftist, check out the political affiliations of college instructors. In many of our most acclaimed universities the staff is overwhelmingly liberal. In some cases entire departments are staffed by admitted leftists (by now some of you sheep are seething by my use of the term “leftist”. That is only because you have been conditioned to hear terms like “ultra right, right-wing nuts, religious far right”, etc. as accurate, but corresponding terms describing the left are generally described as hate speech by academia. You have been taught to get angry at such talk – are you?). The point is, you are being proselyted more than educated.

As public school students you have not been exposed to a diversity of ideas. Regardless of instructor claims to the contrary, the academic ivory towers regularly censor social and political comments that disagree with their political agenda. A few universities have even gone as far as setting aside “free speech” areas as the only place on campus where certain subjects can be discussed (these are generally located in areas not likely to get much exposure for the participants). Did you get that? If you disagree with their politics they won’t let you talk. Just recently a Professor at Central Connecticut State University called the campus police on a student who had fulfilled an assignment to discuss a “relevant issue in the media” because the student’s topic was gun violence on campus and he had the temerity to suggest that if students with legal concealed carry permits were allowed to carry guns on campus many of the mass attacks could be stopped earlier. That evening the police summoned him to their office, listed the guns he owned and asked where they were (legally locked in a safe at his home twenty miles away). Apparently the Professor had filed a complaint with the campus police, stating that his presentation had “frightened some of the students! She actually called the police on a student for discussing an idea.

Evidently, the timid Professor is so emotionally opposed to the Second Amendment she was willing to ignore the First Amendment to shut him up. Whatever your take on the Second Amendment is, take a minute tonight and read the First Amendment to our Constitution. Then tell me how our Universities have arrived at campus censorship except in designated areas? Do our purveyors of diversity actually think they can decide what you can say, when you can say it and where you can say it! What convoluted rationalization did they employ to come up with this policy?

It didn’t take much. I doubt if they have thought this unconstitutional policy through. They think so highly of themselves, they just know you dummies need to be told what to think and they are just the authorities to do it. Still, it is difficult to understand the immense pompous condescension of the educational establishment in modern times. A hundred years ago college educations were hard to come by and were enjoyed primarily by a tiny minority of the gifted or wealthy. To be a college professor in those days was quite an accomplishment. They were an elite cadre worthy of great respect, because only a relatively small segment of our population had the privilege of attending an institute of higher learning, let alone obtain a graduate degree. Fewer still were qualified to teach.

Today however, that is no longer the case. A college education is readily obtainable to most Americans. There are now millions of undergraduate degree holders and hundreds of thousands of citizens with Masters Degrees, Doctorates and their equivalents, yet our Professors still assume a delusional air of elitism and accomplishment as if they are more intelligent and accomplished than everybody else.

When your Professors pontificate try not to be too impressed. They may seem awfully smart to young students, but there is an old saying that should be kept in mind as you listen to their diatribes: “Them that can, do. Them that can’t, teach”.  There much truth in this. Think of it this way – would you rather go mountain climbing with someone who has real world experience or someone who has read a whole bunch of books about it?  Or would you rather fly with an experienced pilot or someone who has ‘studied’ flying for years, but never actually sat in a pilot’s seat?

Does your professor walk the walk as well as talk the talk? Does your Psychology Professor have a real viable private practice or do they just have one or two actual (student) clients? Has your Literature Instructor ever actually been published outside of the textbooks they authored (and force you to buy to pass their class)? How about your Journalism Professor – have they ever held a job in the real world practicing what they preach?  How many books have they sold to non-students? Have they ever regularly written for a newspaper or periodical? Has anybody outside of their classroom ever heard of them?

Does the person teaching you actually know by experience what it is like to function in the real world or simply tell others how to? If they do, count yourself fortunate. Academics often start their careers as student teachers and move on up within the hierarchy with limited experience outside the educational system. But, there is big difference in studying a subject and experiencing it – between thinking about what it might be like and actually having done it.

In too many cases the truth is these Bozos couldn’t make a living in the real world. That is not to say all of them are worthless posers. I can think, (as you probably can) of a handful in my life that were undeniably intelligent and inspiring. I have known great teachers that had a profound influence upon my life, but the fact is they were a minority. Today they are even fewer and farther in between – you don’t believe it? Try ‘Googling’ “unqualified teachers”, but you had better set aside some time because you are going to find numerous articles and studies from all across the Nation documenting the rampant incompetence among our public school teachers.

Our college and university instructors may be barely more proficient remedially than public school teachers, but they lack the ability to engage in real critical thinking. Like the dopey CCSU Professor, they feel deeply, but seem unable to think deeply. Their passions are conceptualized via buzz words and soundbites. More often than not our educational institutions are overwhelmingly staffed by ideological lemmings devoid of individual thought, but steeped in socialist groupthink, teachers who can’t pass their own tests and professors that have never worked in the real world. Yet you spend more hours per day with them than you do with your own family.

Who do you think cares more about your education – your family o
r your school? Your educators don’t. They are all about preserving their personal empire. Efforts to teach outside their ideological box are typically met by hostility from the ivory towers of academia. Those who disagree will find themselves censured or forced to leave and there isn’t much chance of significant change in the near future. The teachers unions are among the most powerful in the Country. They are the tails that wag our political dogs. Their political influence is undeniable and like everything else it is about their own personal power and money.  

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why the schools are so diligent at making sure you attend, but not so diligent about actually teaching you anything useful? They don’t seem to care if you if learn anything, but they damn well want you in attendance every day. Year after year they continue to promote students into higher and higher grades even though they can’t perform competently where they are – why?

Because our schools have become big business. Follow the money! They refuse to hold students too accountable lest too many become angry or discouraged and drop out of school. This prospect is horrifying, but not because they are concerned with the student’s ability to function productively in society – it’s about money. The government pays each school a specified amount of money, per student for each day attended. Got that? Every morning when you show up for roll call the school cash box chings another deposit. You are their golden goose. Without you they cannot support their cumbersome, overburdened system. That is why they want you there every day. They want the money.

