February 2008 • Volume 6 • Issue 1

Federal and state governments are requiring big changes at public schools whose students persistently fail to meet state standards. With the federal No Child Left Behind Act in its sixth year, more schools will be facing the most radical form of change authorized by the law: restructuring.

Every school in the nation is expected to make “adequate yearly progress,” meaning a majority of students – regardless of poverty, disability, language or other reasons – meet or surpass benchmarks on state exams.

June 2007 • Volume 6 • Issue 2 

There is a stirring among key education leaders and influential politicians in Washington, D.C., about the need for a complete set of national academic standards that apply to all public school children in the United States.

The very thought strikes dread into the hearts of school board members and superintendents. At present, state governments establish the knowledge bar that students must hurdle, and then local officials develop the curriculum to reach that goal.

The accountants have spoken, and school districts across the nation are scrambling to obey.

A rule passed by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) encourages public entities – including school districts – to estimate the total cost of retiree benefits (amortized over a 30-year period) and then publicly disclose the price of that package.

The change is applauded by some as bringing new transparency for taxpayers and a sobering understanding for policymakers of the true outlay for retiree perks such as health care, dental, vision and prescription benefits, in addition to the actual pensions.

For others, it is yet another way to make school district budgets appear inflated, and forces districts to run a strange maze, hiring actuaries every two or three years to do lifeand-death calculations and assigning a number to the unknowable.

For years, the number 65 has meant two things in education: Social Security benefits and the minimum score needed for a student to pass a test or academic course.

Lately, however, it has acquired a whole new meaning. The “65 percent solution” is the hottest “simple idea” sweeping state legislatures. The term refers to the uncomplicated assumption that if public school districts were required to spend at least 65 percent of their operational budget on classroom-related expenses, higher student test scores would result.

October 2005 • Volume 3 • Issue 4

Deep in their souls, men and women in this country believe that choice is the American way.

Yet, aside from a few religious groups, it has taken until the 21st century for the idea of choosing schools to really take hold. Only now are true lternatives starting to test the dominance of traditional public education. Loyalty to the traditional public school way can no longer be assumed.

Charter schools, voucher schools, cyber schools and other innovations have emerged as competitors. The relevance of school boards is being questioned. In the midst of such change, it behooves school leaders to study the alternatives and analyze if and why they are effective.

The future of public education will hinge on its ability to provide quality and opportunities for success for young people. With consumers (parents/guardians) ready to vote with their feet, public education becomes one selection on the menu, and officials must fight to maintain its status as the main course.

There is no question that a sports program enhances a high school. The advantages are well documented. Students learn about teamwork, failure and success, and self-discipline. Athletes also discover leadership opportunities, and become a source of community pride.

Today, however, many boards of education are being forced to reassess how a school-sponsored athletic program meshes with their first priority: raising student achievement. Do organized sports support this goal, or has it become an impediment? Climbing costs and controversy surround even the most successful varsity programs. And, at a time when every expense within a school system is vulnerable to tight budgets, student athletic teams are commonly the sacred cow with the loudest moo.

Across the nation, school board members and superintendents are scrambling for creative ways to stretch tax dollars and accelerate student achievement.

A persistent idea gaining renewed momentum is that districts combine resources. Efficiency experts cite “economies of scale” that result when the scope of an operation is expanded but overhead costs do not change, or change little. Applied to schools, that can mean a service is supplied to more students without a corresponding increase in costs. It can also make new learning opportunities possible.

When education stakeholders talk about “school choice,” the usual suspects that come to mind are home schooling, charter schools, voucher programs and the like. But there’s another “choice” option that is beginning to figure more prominently on the national scene – single-sex education. While private and parochial schools have long had the freedom to separate the sexes by classroom or by school, public schools have been limited in doing so by Title IX.

For over 30 years, Title IX has existed to protect students from gender inequality both in the classroom and on the athletic playing field. At the time Title IX took effect, gender discrimination was a major concern in public education.

In June 2003, New York State’s highest court ruled that the state’s system of financing public education for New York City students was unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, Chief Judge Judith Kaye held that the state must provide New York City schoolchildren with “the opportunity for a meaningful high school education, one which prepares them to function productively as civic participants” (Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State of New York [CFE], 2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 15615, June 26, 2003, p. 12). While the court noted that its ruling was limited to New York City, it did point out that “the State may of course address Statewide issues if it chooses” (CFE, p. 47). As New York’s legislators and policymakers struggle to revamp the state’s highly complex funding system in response to this ruling, it follows in the footsteps of many other states.

Locally elected school boards have long played a vital role in America’s educational system. In fact, in a recent poll conducted by Phi Delta Kappa and Gallup, 61 percent of respondents said that decisions regarding what is taught in their schools should be made by their local school boards rather than by the state and federal governments (Rose and Gallup, p. 54).

Today’s school boards exist in a complex environment that makes this job more challenging than ever before. “School systems’ multi-million-dollar budgets and large-scale operations – from curriculum and instruction to food service, facilities, and transportation – represent a dizzying array of complex business units and a steep learning curve for new board members.

Staying focused on the core business of improving teaching and learning in an environment rampant with special-interest groups and political distraction can take Herculean willpower. Community and family pressures and the omnipresent media microscope…can drain even the most ardent advocates for children” (Carr).