These are the some of the questions this week’s expert panel will be addressing. Can NCLB be fixed, or should we scrap it all together and pursue its goals with entirely new legislation? What would be the benefits and repercussions of doing away with the program? What would an alternative to NCLB look like? Do we need a national approach, or can we entrust states and school districts to design and implement effective programs to improve student achievement?

Good morning and welcome to the NewTalk forum on the topic of order and respect in public schools. In the recent past, the quest to improve public schools has focused on curriculum, classroom size, teacher salaries, expanded choice and testing. Too little attention has been paid to structuring peer climates and improving school culture. This is surprising given that sociologists have long demonstrated that student peer climates are a central component in understanding why some schools are more effective than others. Before we consider the causes of student disorder, and possible reforms that are targeted both in and outside of schools to address this issue, I would like us to start with a discussion of the scale and scope of current student behavioral problems. How common and how severe are the problems of disorder and misbehavior in schools today? Are these problems concentrated in certain types of schools or do they reflect broader societal trends? Is there anything new about the prevalence or the form of the current problem?

In response to Richard’s opening remarks, I would like to offer my observations from my multitude of interactions with principals and teachers in Indiana public schools. I think a lack of order and discipline is more prevalent in the public schools than the public may be aware of, and particularly in urban schools. I know at least one major urban school where the central office has put pressure on principals to not expel minority students, so the school system's minority expulsion rates look low to the public.

However, urban schools are not the only schools suffering from discipline problems. Just this week I visited a rural school and was told by the assistant principal that he had just conferenced with a boy who was tardy 17 times already this year. Both the assistant principal and principal of that school expressed serious concerns about their authority to discipline, and whether they would be supported by the central office and school board when a parent complains about his or her child being disciplined.

W. Edwards Deming, the grandfather of the international quality movement, once observed that about 94% of an organization's problems are in the design of the organization's systems, and only about 6% of the organization's problems are due to the workers. In Black Belt training, we refer to taking the 20,000 foot view of the problem. I would suggest to my esteemed colleagues on the panel that we look at the problem of order and discipline in public schools from a systemic view.

Good morning, all. I agree that far too much of our quest to improve public schools has focused on curriculum, teacher salaries, expanded choice, and testing.

But the issue of class size does affect peer climates and school culture. If a high school teacher has a class of 30, and five are absent on a given day, the culture of that class is going to be greatly improved, especially if any of the five who are absent are troublemakers.

Class size also affects how much individual attention a teacher can give to each student. That individual attention may mean the difference between a student dropping out or staying in school, sliding by with C’s when they’re capable of earning A’s, causing trouble or staying on task. A smaller class size allows time to treat kids as individuals, rather than as part of a herd.

Also, in large classes teachers are busy putting out large discipline fires. In smaller classes they have a tighter rein on smaller infractions. That difference hugely affects peer climates and school culture.

I agree with Jeff that the lack of order and discipline in public schools is more prevalent than the public realizes. I taught for nearly 20 years in a large suburban-turning-urban district. Teachers as well as principals regularly expressed concerns about whether or not they would be supported by central administration and the school board when a parent complained about the disciplining of a child.

And complain they did. We had strong, clear, progressive discipline processes in place, but they were regularly overturned if a parent complained loudly enough. That, more than anything else, affected school culture because kids, and their parents, know how to work the system. If we are going to approach the problem of order and respect in our public schools, we need to start with parents.

Well… it's not like me to be so agreeable so early in the morning. But agreeable I must be because I can't find any fault with either of Kelly's posts so far. Certainly class sizes can impact the culture of a classroom, as well as the ability of a teacher to maintain good order. The current factory model of design of public education does indeed prevent many teachers from treating kids as individuals with individual needs. I like the metaphor of "herd" that Kelly uses. Any of us who have taught in the public schools know that in many classes the teacher is performing a most difficult task when trying to maintain good order and control of the classroom. In many schools its like herding a flock of cats.

I can't count the number of times over the years that public school teachers and principals have privately told me that they are really hamstrung by the politics in their school district. Complaining parents who have political power and the ear of the superintendent or school board can and do have a dramatic effect on school discipline. Many teachers and principals have privately expressed to me that they have backed off student discipline and only go after the most extreme violations of school rules, such as drugs, guns, and fights - for fear of political retribution by the school board.

In my seventeen years of law practice I had more than one case where an educator "stepped on the wrong toes" and was disciplined based on a sham reason. I am not a complaining plaintiff's attorney, as 95% of the cases I was involved in I was a school board attorney representing the school board who was taking it out on the poor teacher or principal. Politics do influence student behavior and impact student discipline greatly.

I taught for one year at a large urban high school in Boston and experienced many of the things described by both Jeff and Kelly. When my students misbehaved, I would follow the protocols and systems outlined by the school’s administration. However, when I needed the support of the administration regarding a difficult student and/or a challenging family, I was often told to handle the situation myself.

I then taught at a smaller public school in Boston called Roxbury Preparatory Charter School, which had a similar population of students (100% students of color, ~70% eligible for free/reduced price lunch). Roxbury Prep’s Code of Conduct was virtually identical to that of the Boston Public Schools. The major difference was the administration wholeheartedly supported teachers when it came to discipline incidents. In short, the Code of Conduct was enacted.

After teaching at Roxbury Prep for a few years, I ended up serving as one of its school leaders for six years. Every day, we as school leaders ensured that our students abided by the Code of Conduct. If they did not, they received consequences. If they did, they received merits/rewards. A structured, safe learning environment can be built in a public school as long as all staff members are on the same page and willing to do the work to implement discipline systems each and every day. Roxbury Prep has consistently been the highest-performing urban middle school in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The high expectations regarding discipline and the willingness of the administration to follow through on infractions of the Code of Conduct have enabled Roxbury Prep teachers to focus on what they do best—providing rigorous, engaging lessons for their students.

Josh makes an excellent point: all staff members must be on the same page and willing to do the work to implement discipline systems each and every day. That’s a huge start. If the rule is no soft drinks in the hall, Teacher A should not be left to enforce it while Teacher B looks the other way.

But in addition to that, school officials must be willing to stand up to parents. An administrator recently told me that in the early years of his career he was threatened with lawsuits once or twice. Now he is threatened with lawsuits once or twice a day.

So the question is this: How do educators get parents to work with us instead of against us? Because it often seems that when it comes to parents there are two extremes—they are either completely absent when we need them to help, or they’re involved, but in a negative way.

They definitely need to be involved. And they have a right to be involved—it’s their child’s education at stake. And it is, after all, a public school. They’re the public. But how do we get them to use their powers for good, and not evil?