That is also the reason for their vehement hatred of Home Schooling and Charter Schools. It is the basis of their opposition to school vouchers. They can’t stand any competition. Both Home Schoolers and Charter School students routinely outperform their public school counterparts. Public school student academic competence is embarrassing when juxtaposed with the non-public school students. It is not even a close contest. The public schools receive an obscene of amount taxpayer dollars, their unions and lobbyists wield incredible political influence and they enjoy the full support of the media, yet the majority hold a candle to Mom teaching across the kitchen table from an old book.

Even with all that money too many public schools are Dirty, violent, shabby facilities. They suffer with dilapidated buildings, old athletic equipment, not enough books, antiquated technology, unqualified teachers – but the Superintendents always seem to get their moolah. There are almost four dozen Superintendents in the State of California alone, who earn more money per year than the Vice President of the United States! Somehow they can’t quite figure out how to budget billions and billions of dollars well enough to make sure there are enough books to go around, but they can sure make certain they get their “vig” off each student that shows up for class. Did you catch that? Your Superintendent gets a portion of the daily stipend from the State for each student’s attendance. Some get as much as forty dollars per student per day. Multiply that by the number of students in your school district and you can understand their huge incomes. Your Superintendent wants you in class because he/she gets a “commission” on it! Every morning when you answer roll call another slice of taxpayer dollars gets added to the Super’s paycheck.

Your school maybe old and beat up, but you can bet your District Superintendent’s house is big, beautiful and up to date. Check it out!

If the posers who run our educational system really believe in it, why do so many teachers, administrators and politicians opt to put their children in private schools? Because they care deeply how their own children turn out. They understandably want the best for them. As for the rest of us?- public schools are just fine – as long as we show up and they get their money.

The administrators of our public schools know the score. They are perfectly aware that recipients of graduate degrees in education have GPAs and personal test score averages lower than most other graduate programs. Some are certainly the ‘best and brightest’, but unfortunately these may be the exceptions that prove the rule. Teachers and professors are more likely to be mediocre seekers of security and status in a non-threatening environment rather than shakers and movers willing to risk much to accomplish much.

This explains their pathological lack of creativity. It is why they parrot each other politically. Don’t be intimidated. Think independently and don’t be afraid to debate them. With a little preparation you can resist the groupthink and make up your own mind. A little knowledge will beat the hell out of a lot of propaganda. Don’t think it will be easy. They have the power. They will try to shut you up or make you go away. They want you to get in line and conform to their ideology. If you do think independently they will attempt to ridicule you into silence. That is their primary tool. But, if that doesn’t work they will try, as at CCSU, to enforce their will using the legal system.

Be strong. Argue with them when they indoctrinate. The last thing they want is to incorporate a diversity of thought – they have to be the authority. You see, if you think outside their socio-political box you may prove them wrong. Since their hubris is founded on their belief that you are not qualified to make your own decisions – they need to be right in order to keep their power over you. They will go to great lengths to maintain this delusion.

But, the winds of change are blowing. The toothpaste is out of the tube. The general public is universally unhappy with the state of our public schools. For now the educators retain a death lock on the politics of education, but that grip is losing its strength. The people are demanding accountability and change – real and effective change for the better. Every day more and more students abandon public education for Charter schools and home schooling. Others move to better districts. The pressure to provide school vouchers substantial enough to subsidize non-public education is increasing. The ability to freely choose between schools is another option being sought by parents across the Nation. All of which threaten the rotten-to-the-roots tyranny of the public school system. The pressure is building. Keep it up. A couple more good whiffs and the whole corrupt system is going to start coming come down.

They can obfuscate by blaming a lack of funds, class size or your parents, but the truth is these problems can be laid squarely at the feet of those we have trusted to educate us. They have more than enough money now. All they need is to budget responsibly by spending that money on the students and facilities – not the administration. Granted, smaller classes may be better and increased parental involvement is necessary. But the root of the problem is the politically driven agenda carried out by inept administrators and unqualified instructors bent on accumulating ever more money and power at your expense. Some of the very top schools in the Nation have overcrowded classrooms and are located in some of the poorest school districts, proving daily that although these issues need to be addressed they are not the cause of our public school demise. They are only red herrings employed to demand more money and increased power.

The good news is – change is coming. Parents are catching on and the pressure is building. Still, it will take a long, concerted effort to change this monopoly. Its proponents are deeply entrenched and will fight to the death to keep their status quo. They have the most powerful lobby in the Country. They have strong political support and media backing, but we can do it. Next time you go to the polls, ca
st your ballot on educational issues against anything supported by the educational establishment. Elect people to your school board from outside the system. Vote against captive politicians supporting the “educators”. Report unqualified teachers and administrators abusing their power. Tell your parents when they force their views on you and write your political representatives and demand a complete overhaul of our public schools and universities.

Most important, fight them from the inside. Don’t sit passively and allow them to peddle their socialist dogma and politically correct values. Stand up for your beliefs. Be firm in your convictions. Seek outside sources of information and know of what you speak. Pit your knowledge against their emotion. Don’t be contentious or resort to acrimony even when they do. Be honest, articulate and respectful, but don’t back down. If you stay calm while you disagree it will drive them crazy.

 Now be good students and go to school and argue with your teachers.

The Principal’s Role in Rural Schools

“Leadership is influence…[and] the ability to obtain followers.” (Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006, p. 569)

Principals of rural schools spend a large percentage of their time teaching cross-age, multi-grade students (Starr & White, 2008). As recent legislation and litigation continue to place more responsibility on the principal, site level responsibilities challenge the constant, increasing role of the administrator (Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006).

Most principals in rural schools get little in the way of administrative support, ancillary personnel, and ground staff (Starr & White, 2008). While principals in larger schools are able to delegate and share in management tasks, this is not a luxury afforded to their small rural counterparts (Starr & White, 2008). Regardless of the size of the school, principals still have a moral obligation to comply with federal and state standards. The ethical behavior of educators, write Rude & Whetstone (2008), is a driving force that ensures balance.

Statement of the Problem

A rural school district is classified as such in that all of the schools in that particular district are located in counties with a population density of fewer than 10 persons per square mile and was identified as rural by a governmental agency (Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006). Due in large part to declining enrollment, loss of resources, and loss of population, most school districts across America, rural schools and district are confronted and faced with continuous challenges (Patterson et al.., 2005). Additional barriers involve resistance to change, economic challenges, and geographic challenges (Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006).

Principals in rural school districts do not receive funding which assists in overcoming small-school challenges. The problems faced by rural school principals create additional leadership challenges which require the need for increased school personnel. Other problems faced by principals include (a) redefined principalship, (b) workload proliferation, (c) educational equity issues, (d) escalating role multiplicity, and (e) school survival (Starr & White, 2008).

Redefined principalship. School reforms have made a drastic impact on the way schools operate and the way principals are positioned. Principals see their main role as instructional leaders (Starr & White, 2008). Principals express concern over the bureaucratic interference, which changes the nature of their roles and the way in which they work (Starr & White, 2008). There is constant complaining that rural school principals have to do more with less (Starr & White, 2008).

“Principals feel dislocated and alienated from debates about education policy-making, whereas previously they felt more involved, connected, and integral to the business of making a difference and setting direction” (Starr & White, 2008, p. 5). There is an ongoing consensus that principals are marginalized and ignored by education bureaucracies. Many principals are not supported by the education system at either the state or federal level (Starr & White, 2008). It is vital, says Wright (2007), that policy makers, educational administrators, and local citizens understand that schools are vital to rural communities.

Further, rural principals feel that there is a sense that the system is not set up to assist them, but rather the system is there to mandate, appraise, control, admonish when expectations are not met (Starr & White, 2008). Principals believe that the system is unsupportive and detracts from the more important work—the system, they say, is a nuisance (Starr & White, 2008).

Workload proliferation. The biggest concern expressed by principals is the increased amount of mandatory administrative and compliance work arriving from district, state, and federal governments (Starr & White, 2008). In addition to their increased workload, principals are also in the classrooms teaching. Workload pressures, principals say, also steal time from family life. Principals express anger and frustration with the ever increasing workload in the following ways

I’m running the whole day… I find it very hard to close the door when someone wants to see me—because who else would they see?… It’s getting worse the longer I’m in the job. It’s very tiring… You just never stop… It’s just never-ending. I’m always busy. It’s the horrendous hours you put in to do things well…so it’s huge…You’ve still got to do it all the things you’ve got to do in bigger schools, but you’ve only got one day of administrative school services officer support, and by the time they ay the bills…and get stuff ready for the school council, what’s normally left…is left to you… I just put in the extra hours.

          (Starr & White, 2008, p. 4).

Principals as absorbed with the extra requirements of their existing work lives. They argue that they are too busy to engage with reforms, as the use of personnel time is valuable. Because principals are too busy coping with the everyday immediate needs of the school, they have no time to participate in politics (Starr & White, 2008).

Educational equity issues. Educational equity, according to Starr & White (2008), appears dependent on a principal’s ability to prepare a strong, convincing case utilizing standardized samples. Starr & White (2008) use the example of staffing for students with special needs being a submission-based exercise with strict criteria; therefore, there are fewer students qualifying for extra support.

Resources are “difficult to obtain despite increasing learning support needs as homogeneity decreases in some rural populations” (Starr & White, 2008, p. 5). Even if funding submissions are successful, there is more work to be done. Now suitable teachers have to be found and progress and final reports are required (Starr & White, 2008).

Escalating role multiplicity. Principals, according to Starr & White (2008), see their main role as instructional leader. Principals in small rural schools do not have assistant principals and unanimously complain about the lack of administrative support in undertaking increasing external demands (Starr & White, 2008). The breadth of the problem is stated in the following comments

There’s a feeling of great frustration amongst principals for the lack of support and care from the Department… I think we’re getting sick of trying to make do… Morale is terribly low for principals…the role is busier and more complex. I…work every night of the week. You work most Sundays… If it’s for the school you don’t mind, but if it’s for the Department you tend to put it off…otherwise you’d be working all of the time…You can’t take a day off. The work[load] has skyrocketed and resources have disappeared… There’s no time to do anything thoroughly… The Department’s on about outcomes and improvement, but how do they expect it’s going to happen? They’re making things worse. The support and money [from] the Department isn’t there now. The job satisfaction isn’t what it used to be. The demands are getting greater and greater… People are getting a lot more jaded than they used to…they’re getting run down. There’s too much expectation and responsibility put on principals.

          (Starr & White, 2008, p. 4)

The sidelining of important educational matters and unrealistic expectations are a burden on principals. The increase in responsibility also causes an increase in managerial tasks, feelings of isolation, rising stress levels, and a decrease in professional satisfaction (Starr & White, 2008). These concerns detract from the real issues of leadership because of the lack of reward principals receive for their hard work, as they receive no tangible evidence of any positive outcomes.

School survival. As resources decline, funding for rural schools depend to a great exten
t on the successful completion of funding submissions (Starr & White, 2008). One principal expressed her frustration by stating

I get the impression that if you’re [a] small [school], people think you can cope… You haven’t got that many kids to deal with, so you don’t need extra resources. You should just get on with it. I think we’re disadvantaged from a perception point of view. I think we’re viewed as so insignificant as to not matter very much… So you start to think, “Why bother?”

          (Starr & White, 2008, p. 5)

If schools become too small, they are subject to closure. Many rural schools are facing continual enrollment decline. Starr & White (2008) suggest population trends show no immediate solution to this problem. Principals made the following comments on this issue

You’re concerned all the time about survival. [The school is]…an asset in the community, you wonder what would happen if it closed. So you watch the enrollments and fear every time a family moves out of the district taking several kids with them. You can’t get caught riding a dead horse. The numbers went down quite rapidly…due to local demographics. We had big groups—well big for us, say 10 in each class. Then those students went off to high school and we were left with only 3 or 4 kids per class. Our numbers are decreasing. Because we’re isolated, there’s not much up here anymore employment-wise. We get a few transient families who will stay for 4-6 months and leave again… [This school] is not cost effective…and that makes you worry about what [will happen] in the longer term. We have to make do and do more with less. There should be differential staffing that recognizes the real needs… But while we’re losing numbers, the staffing formula makes things worse. You lose teachers and it’s even busier. We should have more control over human resources.