One aspect involved in restoring order and respect in public schools involves the local media. For many years the media has painted a negative image of the public schools and their employees. Though public schools have real and reportable issues taking place across our country that must be explored in an open forum; where is the media coverage of outstanding school programs, exemplary student achievement, and student participation in community service and humanistic ventures? Why is there little mention of staff voluntarily tutoring students, helping with college applications, and acting as mentors and or advisors? In order for the public to respect a system, newspapers, radio, and television must report the good work that is performed in our schools by good people. To this end, we have designated a committee of teachers, parents, and administrators specifically charged with spreading our positive message throughout local media outlets. Our return on this "positive marketing" approach continues to be greater parental, staff, and student involvement during and after school, higher matriculation of informed students, and greater retention of highly qualified staff. These encouraging results have lead to an increase of order and respect throughout the entire school and the surrounding community.

I strongly agree that too little attention has been paid to the social, emotional and civic dimensions of learning and school life. It is well known that as important as linguistic and mathematical learning are, students are always social, emotional and civic as well as intellectual learners. And educators and parents are always social, emotional and civic teachers. The only question is to what extent adults are intentionally and helpfully teaching children these core skills and dispositions that provide the foundation for school—and life—success.

The prevalence of behavioral problems in K-12 students is significant. On the one hand, it has been estimated that 9 to 13% of American children and adolescents (ages 9 to 17) have serious emotional and/or behavioral disorders (Friedman, 2002). More than half of these students drop out of grades 9-12. It has also been estimated that roughly 10 to 15% of all typically developing preschool children have chronic mild to moderate levels of behavioral problems. Children who are poor are much more likely to develop behavioral problems, with prevalence rates that approach 30% (Qi & Kaiser, 2003)!

When school and parent leaders do pay attention to social, emotional and civic learning and improving school climate (including but certainly not limited to class and school size), we see a dramatic reduction in the range of behavioral problems in our K-12 schools.

Sana’s comment suggests that for those who care about public schools there is often a reluctance to acknowledge problems of school disorder, for fear of contributing to societal negative perceptions of these institutions. Other comments, including Jonathan's, however, suggest that these problems are common and widespread. We know from empirical research that certain types of students who are most vulnerable to the effects of school disorder, such as boys, are increasingly struggling to achieve academically. Jeff encourages us to take a systemic view. What factors have led schools to struggle around these issues today? Are school behavioral problems simply a product of larger societal trends (such as changing family structure, media, parenting cultures, etc.)? Or, are schools and the regulatory systems governing them also implicated in the problems we currently face?

I believe that any educational reform must be realized by way of a holistic approach. No one organization or contingent can be responsible for our students' futures. All effected parties (parents, community leaders, support staff, teachers, school leadership, etc.) must be held accountable and actively participate in the reclamation process.

I am joining a bit late, but find myself in agreement with much of what has been said, especially Jonathan's last point about the need to take school climate (in the broadest sense of the term) seriously. When I ask a roomful of administrators if they can articulate their school's civic mission (or character mission), I often get blank stares. They know they have one, but they haven't looked at it in years—and they don't see it as central to their daily work. But in my experience, when administrators and teachers do pay attention to the "social, emotional and civic dimensions of learning and school life," discipline problems are few, attendance is high, and academic performance is strong.

Following up on Kelly's post about the role of parents: in our First Amendment Schools project, the most successful schools had principals who included teachers, staff, students, parents and community members when making decisions about organization, governance and curricula. We found that when all members of the school community are given a meaningful voice in shaping the life of the school, each has a real stake in creating safe and caring learning environments.

Richard raises a series of complicated and critically important questions about the underlying reasons for behavioral problems in our schools. There are many individual, peer-group-related, school-wide and larger societal factors that contribute to this problem. I would like to comment on three that relate to educational policy, individual risk factors and teacher education.

Current federal educational mandates (No Child Left Behind) force educators to focus on reading, math and, recently, science scores. In addition, federal policy does insist that schools measure and track rates of physical violence. We don't measure school climate or the social, emotional and civic dimensions of school life. Following Ohio's lead, a growing number of State Departments of Education are beginning to consider measuring school climate. When we do so comprehensively, we recognize how socially (and physically) safe, as well as "connected" and engaged, students are. This data provides schools with information about a student who is "in need" and, as result, supports primary prevention efforts.

Second, we know that there are important risk factors that dramatically enhance the likelihood that some students will become behaviorally disordered. Students who, for example, have been traumatized or struggle with psychological/psychiatric problems are much, much more at risk for developing behavioral problems (Cohen, 2006). In our recent work with the Ohio Department of Education, we are learning that students who live in families that are moving from location to location seem to be at risk for developing behavioral problems.

Finally, too often students who present behavioral problems are labeled pejoratively by their teachers. Too many departments of education do not help beginning educators to appreciate that student behavioral problems are a signal that something is amiss.

As today's discussion draws to a close, we seem to have come to a general agreement that a problem exists in terms of the prevalence of school disorder, and also that there are multiple causes for student misbehavior. Tomorrow, let’s turn our attention more fully to what policymakers, educators and schools can do to address this issue.

If our public schools have lost their way focusing too narrowly on improving math and English test score performance and ignoring their larger purpose in terms of supporting youth socialization and preparing the next generation of citizens, what can be done to restore balance and revitalize these other core educational functions? What advice would you have for an incoming Secretary of Education in a new federal administration? Are there specific policies that could be advanced that will help to enhance order, respect and the development of citizenship in our schools? Or, is this a problem solely for practitioners and parents to address?

I apologize for joining the discussion so late. I will preface my comments by saying they are based on my observations from the past 25 years in a high school classroom mostly in Wyoming.

I have to go back to the initial comments from earlier in the discussion. In my opinion, class size is essential because small classes (and small schools) allow for CONNECTIONS between students and teachers. Students need to know that there is at least one caring adult there for them every day. They don't care what you have to teach them until they know that you care about THEM. (In other words, I don't teach science - I teach kids.)

I do not teach in a perfect situation, but I am sure Cody, WY is much below the national averages for discipline and behavior problems.

-Cody has around 760 students in our high school. A small enough number that most students feel like individuals; and the majority of students know one another by name.

- We operate on a block schedule of four 97 minute periods a day. That chunk of contact time gives a teacher lots of time to interact with students and get to know them. It also allows time for projects, group work and activities that make school more engaging and interesting. This of course means fewer discipline issues.

-We have small average class sizes: elementary under 18; Middle School about 22; and high school around 20. Small classes mean fewer discipline issues because every student naturally gets more attention.

This intangible connection that gets made when a teacher has time to interact with each student as an individual is a major component of school climate. I know the names of all my students by the end of the first week of school. I call every parent with a positive comment every semester and I stand outside my door and welcome kids every day before class. A teacher who has 150 students a day cannot make those connections and unfortunately the same kids who cause problems at school are the ones who have few connections with adult role models outside of school.

There are so many great strides schools could make if we had the complete buy in of all the parents and the community at large, but so many of those are beyond our control. There were lots of great ideas generated so far in this discussion, and I am not saying to give up on those, but improving opportunities for making connections is something that schools can control.

I would suggest that we can and need to support policy and practice leaders understanding that we can and need to measure school climate and use this social, emotional and civic data to promote students, parents/guardians and school personnel working together to promote social as well as physical safety, ‘connected’ and engagement. To the extent that we recognize the "voices" of everyone in the school community, we create a 'platform' that supports our learning and working together about our problems/needs as well as our strengths. Research shows that this will not only support behaviorally troubled youth. It will support student learning and teachers' ability to teach (Cohen, McCabe, Mitchelli, & Pickeral, 2009)

My understanding is that school climate is now the most practical and scientifically sound way of recognizing (measuring) the social, emotional and civic dimensions of learning and school life.

I suggest that we can and need to develop policies that support this work as well as 'centers of excellence' that support practice leaders learning from one another about the range of ways that we can measure school climate comprehensively and in scientifically sound ways and use this data to build authentic learning communities and develop instructional and systemic plans to promote social, emotional and civic learning.

The National School Climate Council has issued a position paper: The School Climate Challenge: Narrowing the Gap Between School Climate Research and School Climate Policy, Practice Guidelines and Teacher Education Policy (www.csee.net) that summarizes the current, socially unjust gap between school climate research on the one hand and school climate policy, practice and teacher education on the other hand. This position statement also details a series of suggested recommendations for policy and practice leaders. The Council is now working on one of the most important policy recommendations: developing school climate standards.

Although I think most of what needs to be done must be carried out on the state and local levels, I do see an important role for the U.S. DOE. The new Secretary of Education might start by moving "civic education" and "character education" beyond the narrow parameters of the "safe and drug free schools" office—and create a new, expanded initiative that encourages states to take school climate seriously. I would like to see the DOE take the leadership in bringing together leaders in civic education, character education, service-learning, and social and emotional learning to explore their shared goals—and consider ways to work more closely together. And, of course, I would like to see more funding dedicated to these efforts. President-elect Obama's statements in the campaign calling for attention to the whole child (my gloss on his words) suggest that we have an opportunity to move the DOE in this direction.

About five years ago, some leaders of the various initiatives listed above came together to consider ways to cooperate more fully in helping schools develop what we called "civic character" in their students (defined as "responsible moral action that serves the common good"). It was easy to get agreement on our shared goal to graduate students "of good character who are intellectually prepared, civically engaged, and compassionate members of the community." It is more difficult, however, to coordinate these efforts in ways that lead to more cohesive educational programs in our schools. In my view, we need more leadership on all levels, including the DOE, to ensure that we work together—and not at cross purposes.

Good morning, all. Regarding Richard’s question about whether or not we can create policies that would enhance order, respect and the development of citizenship in our schools, I think a class size policy might be a place to start, coupled with a small school initiative. And so many of our public school buildings are crumbling, perhaps we could fund infrastructure repairs that include remodeling buildings into smaller wings, and separate students by grade.

And I definitely like the fact that President-elect Obama has admonished parents to turn off the TV and video games. How refreshing.

Hello, and I too apologize for joining in so late. The comments have been fascinating and reflect much of what we see in our surveys of both students and teachers. I am always struck by the level of concern students voice over widespread use of profanity in the schools, widespread cheating, and the not uncommon problem (the students tell us) of teachers spending more time on trying to manage discipline issues than on teaching. One issue that comes up a lot from teachers is that "one or two behavior problems" distract the entire class. From what we hear, there don't seem to be widespread or effective intervention programs for these troubled youngsters. Some teachers say that the "solution" seems to be "serial suspension." Teachers often complain that it's applied when the problem is very severe, and it doesn't actually help the student. What's the experience of the group on this? Is one solution really focusing on the kids with serious behavior problems in a much different and more effective way? And what would that be?

When I first started teaching, we could write a discipline referral for a student who used profanity. By the time I left the classroom, we were being instructed NOT to send students to the office for something so trivial. We were told to handle it on our own. And that’s fine. Teachers should be able to handle discipline on their own. But then when you called the parent to discuss their child’s profanity, often the response was, “Yeah, so? What’s the big deal?”

It always comes back to this. A huge part of the problem with order and respect in our public schools has to do with parents, specifically that some of them do their darnedest to overturn good discipline policies and, they don’t teach respect at home.

So again, my question is: how can we get parents to work with us instead of against us?

Based on what I have seen work in many schools, an important part of the solution is to give students a voice. This should be done, of course, within a comprehensive plan for developing good character in the school. At the recent Character Education Partnership conference, I was struck by how many of the schools that were recognized as "schools of character" as well as the schools recognized for their "promising practices" were places where students were given real opportunities to shape the life of the school: class and school meetings; participation in the development of the honor code and class rules; peer mediation/conflict resolution; community engagement, etc.

I have spent time in many of these schools (all grade levels) and there are few discipline problems (…more about these schools at www.character.org). When an issue arises, students take responsibility for addressing it. Some of the "troubled" students often end up being the most engaged, powerful voices for respect and responsibility. Freedom is not the enemy of school safety. When students learn how to use their freedom responsibly, they help to create a safer learning environment.

I would like to first appreciate what Charles outlined in his initial (9:35) posting this morning. I agree that there is an important role for states as well as the federal government to play here. Ohio plans to be the first state in the nation to adopt the new National School Climate Standards that the National School Climate Council (with the help of scores of educators and other educational leaders) is now developing. I hope that other states will review and consider adopting these standards. I also agree that the Federal movement needs to fiscally support the kind of social, emotional and civic learning that is—in fact—the stated goal of virtually every single school's (and state's) educational mission statement.

I differ with Kelly's suggestions that we should start with small class and/or school size as a focus for policy change. As important as this is, the recent and costly experiment that the Gates Foundation carried out in this area underscores that class size reductions—in and of themselves—is not enough. This is one critically important variable among many that shapes the norms, goals, values, interpersonal relationships, teaching and learning practices, and organizational structures that make up school life. I suggest that focusing on a more comprehensive set of school climate practices and policies will foster more meaningful change.

I share Kelly's frustration that teachers have too often been instructed to not send "trivial" problems (e.g. profanity use) to the office while in previous times such misconduct was indeed regarded as serious.

Kelly asks, "How can we get parents to work with us instead of against us?" I think the answer may lie in what Charles offered as part of the solution to student misconduct—i.e. to give students a voice. Many schools, particularly secondary schools, resemble military training camps more than institutions of learning. It is a rare school that gives students (and their parents) a meaningful choice in their schooling. First of all, we force kids to go to school between certain ages—e.g. ages 6-18. Second, we restrict their right to select a school that interests them. We force upon them arbitrary school boundaries based upon school district facility and transportation needs. Then we tell them what days and hours they must attend school. School administrators hand down unilaterally developed student behavior rules. We don't give them a choice in who will teach them. Nor do we give them much choice, except in high school where there are a few electives, to choose their course of study. On top of that, we don't even give them a choice of textbooks. There is not much, if any, real freedom for kids and parents the way we have designed public schooling.