          (Starr & White, 2008, pp. 6-7).

As a result of decreasing numbers in population, school closures have increased over the past several decades. If a rural school closes, it usually means that children are forced to travel long distances to ascertain alternative schooling (Starr & White, 2008).

Significance of the Study

Cruzeiro & Morgan (2006) write that inclusionary schools occur through purposeful leadership. The principal, Cruzeiro & Morgan (2006) writes, is the key to leading others through the change process. In order to do so, the principal must validate its perception with other stakeholders in the school community, including teachers, families, students and community members, and also in other rural communities (Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006). Validation, according to Cruzeiro & Morgan (2006) involves evaluating reported inclusion efforts, in particular, leadership.

School reform has criticized over the years for universalizing schools and students (Wallin & Reimer, 2008). Such reform pays insufficient attention to race, class or gender. The premise takes into consideration the differences between rural and urban school. Further, commitment to a formal education which sustains local communities is a thing of the past and has been replaced with national and global school improvement initiatives (Wallin & Reimer, 2008). The future health of rural schools is related to the sustainability of their rural communities (Zacharakis et al., 2008).

Literature Review

Background. Wallin & Reimer (2008) write while rural scholars and educational stakeholders believe rural schools should serve local community interests, conflicts still exists over the purpose of schooling. Concerns in urban school reforms are often overshadowed by those of the rural schools. Rural schools, according to Wright (2007), serve a vital role in recreating communities in a highly mobile, industrialized society. Further, according to Wallin & Reimer (2008), rural schools are often plagued with educational problems such as (a) isolation from specialized services; (b) limited accessibility to quality staff development and university services; (c) teacher shortages in math and science; (d) decreasing enrollment which leads to decreased funding; and (e) declining pool of qualified administrative candidates.

Many rural schools offer fewer support and extracurricular programs overall than nonrural schools (Hardré et al., 2007). Often times when studies are presented on school district issues, the circumstances of rural schools are overlooked. As a result, rural schools are not included in school improvement plans across all school systems (Wallin & Reimer, 2008). Rural school principals are left bearing the burden of survival are dependent on the funding from school districts.

Analysis. It is quite evident that in order for schools to succeed they must hire principals who are willing to work to keep rural schools open. The school districts have an obligation to ensure that they do all they can to encourage and motivate school leaders. Districts need to consider promoting from within the community when seeking loyal rural school principals.

Synthesis. Challenges faced by principals in small rural schools result in creative initiatives. As a result, principals in rural communities are moving beyond traditional pathways to deliver educational benefits to their students (Starr & White, 2008). Such pathways involve cross-school activities, extensive use of information, involvement from the community, and greater communication (Starr & White, 2008).

Principals are working in a collective effort to cover teaching, learning, leadership, and management requirements, and to keep up-to-date with standardization and legislation. These collective activities occur as a result of school reform and the lack of available resources. Some principal explain the basis of these collaborative efforts as follows

We decided to combine our collective funding to hire a teacher for six schools, and share learning resources. [The literacy focus] was critical so we went from there, starting with “how can we solve this problem rather than re-inventing the wheel?” There’s a range of activities that are organized across the schools—drama days, inter-school sports days, combined with professional development days. The job is getting bigger all the time. You can’t do it all yourself. You can’t get caught up in all the red tape about parents needing police checks and not being out of sight of teachers… You just have to be pragmatic—do what needs to be done and take on any help that’s on offer.

          (Starr & White, 2008, p. 7)

Evaluation. Studies show regardless of the issues rural school districts have with staying in business, studies do very well academically and socially as they move from middle school to high school (Patterson et al., 2005). According to a study released by the U.S. Department of Education, students in rural areas perform better in science and math than those in urban areas (Anonymous, 2007). Patterson et al. (2005) writes “Evidence of their accomplishments can be found in State Assessment scores, honor roll listings, homecoming candidate announcements, and those who have excelled in various extracurricular activities” (p. 153).

A 2006 report from the American College Testing Program, Inc. show performance of students on this high stakes test continue to climb (Zacharakis et al., 2008). Anonymous (2007) states compared to students at all grade levels, students in rural schools scored better on national science and math tests than children in cities. Smaller schools, Patterson et al. (2005) writes, perform well on state-mandated assessment tests.

Students in Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and most other states in the Heartland evidence the highest percentage (60-80%) of students who take this test (Zacharakis et al., 2008). Further, the US Department of Education showed student achievement scores well above the state average in almost all content areas and in some cases reaching the state’s
“standard of excellence” rating (Patterson et al., 2005).

According to Anonymous (2007), the achievement in science by rural students is better because students get their education in a real-world setting as well as in classrooms. Zacharakis et al. (2008) write that measuring school success by the standard parameters of student test scores and achievement is meaningless in the overall scheme of defining the purpose of a rural community. “Parental involvement is an important factor—huge factor—in student achievement” (Anonymous, 2007, p. 59).

Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

 “In any moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worse thing you can do is nothing.” – Theodore Roosevelt (Rude & Whetstone, 2008).

Restatement of the Problem. Keeping well-liked principals on board increases the morale of parents and satisfies the need of the communities (Patterson et al., 2005). However, principals in rural schools have more than their fair share of work. Principals in rural schools are overworked and need more assistance to serve the schools in the manner best serving to the students. The school districts are not stepping up to the task of providing more assistance to the small rural school principal. As such, the lack of funding and administrative assistance is reflective in the high turnover rate of principals who leave because the work is too much to handle alone. Hardré et al. (2007) writes “Many rural schools find it hard to recruit and retain high quality teaching staff.”

Restatement of the Purpose. According to Berkeley & Ludlow (2008), the ethical imperative is an ideal based upon an assumption that we must both do good and do good well (p. 3). However, the job of a rural school principal is both cumbersome and burdensome. One principal describes his disparate workload in this manner

You have to constantly be on the front foot… You try and keep up with what the Department wants, you have to watch your numbers [enrollments], you have to keep an ear to the ground to know what’s happening in the community that might spill over into the school, and you have to watch how staff in the school are faring with pressures to do as much as a large school does. It’s a juggling act that’s a lot about survival.