What is needed is a new era of public schools: the freedom school era—an era that provides much more freedom for students and parents, but also for teachers and school principals.  (For more on this, you can read my article, Freedom Schools, from the Indiana Policy Review.)

Should we even have a compulsory attendance law? Is there any research that clearly establishes that this law is helping kids learn? The Amish in our area seem to be doing just fine even though they regularly withdraw their kids from school before they reach the age of freedom. Are kids and families viewing public schools as an entitlement because of the way we have designed the system? Why not give kids and parents a right to select any public school they want to attend and engage in learning? Why not give them the power to control their own destiny and treat them as clients, rather than as junior serfs like we do now?

Jeff is right. We need to re-think schools in ways that reflect our commitment to democratic freedom. A few examples:

* Fairview Elementary School in Modesto, CA: parents were invited to help make decisions about school policies and practices. Since many of those parents are new arrivals (80% of the school population is Hispanic), the school sponsored special classes to give parents the tools to participate in decision-making. Many of the parents soon became active in the life of the school. Small example: when they learned that Fairview was a "First Amendment School," they decided to exercise their right to petition by asking the city to build a fence in front of the school to protect their kids from the busy street.

* Federal Hocking High School in Ohio (where democratic schools advocate George Wood is principal): students serve on all school committees (including hiring), help formulate school polices, help design their course of study, etc.

* Cesar Chavez Public Policy Charter School here in Washington, DC: the curriculum and all aspects of school life are designed to engage students in public policy—and to prepare them to make a difference in their community. It has been rightly called a "school of conscience"—a place where students who have long been ignored and written off in DC are given the skills and knowledge to be effective citizens in a democracy.

All of these schools have high attendance, few discipline problems, strong parental support and involvement, and strong academic achievement.

Great examples, Charles, of the benefits of empowering students and their parents! I might add that it is difficult to empower students and parents under the current bureaucratic political system of school governance. If we can empower teachers and principals, and lessen their burden of paperwork and compliance with all the bureaucracy's mandates that have been imposed upon them, they will have more time to satisfy their clients’ (the students’ and their parents’) needs, and to undertake more activities to get parents meaningfully involved in their child's education.

Please don't think that I want to turn over the schools to the parents to run. There is in a way too much of that. What I mean is that a few powerful, politically-connected parents can often dominate a single school building under the current political system with elected school boards. What needs to happen is we need to give more choices to parents, and allow them to make more decisions about their individual child's education, than we do now. I am not saying let the parents set the policies and run the school. That is (or should be) the principal's job.

Schools will find themselves with better parent relations if they view the students as their clients. If their clients have the choice to go to any public school, then they are choosing that school because of the staff, educational programs, location, and other factors that they may consider to be appropriate. Parents with more choices will be happier parents, and in theory, will become more involved with the school, since it is their decision for their child to attend that school.

Several of the panelists have suggested the importance of empowering students and parents more as part of a solution to the problem of school disorder. Jeff recommends that schools treat students and their families more like clients. I am not so sure about the practicality of these approaches to this particular issue. Students as consumers would have their own interests that may not be well-aligned with either socialization or moral development. Isn't it the responsibility of educators to define and structure school climates that are conducive to learning? I am not sure enhancing the power of either students or parents as advocates would necessarily result in the changes we seek.

Philip Howard has posted a Reader Comment here that "suggests a very practical shift in how schools are organized: 1) Teachers must have the ability immediately to remove students for any conduct that violates the code of conduct; 2) The school must have places for these students to go, and counseling services for those who, for whatever reason, cannot abide by basic norms of cooperative behavior." Is such a change either feasible or desirable? Would it help reduce school disorder?

Richard raises an important question about "what works" in schools to bring about the changes we seek. I think much depends on how it is done. What I am describing in successful schools is less about enhancing power and more about inclusion and shared decision-making. I agree that giving students "freedom"—or increasing the power of parents—should not be done in isolation. That would surely make things worse. But when people participate in creating a vision for building good character, civic engagement, and free and safe schools, they feel invested—and they are far more likely to support the efforts of the school than if the vision and mission are defined from the top down. When everyone is given a real voice in shaping the life of the school, each has a real stake in creating and sustaining safe and caring learning communities. Educators need to take the lead—but that leadership works best when shared. I have seen this work in a wide variety of school settings. Some additional examples may be found at firstamendmentschools.org.

As for Philip Howard's proposal: these measures may be useful as part of a larger strategy to address student conduct. But in my experience, step one is to address the root of the discipline problem by making sure that all members of the school community are invested in the "code of conduct." Unless the school climate is right, these measures will serve as band-aids only.

I agree with Richard’s assertion that it is “the responsibility of educators to define and structure school climates.” I also agree with Philip Howard’s suggestion as to how schools should be organized. At all of our 11 public schools, students, parents, and teachers are required to sign a family-school contract. In short, the contract ensures that each partner (student, parent, teacher) adheres to the school’s expectations concerning the Code of Conduct, attendance, homework, family participation in school events, etc. If the family-school contract is broken, the student’s enrollment at the school is jeopardized.

In addition, each parent and student is required to attend a mandatory orientation session before the start of the school year. At the orientation session, the school leaders review the Code of Conduct and high expectations for behavior in great detail. The orientation session ensures that students and parents have a comprehensive understanding of the school’s expectations. School choice is essential in enforcing the above policies. In my opinion, parents (especially parents of historically disadvantaged populations) should be given a choice as to which schools their children attend. That said, when parents choose a school, they are choosing all of the rules, regulations, and policies of that school. Once the student is enrolled, it is the responsibility of the school to enforce the rules and policies.

I agree with Philip Howard that teachers must have the ability to immediately remove students for any conduct that violates the Code of Conduct. By law we have that option in Michigan.

The second part of his suggestion—providing places for these students to go, and providing counseling services for them—is more challenging because it requires building space and personnel. Both of those things cost money. As it is now, counselors have caseloads that are far, far too large to allow them to be very effective.

But bottom line, yes, I do think Philip’s suggestion would help restore order in schools. The question is, how do we fund it?

Public education is in such a difficult situation and there is no silver bullet. How do we reconcile the fact that no school can effectively serve the needs of every child with the monumental goal of preparing every student to be a successful and productive member of society? A number of great ideas have been suggested in this forum but once again implementing a uniform set of guidelines in a system which is locally controlled and managed is nearly impossible.

As a classroom teacher, being able to get disruptive students out immediately accomplishes two things at once. First, that student is gone and the class can return to a focus on teaching and learning. However, more importantly is that other students observe the removal and realizing they don't want to suffer the same consequences (mostly because their friends are in that classroom), and modify their behavior. I am not suggesting we "make an example of them" but rather use it as an opportunity to model consistent limits and demonstrate clear consequences. (Adults and traffic tickets might serve as an analogy—we aren't happy that the police are out on the highway giving out speeding tickets, but we want to continue driving so we all slow down.)

I have been "lurking" in this conversation up till now.

Schools have been faced with the issue of unruly students since their inception. Throughout the years we have tried many techniques. As has been pointed out, there is no "silver bullet," no one size fits all program—and programs take resources, which continue to be cut from rather than added to public school budgets. Within that context I would urge us to think more deeply about Charles Haynes’s comments regarding inclusive and democratic schools. We know that the application of democratic principles to schooling improves performance and behavior for students. I believe that, just as all students can learn, all students can be a member of a democratic society. Changing the culture of a school is probably more difficult than just creating a "holding tank" for suspension cases. However, one of the primary missions of public education is to develop students who can fully participate in a democratic society. As such it is a necessary goal for our schools which, when attended to properly, has many positive consequences.

I agree with and appreciate the comments that have been made this morning. There is no simple or single silver bullet. And a key process includes using the measurement and improvement of school climate as a strategy of recognizing the social, emotional and civic dimensions of student, parent and school personnel life in schools. In addition to learning a great deal about social, emotional and civic learning, school climate data can be used as a springboard to further a democratically informed process of learning, goal setting and instructional and/or school-wide improvement efforts. We are working with schools where students become "school climate improvement leaders"—learning about the findings (along with the adults) and deciding what goals they want to work on to improve school life.

Until we make positive and sustained school climate and/or social, emotional and civic learning standards, and a "bar" that we expect schools to meet, too many educators and school boards will not pay attention to this. I think it is also true that the setting in motion of a process of students, school personnel and educators working together to improve school climate is something that schools can do now. As Julie Underwood underscores, changing the culture or climate of a school is challenging. It is a multiyear endeavor. It is also possible and transformational.

All of us seem to be committed to the general principle of advancing a democratic schooling system committed to preparing future responsible citizens. Many of our schools today, however, fall far short of that goal. Disorder is often endemic and the school discipline that ultimately is implemented today often takes authoritarian and counterproductive forms that are perceived as illegitimate by both students and parents. Recent Justice Department statistics suggest that almost one third of African-American youth today can be expected to be incarcerated at one point over their lifetime, while white middle class male students are failing to attend and complete college at rates greater than many parents and educators expect. The consequences of the lack of youth socialization vary greatly given the vulnerability and resources of particular individuals, but the evidence suggests that something is seriously amiss in terms of preparing youth—and particularly boys—for the future. In a democratic society, however, is it possible to implement meaningful system-level reforms without facing widespread challenges? Where would political and institutional opposition to specific policies, such as the ones that Phillip Howard proposes, come from? Would students, parents, lawyers and judges accept and support such reforms?

I share Richard's sense of urgency because of what students themselves tell us in our surveys, especially minority students. Over three in ten African-American students tell us that their schools have "very serious" problems with: Too many kids cutting classes or ditching school (37% very serious)

Too much fighting and weapons in school (32% very serious)

Too much drug and alcohol abuse (30% very serious)

Teachers spend more time on discipline than teaching (30% very serious).

If adults reported problems like this at work, we would consider it a "hostile" environment and hold their employers to account. To me, one of the most immediate and specific needs, again based on our surveys, is to develop effective alternate programs for the handful of students with very serious behavioral and academic issues. Right now, we aren't helping them, and their teachers and classmates are paying the price as well.

To the extent that new policies and standards were grounded in school climate and student leadership/engagement, there is a compelling and growing body of research that supports how this is related to effective risk prevention, health promotion and student learning related outcomes. I have less rather than more experience with national and state policy reform efforts. But, I imagine that students, parents, lawyers and judges would be supportive of these efforts.

I suspect that one of the major concerns and forms of opposition will be fiscal: if we fund a new project, what we will not fund? In these dire fiscal times, it is entirely probable that there will be significantly less funding for children and education. If we are asked, "Where will we spend less money to pay for these kinds of new initiatives," what would we say?

Richard, I may be the only panelist who questions the "general principle of advancing a democratic schooling system" to which you suggest we all agreed. So you all are probably thinking, Who is this nutcase commie-thinking leftwing liberal anti-U.S. anti-democracy crazo? I am not at all against democracy, even though the United States is not a democratic form of government, but a republican one. The problem, as is often the problem when educators and citizens begin a discussion on "democracy," is the definition of the term. What does it mean in the school context? Does it mean students and parents vote on school behavior rules? on school programs and course offerings? on the textbooks used? on teacher assignments? on hours and days of school? on the school lunch menu? etc. etc. etc.

This is why talking about democracy in schools may be dangerous. Many schools give lip service to this concept, but don't allow majority rule. Students and parents are not fooled by this lip service. I in no way advocate turning over the schools to parents and students to run in the name of "democracy." What I advocate is freedom for students and parents to choose their schools.

So you may be thinking, Abbott just wants to have teachers and principals serve as authoritarian rulers of a totalitarian and oppressive school environment. No... I don't want that either.

In my university position I teach a course called Introduction to the Quality Process. The quality philosophy requires the focus of the organization's mission to be on the customers (i.e. clients in the school business and other professions). What does this mean? The school continuously gets feedback from its clients and adjusts it services and programs to meet their needs as expressed by the client. An organization does not necessarily try and satisfy all the wants of each and every client (an impossible goal anyway) but tries to satisfy the wants and needs of the critical mass of its clients. If it does not do so? Its clients will choose another service provider.

I agree with Jeff that parents need choice (within the public school system). Some of the best examples of schools that take democratic freedom seriously are charter schools (City Academy in Utah; Cesar Chavez in DC). And I also agree that paying lip service to "democratic schools" is misleading and undermines meaningful efforts to reform schools in that direction. The Forum for Education and Democracy is a good place to look for some of the best thinking about the variety of approaches to democracy and freedom in public schools. Jeff is right to point out that these concepts must be carefully defined. But when properly understood and applied, the concepts work: I have seen failing public schools turn around when they find ways to give students (and all members of the school community) a real voice. I highly recommend taking a look at The Five Freedoms Project. The online network brings together educators, students and other interested citizens who "share a commitment to First Amendment freedoms, democratic schools, and the idea that children deserve to be seen and heard." Another place to find schools that are putting into action the "best practices" we recommended in the "renewal of the civic mission of schools" report can be found at: www.civicmissionofschools.org

Of course, one size doesn't fit all. Many fine schools use more traditional approaches... Some of the outstanding National Schools of Character, for example, are quite traditional in their methods, but have caring, respectful learning environments.