          (Starr & White, 2008, p. 6)

School leaders have the skills and experience to contribute to community leadership in rural communities, yet they are recruited for their school administrative skills and not for their community leadership skills (Zacharakis et al., 2008).

Findings. It is possible for principals in rural schools to focus on three components which might assist them in having success in their endeavors (a) Legitimization of Alternatives, (b) Diverse Networks, and (c) Resource Mobilization.

Legitimization of Alternatives focuses on the value of constructive controversy so that communities can engage in discussions around inclusive processes, without the political nature of those discussions becoming personal (Willin & Reimer, 2008). As a consequence Willin & Reimer (2008) write, superficial harmony and destructive conflict are replaced with processes that encourage dialogue and thoughtful decision making. Such alternatives are legitimized and valued, therefore continuous improvement occurs as goals are monitored and assessed (Wallin & Reimer, 2008).

Diverse Networks involve establishing horizontal and vertical networks to access potential sources of experience and knowledge (Wallin & Reimer, 2008). Diverse networks are diverse and inclusive and are created through both broad-based and personal invitations (Wallin & Reimer, 2008). Horizontal networks are teachers, administrators, staff, trustees, the school and the community. Vertical networks are individuals linked to regional, provincial, and national organizations (Wallin & Reimer, 2008). Such networks are diverse, can change and grow or narrow, depending on the issue at hand.

Resource mobilization speaks to the need to develop surplus in the community through private and collective local investments (Wallin & Reimer, 2008). According to Wallin & Reimer (2008), there is an equal distribution of resources and individuals or groups are encouraged to take risks to improve the community. These resources are available to everyone with the criteria being clear and visible to all.

Further findings indicate that principals are also community leaders who make significant contribution to local community and economic development activities (Zacharakis et al., 2008). It is concluded, therefore, that leaders should be developed from within. As such, local leadership should include professional development training and support for principals to attend workshops and national conferences (Zacharakis et al., 2008).

The professional role and responsibility of rural school principals receive a vast amount of guidance through the use of ethical guidelines as well as examples from real world practice (Rude & Whetstone, 2008). It would unethical for a principal to assume a role or responsibility for which he or she is not qualified. Once professional development is implemented utilizing the right training, it can produce the desired results (Rude & Whetstone, 2008).

Conclusions

Small rural principals spend a substantial amount of their time teaching. They “face multiple conflicting work demands in ways that far exceed those of their non-rural peers” (Starr & White, 2008, p. 6). Further, Starr & White (2008) write, the necessity of teaching multi-grade and ability levels concurrently and the absence of personnel, such as an assistant principal, business manager, specialist teacher, student counselor, and maintenance staff, make the principal’s more labor intensive. Younker (2008) writes, “one of the many joys of teaching in a rural school used to be the amount of contact [he] could have with the students in [his] class whom [he] saw as people, not statistical variations” (p. 13). Principals need to get back to developing one-to-one relationships with their students and not treat their students as wedges on pie charts.

It is necessary that participants from all levels of the school district participate in collaborative efforts. Combining the leadership of “principals, school councils, and education department officers enables schools to engage future scenario planning, to share expertise, and to devise combined strategic plans to affect community educational provision—including making decisions about what is educationally viable and what is not” (Starr & White, 2008, pp. 8-9). Educational capacity and community development should be co-mingled so that sustainability replaces fear about school closures. Further, distance learning opportunities allow the use of broad curriculums and enable the transmission of lessons to students and parents (Starr & White, 2008). In this regard, all rural communities will benefit if everyone come together to present ideas which can solve this dilemma.

Authors Rude & Whetstone (2008) put it all together in this writing

The challenges facing educational communities today are as sacred in their importance as they are difficult to undergo. It is up to ethical leaders in rural communities that are far away from the mainstream of urban life to take a piece of the mess and not wait for higher authorities to figure out the answers. Those who do not see the significant benefits of adaptive changes that benefit the school and community as a whole, to the point where they simply cannot or will not go along with the change will become casualties. Ethical leaders are willing to accept these casualties as a result of courage and commitment to ethical change based on moral purpose (p. 16).

Recommends for Further Study. It is recommended, as a result of this study, that federal and state government fund further investigation into sma
ll rural school principals (Starr & White, 2008). That they encourage new forms of resource allocation, and maintain an equal distribution leadership in all schools. Further, that government and state officials invest in the future of our schools by rewarding principals who work over and above the call of duty to maintain schools whose doors can now remain open. “Rural research is essential because rural schools often face serious economic and community resource constraints that place rural students at risk for low motivation and lack of school success” (Hardré et al., 2007).

References

Anonymous. (2007). Study: rural students better in science. Techniques, 82(6), p. 59.

Berkeley, T. R., & Ludlow, B. L. (2007). Ethical dilemmas in rural special education: a call for a conversation about the ethics of practice. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(1/2), pp. 3-9.

Cruzeiro, P. A., & Morgan, R. L. (2006). The rural principal’s role with consideration for special education. Education, 126(3), pp. 569-579.

Hardré, P. L., Crowson, H. M., Debacker, T. K., & White, D. (2007). Predicting the academic motivation of rural high school students. The Journal of Experimental Education, 75(4), pp. 247-269.

Patterson, J. A., Koenigs, A., Mohn, G., & Rasmussen, C. (2005). Working against ourselves: decision making in a small rural school district. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(2), pp. 142-158.

Rude, H. A., & Whetstone, P. J. (2008). Ethical considerations for special educators in rural America. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(1/2), pp. 10-18.

Starr, K., & White, S. (2008). The small rural school principalship: key challenges and cross-school responses. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 23(5), pp. 1-12.

Wallin, D. C., & Reimer, L. (2008). Educational priorities and capacity: a rural perspective. Canadian Journal of Education, 31(3), pp. 591-613.

Wright, K. A. (2007). Reenergizing small communities: a vital role for rural schools. The Educational Forum, 71(4), pp. 345-360.