I agree with Richard that “disorder is often endemic,” but I don’t agree that “the school discipline that ultimately is implemented today often takes authoritarian and counterproductive forms that are perceived as illegitimate by both students and parents.”

To me, Richard is implying that schools are at fault for taking a stand. If Child A steals a cell phone from Child B, Child A must pay the price. That’s not authoritarian, it’s just fair. That’s not illegitimate, it’s just life.

And yet, even something as seemingly clear-cut as theft cannot be handled the way it should. I know of a student who stole a laptop from someone at school. He got caught. The parents insisted that the child not be punished. They said they would make him return the laptop in exchange for no punishment. They made such a stink that administrators gave in.

School officials have very few discipline options available. If a kid writes on a desk, you can no longer make him wash it. About the only thing you CAN do is suspend a child, and yes, that IS counterproductive, but often it is the only option available.

So Philip’s suggestion of counseling is a good one, as long as it's funded.

Increasing both buy in and input from "clients"—a.k.a. parents and students—is essential to improving school climate. Every school needs to find mechanisms to get ideas and energy from parents. (However, it might be best to get that input in situations where it does not directly impact their own child since that might cloud their otherwise clear vision.)

I believe at least at the middle and high school levels, student input is even more important than that of parents. Make students a part of the system and they will help to support and enforce it. At every grade level something as simple as having the students help in creating the classroom rules can work wonders. The rule-making discussion can be guided by the teacher to whatever degree necessary to reach the desired outcome. Kids like an ordered environment as much as adults. Kids can even create appropriate consequences that will be enforced by the teacher. However, the key is that the kids will remind each other when slipups occur ("remember, Billy, we need to be quiet so people can pay attention during story time"). Instead of just the teacher acting as the enforcer, the entire class is working toward common goals of good conduct. In addition, at the middle or high school level you can set up a teen court system where kids are answerable to their peers for disruptive, destructive or socially inappropriate behaviors. Positive peer pressure in action.

Finally, at the high school level, have student council and other leadership groups be involved on committees and in every important decision. Student council should look beyond social events and fundraising as their primary purpose, and focus on student government.

Deb has some great points. But, as others have pointed out, changing culture is a challenge (although an incredibly important one). In order to actually engage students to be active participants in their community—particularly their school community—they have to have experienced the dialogue of democracy. What I mean is that the responsibilities of a democratic culture require quite a period of time to develop. It is best if they are learned starting at the earliest possible times and reinforced (consistently) over time. (As you see from the international scene, a democracy grows—it can't be imposed.) Ideally this culture would be pervasive throughout all public schools, regardless of location, so that students took an increasing role as they grew through the system, regardless of whether they moved five times before they graduated.

Unfortunately, like many other goals (curricular or co-curricular) there are wide disparities between how students are treated—or treat each other—from building to building across the country. We have made some progress in creating consistent expectations for students in some core subjects. How about focusing on some consistent expectations for student responsibilities? I believe this is the heart of the First Amendment Schools, but not being inside that project I can't be sure.

In 2005 I published an article, The 30th Anniversary of Goss v. Lopez, 198 Educ. L. Rep. 795, 797, 802 (2005). It was the remarks I made to a group of school attorneys considering the impact Goss has had on student discipline. Lots of things have happened in the 30 years post Goss, so you can't draw a cause and effect. But I do believe that since then we have literally made a "federal case" out of student discipline issues. Goss actually gave school officials the authority to do a 30-second due process for minor disciplinary issues. We often don't think about using that discretion and routinely (too often in my opinion) turn to a formal procedure. In my opinion we have tied our own hands and too often lose the "teachable moment" surrounding a minor disciplinary issue by not dealing with it immediately and directly. I don't think this was the intended consequence of Goss—but it does seem to be its legacy.

I would like to offer a rather specific suggestion for improving school order and discipline. It is vital, if we are to improve order and discipline in the schools, that we design a system that motivates teachers and school principals to excel. The current system does not provide any extrinsic motivations, and only the faithful few have enough resilience to persevere with their internal motivation keeping them going on a high level. Especially in schools that lack resources, a teacher's motivation may become the main factor influencing the quality of education.

In schools that operate effectively, teacher and principal morale are always higher, and teachers take responsibility for student performance. Better morale raises teachers' and principals' performance. But even though there is a strong link between teacher and principal motivation and performance, and education quality, increasing this motivation has seldom been a major concern of national policy-makers.

Teacher and principal motivation is an important concern for educational policy-makers because it has an important effect on student motivation. Neves de Jesus & Lens (2005) proclaimed that a common teacher complaint is the difficulty of keeping students motivated to learn in the classroom, and then asked, How much more difficult is it if the teachers themselves are not motivated? Pittman (1998) found that students' perceptions of the teacher as intrinsically motivated increase the chances that the students will be intrinsically motivated as well. Other research supports the importance of teacher motivation.

So what's the point? If we redesign the school governance system to empower teachers and school principals, they will become not only empowered but more motivated. Motivated teachers and principals will increase student motivation. When students are more motivated, they tend to misbehave less and school order and discipline improve. Let's treat teachers and principals like the professionals they are, and give them much more responsibility to run their classrooms and schools than we do now—and then hold them accountable for results. I have much confidence that the new generation of teacher leaders that we are preparing will be fully capable of operating public schools in a way that results in much higher quality schools than we see now... if only we will let them do so without micro-managing them from afar. Let's give them the freedom—and responsibility—to do so.

Julie has made a cogent point. Her insight is invaluable. Goss has been widely misinterpreted and misused by not only the public schools but students and parents. It all started in 1969 with Tinker v. DesMoines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503. There the U.S. Supreme Court pronounced that "it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." This landmark case opened up the federal courts to thousands of school complaints that have been filed in federal courts since. The question it raises is, Hasn't this been detrimental to good school order and discipline? Kids and parents not infrequently threaten teachers and principals with lawsuits. Why do we waste so much money on litigation? Why not design a system that does not let a student discipline act rise to the level of a constitutional lawsuit? Private schools seem to function just fine without this right accorded to their students. Why? Because the kids are there voluntarily and they want to be there. Thanks Julie for bringing in an important view.