Younker, K. (2008). Our mandate as teachers in a democracy. English Journal, 97(5), pp. 13-14.

Zacharakis, J., Devin, M., & Miller, T. (2008). Political economy of rural schools in the heartland. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(3), pp. 16-22.

  

Introduction:

              Due to the decline in the quality of public education in Texas, state lawmakers passed legislation in 1995. The new law permitted the opening and implementation of charter schools. These new charters schools encourage and support innovative teaching for a variety of learning styles, improve the achievement of students, and provide options within the public school system (Terry and Alexander 2008, 4). Prior to the new legislation, there was no opportunity for choice within the public school system with regard to a child’s education, and children attended school according to their zip code. That deficiency began to change when the first charter school in Texas opened in the fall of 1996.

The Texas Education Agency (TEA) reports that the “first generation” of charters consisted of 17 schools and had a collective population of 2,412 students. Legislation initially limited open-enrollment charters to 20 schools; however, lawmakers increased the cap to 100 schools in 1997 and to 215 schools in 2001 (Story 2007, 1). As of 2007, Texas had one of the largest and most flexible charter school programs in the United States (Story 2007, 1). Currently, Texas charter schools serve over 113,000 students, an estimated two percent of all public school students.  Moreover, of those 113,000 students in charter schools, 80 percent are minority and 60 percent are economically disadvantaged students (Terry and Alexander 2008, 7).

Research Analysis-Lifting the Cap:

 The State of Texas currently has 210 active open-enrollment charter schools.  In addition, Texas will likely reach the cap of 215 open-enrollment charter schools by 2009. If the cap remains in place, many parents and children will be at a disadvantage, unable to choose the best quality education for their families. Many charter education supporters have and will continue to push for greater parental control and increased accountability with an emphasis on improved public relations. However, these supporters encounter a lot of resistance, because opponents see charter schools as competition to the public schools.  Consequently, increased restrictions and mandates stifle charter school growth.

 If the Texas government and the education policy stakeholders review the statistical findings and evaluate the impact of open-enrollment charter schools in Texas, they will find a clear picture of the positive outcomes charter schools provide. It becomes apparent through the examination of the economic and social factors of open-enrollment charter schools that lifting the cap on the number of open-enrollment charter schools in Texas would be beneficial to the current public school system. 

            Contrary to common public perception, charter schools are public schools.  Similar to public schools, charter schools cannot charge tuition according to state law. However, “charter schools have a significant amount of autonomy and are free to be innovative in educational and administrative practices,” as stated on the Resource Center for Charter Schools (Technology Help for Administrators 2008).  Before a charter school in Texas breaks ground, the entity must submit a proposal, similar to a business proposal, for approval, which typically includes a mission statement, a philosophy and a vision. Furthermore, the proposal provides information regarding basic logistics, including class size, number of school days and hours, the programs that will service students and a projected budget. On many occasions, charter schools seek the help of outside agencies to provide guidance, classroom modeling, in-house training, and resources in order to assist in achieving the mission. For example, an open-enrollment charter school in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania used a research based program / agency from San Francisco, California called the “Developmental Studies Center” (DSC). The DSC trained the faculty, provided resources and provided ongoing support in order to achieve the school’s mission and goal. In fact, the school bases its philosophy on a democratic model that gives students a voice, which promotes and fosters the students’ academic, social, and emotional growth. Significantly, this school recognizes the existence of multiple intelligences and diverse learning styles. One program that addresses the choice of students and multiple intelligences is the choice of electives for all of the student population once a week. They also incorporate a “service learning program” to assist in molding stewards of the community (Service Learning Programs, 2008).

Similarly, in Houston, Texas, “KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) Academy Houston,” whose mission is to “help…students develop academic skills, intellectual habits, and qualities of character necessary to succeed in high school, college, and the competitive world beyond” is a very successful charter school that services grades 5-8 (U.S. Department of Education 2008).  Texas recognized it as an “exemplary school” every year since 1996, and the U.S. Department of Education recognized it as a “Blue Ribbon” school. The dedication of its teachers and administrators, including being on call by way of cell phone 24/7 to address the academic needs of students led to this success of the charter school (U.S. Department of Education 2008).  This innovative dedication would not be something conducive to the public school sector.  In view of the fact that employees of mainstream public schools, are subject to collective bargaining and union contracts, have set hours and specific responsibilities in their contracts and do not deviate from them.

By employing the flexibility of the charter program and by working outside the traditional eight hours of instructional time for students, the American Youth Works in Austin, Texas is a charter school that is able to better focus on the unique needs of its students. The school allows students half a day to pursue employment opportunities, to participate in work study programs or to take care of family members, including the students’ own children. The school requires the students to fulfill only four hours of traditional instructional time in order to accommodate the individual’s life experience (Terry and Alexander 2008, 4).

Other charter schools may extend the school day in order to improve academic achievement or may extend the school year to expose the students to supplemental material and expanded learning. Equally important, a mission aimed at addressing the varied learning styles through the theory of multiple intelligences may be the goal of another charter school. There are even charter schools that focus on the arts, architecture and design, leadership, and literacy. Charter schools generally do not fit the traditional model of the mainstream public school; instead, they find ways to educate children and stimulate learning based on innovative ideas and strategies.

When a charter is operating, the entity will receive direct funding from the state and the federal government. However, charters do not receive funding for their facilities, so it is up to the charter school to raise money, solicit donations, apply for startup grants from the federal government or choose to borrow from private lenders (Terry and Alexander 2008, 5).

Terry states, in a “GO San Angelo” article, that charter schools may not charge tuition, teach religion, discriminate, or cherry-pick students (Terry 2008, 1). To elaborate, if a charter school encourages families to volunteer 20 hours of their time to help with various needs of the school such as painting, helping in the classroom, making packets, cleaning, etc., the school cannot in any way enforce this as a “requirement.” If a family is penalized in any way, such as a student being removed from school for incompletion of hours, it would be considered payment for education. Moreover, charter schools may not disc
riminate in the enrollment of students or cherry-pick, select a student based on academic performance, behavior, or other preferential selection, its admissions..