On the contrary, Tinker affirms our nation's commitment to fundamental human rights, especially freedom of expression and freedom of conscience. Students don't leave their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate because these are inalienable rights. Of course, as the Tinker decision makes clear, the free speech rights of students are not co-extensive with the speech rights of adults. And subsequent Supreme Court decisions (Fraser, Hazelwood, Frederick) have further strengthened the authority of school officials to place limits on inappropriate student expression. But Tinker still lives—and extends vital constitutional protection to much student political and religious speech. This has, in my view, been healthy for our democracy. The problem isn't that students have too much freedom; the problem is that they have too few opportunities to exercise their freedom with responsibility. Teaching students how to use their free speech well, not censoring speech, is the best way to ensure order and discipline. (This is, indeed, the aim of the First Amendment Schools work—and many other similar efforts.) Many of those lawsuits are triggered by school officials who don't understand the law—or who believe that "order and discipline" means repressing speech or denying religious liberty. Public schools should be the laboratories for freedom and democracy, places where students learn how to be responsible citizens. Students who learn in this kind of environment are highly motivated to learn—and become effective, engaged citizens.

Actually I agree with Charles... but find public schools anything but a Mecca for free speech. I am not sure my point was well made. My point on the last email was simply that private school students have no right of free speech. The Constitutional protections afforded to public school students are not accorded to the private school students because the U.S. Constitution protects us from government action, not private action. I fully support the right of free speech, but there are way too many legislators, school boards, superintendents, and others who don't. Most public schools are anything but laboratories for modeling democracy and the Constitution.

As our third and final day ends, I would like to thank you all for your excellent contributions that have served well to illuminate this important issue. Our panel covered a lot of ground. While we started with abstract reflections on the role of democracy and freedom in our schools, we ended up appropriately with a discussion centered specifically on Goss v. Lopez, a Supreme Court decision that extended rudimentary due process rights to public school students facing even minor day-to-day school discipline. Concrete ideas have been proposed to attend better to students' socio-emotional, moral and civic development and to restore not just a sense of order to our schools, but also fairness and a focus on the full spectrum of capacities related to human development. What is clear from our discussion is that there are many actors that will need to be involved collaboratively in fashioning remedies to address the current problems. Educators, parents, students, policy makers and others will all have to find new ways to both talk and work together, if we hope to improve schooling for our youth.

Are schools more bureaucratic than other public institutions? What factors have contributed to the steady growth in bloated school bureaucracies? Why is there such resistance to decentralizing power in school systems? How do we cut through the red tape and nurture a culture of performance in schools, rather than one of compliance?

Be sure to watch the discussion, beginning Nov. 6!
In the meantime, view our archives for the full text of all of our past discussions.

Good morning and welcome to this timely discussion. We are coming off an historic election, where voters across the country heeded the call for change and supported candidates committed to fixing government at all levels. So what does the new political landscape bode for public school systems? Over the next two days, let’s share our insights about why schools and school districts have become such bloated bureaucracies, and develop some concrete recommendations for the changes needed at this level of government. To get started, why have schools become so bureaucratic?

Though several initiatives have been put forth toward reducing the bureaucracy that exists in the New York City Department of Education, a major factor contributing to this bureaucracy germinates from the principal's inability to be a true CEO of his or her building. This is a disservice to the students and is neither in line with the corporate model supported by the New York City Department of Education nor Mayor Bloomberg's task force on education. Issues such as contractual restraints with regard to removing ineffective or unnecessary personnel, excessive staff absenteeism, and fractured data collection systems all detract from schools' efficiency and productivity. Through balanced negotiation and investment in our informational infrastructure, we will effectively serve our precious clientele, our students. Though bureaucracy is not unique to public education; management, administration, and labor must all work together to continue the process of reclamation that has already begun in New York City.

I would suggest first taking a long-term historical perspective which might help understand how schools have become bureaucratic institutions. Our country's founders were wise to not mention public education in the federal constitution. They left that endeavor up to the states.

When states began to form, America was an agrarian economy and society. The common schools developed in these rather simple, but harsh, times. One-room multi-grade schoolhouses dominated for the entire 19th Century. Schools were controlled often by a single trustee. Life and schooling were simple.

But at the turn of the 20th Century, schools and school districts began to consolidate and become larger and more complex. High schools increased in number and size. Curriculum expanded, electives and advanced courses were added. Specialization occurred. Special education programs proliferated and rules were developed to "protect" these children. Society expanded schools' duties to include many non-academic responsibilities.

Employees began to bargain collectively. School boards morphed into politicians as they became elected officials. In the latter half of the twentieth century legislatures and Congress began to pass a plethora of laws to govern public education. Large departments in state departments of education and large school district central offices emerged to administer these many laws passed to govern education. Thus, the birth of bureaucracy emerged in the 20th century. This is the era of public schools which continues today.

What this writer will argue today is that it is time for a new era of schooling—the freedom school era. An era free of bureaucracy and full of freedom.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

As an educator, I looked at the bureaucracy as another hurdle to proposals for change. I’m certain that if an educator is not tenacious or persistent enough the red tape barrier will not be cut. In my own case, as a district instructional technology specialist—it took me six months of arguing with the district technology director and the assistant superintendent to get simple cameras installed in one of my computer labs. It’s frustrating to say the least. I could have installed them myself in an hour—tops. It’s almost that in education we have been brainwashed to believe that change has to come slowly. My favorite line is that it took about 19 years to get overheads out of the bowling alleys and into classrooms.

I always hated hearing things like “Oh, we don’t do that here!" or "Great idea can you write that in a proposal?” In many cases those short answers from administrators usually mean we’re not doing it, or if it makes you feel better—write it down. A principal friend of mine told me that when others see the importance in what you want to do, then it will happen. The problem is that if bureaucracy is thick, you may never have that happen, in most cases, from the bottom up in education. The worst thing that can happen is that creative education pioneers give up. That happens to the most stubborn, but when it happens to those who are not, it may be their last idea.

Some top-down comments, and what I see as writer and editor seeking education stories later.

Why are public school systems so bureaucratic? Several factors:

- The explosions of policies and codes: while taken individually, probably most policies had a kernel of thoughtfulness, on the whole we have created a system so complex with rules, regulations, approvals, checks and balances, that it has sapped whatever spirit of good decision making and common sense is left. Good organizations thrive on good talent and good decision-making, not on greatly codified processes and rules.

- Centralization: as Sana Nasser alludes, the Principal controls very little. He is not the true CEO of his school. Most major decisions are made by the central bureaucracy. And thus we've turned Principals into good "followers of the rules" not great managers and instructional leaders.

- Union rules: while I believe in unions, they have fought for contracts that reflect their distrust in management and have tried to further regulate things more (see first point). So they have contributed, unfortunately, to the explosion of regulations and policies.

- Lack of management talent: when you have such a centralized system and such complexity of regulations, coupled with a lack of clear accountability, what suffers is human resource development. Over time, even the most talented individuals, when they don't exercise their decision-making abilities, lose this ability and revert to checking the rule book for everything. Management talent becomes a rarity...

I could go on, but I'll stop here...