Charter schools require different regulations compared to traditional public schools (Terry and Alexander 2008, 5). An example is that charter schools, as opposed to mainstream public schools, require teachers to provide parents and guardians of students in their school with a written notice of their qualifications. Another example of the differences in regulation is under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Federal Regulation Part 300, which reauthorizes the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). Originally, law required charter schools to provide and complete academic testing for a child within 60 school days from the date of a request from a parent or guardian, while it required traditional public schools to provide and complete the same within 60 calendar days.  Under the reauthorization, the requirement changed to 60 school days for both public and charter schools. Before this became universal for both mainstream public and charter schools, it was a disadvantage for the charter schools to adhere to the time restraint because it was more difficult in terms of the high cost of academic testing and limited funding.

To be sure, accountability is universal for district public schools and charter schools, as the pressure of No Child Left Behind impacts both sectors of education. Both are required to administer standardized tests, and all students must test at their current grade level rather than their level of ability. For instance, an eighth grader who is reading at a third grade level must take the eighth grade reading standardized test.

According to the article “Texas Charter Schools: An Assessment in 2005″, produced by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, “when student performance is evaluated on the basis of test scores, students in Texas charter schools perform on the average lower than do students in traditional public schools. However, when changes in test scores are used to judge performance, academic gains by charter school students can be demonstrated” (Patterson 2005, 5). This means that even though some charter school students’ performance does not exceed the performance of traditional public schools according to standardized test results, the students are individually making better academic progress in the charter schools. In addition, because most charter schools typically specialize in helping disadvantaged youth, many students in charter schools identify as an at-risk population for dropping out of school and come from low income homes which could hinder their test performance (Terry and Alexander 2008, 5). Accordingly, basing decisions of success on standardized test scores is an unfair assessment of charter school performance.

Currently, the government enforces some regulation on charter schools that forces them to shut down if they have two consecutive years of undesirable performance, which typically measures by standardized test scores. This is harsher and inequitable compared to the five years allowed for the mainstream public school districts (Terry and Alexander 2008, 5). For example, a charter school may be able to improve a fifth grade student whose reading level is equivalent to third grade but still fail with unacceptable performance because the student failed the fifth grade Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) test reading section (Terry and Alexander 2008, 1).

During the 2007-2008 school years, 113,760 students enrolled in charter schools in Texas, and an estimated 16,810 students were on a waiting list (Terry and Alexander 2008, 4). Houston’s regional charter school’s waiting list was the largest at 7,415 students; coming in second was the Dallas / Fort Worth region at 5,896 students, and Rio Grand Valley had 2,110 students.  Furthermore, the Austin region had a waiting list of 623; the Corpus Christi region had a waiting list of 159; and the San Antonio region had a waiting list of 488 students (Terry and Alexander 2008, 4). According to Robelen, since these numbers stem from a survey in which only half of the schools participated, the actual number of students on a waiting list for charter schools in Texas is likely higher (Robelen 2008, 1).

The large number of students on the waiting lists for charter school enrollment demonstrates the significant demand for educational options, which is the fundamental purpose of the legislation for charter schools. The rapidly growing number of students on waiting lists demonstrates the need for lawmakers to lift the cap limiting the number of charter schools in Texas.  When a charter school has more applicants than they can allow, an enrollment lottery determines which students will be attending the upcoming school year.  Terry asks readers to “imagine parents, whose child is trapped in a low-performing public school, crying for joy that their child is randomly selected to attend a school with a track record of serving at-risk students with innovative strategies” (Terry 2008, 1). On the other hand, one can imagine the cries of a parent whose child is a student in a low-performing public school when their child looses the enrollment lottery. 

There are four different types of charter schools: open-enrollment charters, district charters, university charters, and home-rule district charters. Open-enrollment charter schools service the largest population, 89,156 students as of the 2007-2008 school year. Open-enrollment charters are by definition independent school units and can have multiple campuses. The school district operates the district charter schools that consisted of 23,275 students in the 2007-2008 school years. University charters are generally in operation at public senior university or college and consisted of 1,329 students attending 19 different university charter schools in 2007-2008. Furthermore, a home-rule charter means districts have the ability to convert into charter school status which includes an extensive voting process. There is no cap on the number of district charters; however, there are no home-rule charter schools operating in Texas (Terry and Alexander 2008, 3).

Open enrollment charter schools do not drain financial resources from mainstream public schools because they do not receive state funding. In fact, the excess money in the state education budget applies to the student’s home district and the neighboring school where the child resides. For example, in the 2005-2006 school year, the cost per student in Texas was $9,629; charter schools were given approximately $1,500 less per student (Terry and Alexander, 2008a, 1). Thus, operating a charter school saves the district money in educating a child because charter schools expend less money per child.

Because charter schools receive less money per student compared to mainstream school districts in Texas, it is necessary for charter schools to incorporate fund raising into their fiscal plans. Moreover, charter school fundraising brings more dollars into the public sector.  According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, in Illinois the total of public and private funding for charter schools brought in a total of $11 million dollars to help educate the youth. In addition, charter schools introduce new resources into public education. Grants provide funds designed for charter schools phases such as, planning, development, and initial implementation which are not available to the public school system if charter schools were not in existence (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools 2008).

It is incorrect for the districts in Texas to believe that charter schools negatively impact their bottom line or hinder their budgetary plan. In the event of the opening of a new charter school, the state provides the district with short term financial aids in order to prevent an impact on the school district revenue (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools 2008). Because charter s
chools typically enroll a diverse student body with a variety of characteristics, the fiscal impact is a factor of enrollment only (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools 2008). In addition, public and charter schools receive a percentage of money for students with disabilities; therefore, the public district receives an even higher amount than the $1,500 per special education student.  Finally, socioeconomic factors dictate funding for individual students and services offered (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools 2008).

Districts can easily reduce expenses to adapt to charter schools. The National Alliance for Charter Schools, reports that school districts can often adjust to student enrollment fluctuations-where there may be some key adjustments the first year, the following years have little to no impact on the school district (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools 2008).   The National Alliance for Charter Schools also believes that if a charter school is thriving, and the district cannot adjust to the fluctuation in enrollment, it is likely due to the district’s own failed policies and rules (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools 2008).

Charter schools in Texas increase the employment of teachers in the district as well. Many teachers struggle to obtain a teaching position once they graduate and charter schools open the doors for many of these qualified teachers to find a job in education. The state law only requires teachers to be state certified to work in a charter school if they specialize in special education or bilingual education (Terry and Alexander 2008a, 6). The state government in Texas does not require charter schools to employ certified teachers, but many choose to do so, especially with the shortage of teaching opportunities. Story supports this by stating statistics that show charter schools employ 26 percent of new teachers in the field compared to traditional public schools, which employ a mere 7 percent respectively (Story 2007, 3). In addition, charter schools can impact the traditional school district in a positive way by reducing the need for districts to hire new teachers by eliminating overcrowding, which reduces the average cost of hiring and training a new teacher, estimated to be about $8,000 per teacher (The National Alliance for Charter Schools 2008). 

The impact of charter schools in the community’s economic and social growth is rapidly increasing. As stated earlier, charter schools do not receive funding for facilities from the state, however the districts that have charters schools receive and excess of approximately $1,500 per student that attends a charter school.  Therefore, without the funding for a facility, charter schools renovate, remodel and/or rehabilitate existing property within a community in order to accommodate students. Having a charter school residing in a neighborhood has the potential to generate tax revenue and increase the value of real estate (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools 2008).

The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools also suggests that if charter schools are successful in educating students, it can reduce the dropout rate in high schools and increase college admissions and graduates. Texas seems to have a high dropout rate, and those students who graduate do not have the communication and math skills necessary for college and require remedial math and reading programs to qualify for admission to college (Terry and Alexander 2008, 4). One of the most successful schools in Texas is a charter school that reduced their dropout rates dramatically under the direction of the mission of their charter.

 These charter schools often provide a safe haven for youth by providing aftercare and tutoring. Importantly, charter schools often give communities a sense of pride. Many charter schools offer Boy Scouts of America, sports, and other programs in order to facilitate teambuilding, self esteem, and help foster a sense of community, and growth in a child. Some charter schools open their doors for tutoring and mentoring on Saturdays to offer extra assistance as well as a safe setting for young learners. However, these programs are uncommon in the traditional public school district setting mostly because of the contract and collective bargaining processes of the districts. Charter schools have the ability to add the extra touches that impact students without the political constraints that traditional district schools face.

            While charter schools do not seem like they would pose a significant threat to the financial operations of the public school system in Texas, there are some risks associated with the existence of charter schools. Because most charter schools operate like a business, there is a risk of misappropriation and improper allocation of funds. In addition, misconduct of administrators, teachers, and entities involved with a particular charter school could lead to a negative reputation of charter schools as a whole. However, limiting the number of charter schools based on isolated incidents of illegal activity, inappropriate behavior or misuse of power could prove to be harmful to the education system. Misconduct can develop in any entity, including public school districts.

            Research shows that students from a traditional public school who attend charter schools for a period of two or three years improve more rapidly than students in the traditional public school district (Terry and Alexander 2008, 5). Not using a growth based system to measure the amount of growth, a student is able to obtain in the course of a year in the state accountability system is causing charter school to seem deficient (Terry and Alexander 2008, 5). Research from the “Texas Charter Schools: An Assessment in 2005″ produced by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, shows that students who left traditional public schools to attend charter schools performed better on average than they would have if they were still attending the traditional public school (Patterson 2004, 32). Thus, the correlation of charter schools and student achievement is significant, and students will benefit from the removal of the charter school cap in Texas.

            Charter schools provide competition with the mainstream district schools which provides an unwanted positive impact on the district schools. It forces district schools to exhibit more accountability of staff and teachers and puts pressure on them to increase student performance. If the schools are functioning at low levels, parents or guardians will feel the need to remove their child from the district school by applying to a charter school. If lawmakers remove the cap and more options are available to parents and guardians, more choices for education will be accessible to students and parents. In addition, the competition between charter schools and public schools will cause school districts to increase their overall academic performance.

            Patterson asserts the bottom line for charter schools in Texas as follows:

Charter schools are a valuable alternative to traditional public schools (Patterson 2005, 1).

Charters are especially effective with disadvantaged students (Patterson 2005, 1).

Charters challenge traditional public schools to improve student performance (Patterson 2005, 1).

 Charters do a better job with high school students and alternative education programs (Patterson 2005, 1).

 

Conclusion:

The benefits a charter school can provide to the district public schools, parents, students, and the community significantly outweighs any negative impact charters may cause. The Texas legislature should eliminate the cap of 215 charter schools which prevents charter schools to operate in a free market (Terry and Alexander, 2008, 1). The 16,810 or more students on the waiting lists for charter schools prove the d
emand for charter schools. This demand, viewed in light of the current issues facing traditional public schools, proves that charter schools are working well in improving the quality of education. Many education analysts believe that the quality of a charter school education will increase overtime. Unless this demand meets the supply, tens of thousands of students will remain in an environment that may not promote academic, emotional or social growth. Equally important, these students will not thrive in their current placement and could regress to the extent of becoming an at-risk youth who could potentially drop out of high school, leading to a grim future. This proposed reform of lifting the cap could be an immense opportunity for Texas to become a leader in the charter school movement. The Texas public school system could stop the increase of real estate taxes to invest money in failing districts and make the choice to provide additional educational resources for the children of the state.

            The bureaucracy that places a barrier to student learning and student performance is unconscionable. A simple solution to the education crisis Texas is facing would be to lift the cap while continuing to monitor all educational institutions. It is in the best interests of the child to allow parents and guardians to make the choice of where their child should attend school to get the best free, appropriate public education possible. The main purpose of the charter school legislation in 1995 was to give that choice to Texas citizens. That freedom no longer exists for thousands of citizens in Texas because of the cap on charter schools. Given the overwhelming evidence that charter schools are socioeconomically beneficial, lawmakers in Texas should increase or remove the cap altogether and make charter schools available to all of its citizens in 2009.