Thanks for including me. In Public Agenda's surveys and focus groups with superintendents and principals, complaints about bureaucracy and red tape emerge repeatedly. They actually fall into several categories: One is the complexity—near incomprehensibility some tell us—of the major federal mandates—special education and No Child Left Behind. Second is the "nibbled to death by ducks" phenomenon. It’s the accumulation of federal, state, and local mandates (plus contractual obligations) that make "bureaucracy and red tape" overwhelming. Plus, school leaders say, there are often conflicts in what the various mandates call for. Third is the one Ken mentioned—it’s difficult to get relatively simple things done. Fourth is that principals, who are now expected to be "instructional leaders" and working more directly and closely with classroom teachers, still have a lot of minor administrative tasks that fall to them. As one told us, "Give me a break—how am I responsible for a bus driver being rude at a bus stop?”

These various problems may call for very different solutions.

Sana Nasser identified one of the significant problems in the improvement of public education: school principals in no sense of the word are allowed to serve as the CEO of their schools. They have been de-skilled and serve mainly as their schools' CCOs (chief compliance officers). They must comply with: (1) all state statutes governing public education; (2) all state administrative regulations governing public education; (3) all federal laws governing public education; (4) all federal administrative agency regulations governing public education; (5) all school board policies; (6) all superintendent and central office administrative regulations, rules, and directives; and finally, but not least, (7) all collective bargaining contracts. When is there time or opportunity for the poor principal to courageously lead a school to education reform and improvement?

Ken Royal succinctly points out a prevailing problem in the current bureaucratic environment. It took him six months of arguing to get simple cameras installed in his computer lab when he could have installed them in one hour himself! As he states—it was frustrating.

Another example is my wife—who qualifies as a "principal left behind" as she remains active as a sitting principal after I left the superintendent's chair for the greener and softer pastures of the university. She was involuntarily transferred to the most high risk and most underperforming elementary school in her district. Ostensibly it was because she was the "best elementary principal we have." She was told she would have "full authority" to turn that school around and was directed to do so. However, there is a constant trail of central office administrators, state education department bureaucrats, trainers, consultants and others coming into her building to occupy her time. She is constantly told to go to numerous "training" activities. Meetings, meetings, meetings take up her time. She is out of her building close to half her time for these mandated activities. On top of this, she does not get to pick her own assistant principal (who wanted the principal's job at this school), nor does she get to pick her own staff because of seniority provisions in a variety of union contracts. And the school board expects her to turn around a school in this bureaucratic environment?

School reform and school improvement can occur. Step 1 is to let the principal be the CEO of the building.

Let me take a somewhat different tack and try to mix up the conversation a bit. Bureaucracy isn’t bad, in and of itself. Indeed, theoretically anyway, it is good. It is supposed to rationalize the process and generate efficiencies through coordination, encoding learning into procedures, differentiating functions to obtain the benefits of specialized knowledge/skills, promoting reliable work behaviors, creating economies of scale, etc. The problem is when bureaucracy goes awry and the means become the ends rather than serving the ends, in our case student achievement. I suspect we want some procedures (aka bureaucracy) in place. The question is in what areas does it serve school performance well (e.g., food services, facilities, assessment/accountability, etc.), in what areas does it restrict performance, and at what level should they be determined (school vs some higher level). I would really like to hear Marco weigh in on this since I suspect Green Dot has had to think this through with their schools.

Jeff- Over the past few years, principals have been given greater autonomy with regard to budget, hiring, curriculum, and professional development. We look forward to continuing these reforms in the future.

I think Jane's note is helpful in that she's asking us to think through the places where bureaucracy is necessary and useful versus the places where it's just a time-consumer and energy-sapper. For example, most school leaders tell us that some data collection requirements of NCLB are beneficial—especially those that focus on achievement among different groups of students. They've made districts acknowledge and act on problems that were beneath the surface before.

Maybe we could also consider another "how can we solve this" theme, especially since several of us have talked about the "nibbled to death by ducks" syndrome—the accumulation of mandates, rules, etc. that make the situation so bothersome. Who has the power to make the needed changes? What entities, groups, etc. could actually be helpful in cutting the red tape?

We have quickly come to a consensus that the sheer volume of bureaucratic requirements in schools make it exceedingly difficult for principals and teachers to focus on their core mission, education not compliance. Given tax revenue shortfalls, rising energy and health care costs, and budgetary pressures at all levels of government, the inevitable challenge for school districts in the foreseeable future will be to do more with less. How can we shrink school bureaucracies? Picking up on Jane and Jean’s comments, what functional areas are best performed in a higher level, central bureaucracy? And for those functions which interfere with school performance, who has the power to cut red tape? Can school systems reform themselves or are external forces necessary?

Assuming for the moment that Jane Hannaway's definition of bureaucracy is appropriate under certain circumstances, I would offer that the structure of the governance system should be changed in order to eliminate bureaucracy as much as possible, and in order to move the educational bureaucracy from the central office to the building level. Empowerment of teachers and school principals is the key to containing bureaucracy. But with freedom must come responsibility. I suggest the following as an outline for a new vision of public school governance that will diminish the bad effects of bureaucracy:

1. Deregulation of public schools and dismantling the politico-edu-bureaucracy.

2. Create an environment that focuses on students as clients and eliminates politics external to schools.

3. Empower teachers and principals to serve students' academic needs and to operate the school.

4. Assign personal and group accountability for all school staff as well as all stakeholders.

5. Provide free choice of public schools for all parents within a reasonable area.

6. Change school finance to a weighted student-funding formula where state revenue follows the child.

These six changes can serve as the foundation for a new system of governance of public schools. It will place the authority and responsibility for producing academic achievement results at the building level, while the central office supports buildings with the provision of transportation, facilities, maintenance, and food services. Under this new system of governance the academic responsibility for schools would be bid out competitively to principals and their group of senior level teacher leaders. Five year contracts would be issued. This laces responsibility at the building level, provides transparency of results, and eliminates the need for top-down management of individual schools. With this transparency and accountability, there is no need for massive new laws and regulations to be passed every year micro-managing public schools. Giving teachers and principals freedom to use their independent professional judgment, accompanied by real accountability, can elevate the teaching craft to a true professional status.

The hierarchy is a bit sticky, so while the superintendent is looked upon as the district leader/decision-maker, she or he is a rung down the ladder from the board of education, and they in turn are a rung down from the finance board, and all are influenced by the citizens who have hired or elected them. When so many weigh in it’s difficult to figure out a way around what’s Bad in Bureaucracy. And the buck doesn’t stop there—education is so tied to each individual state (which can be very different) and then national regulations and demands—the whole thing becomes very difficult to handle. Bottom line, as was mentioned, kids are the customers here and time isn’t taking a break. Sometimes I wonder if thinking about it as you would a medical emergency might help. We seem to know how to cut the red tape there, for the most part. It’s a good week to bring up politics—it just seems to me, this is a very tough knot to untangle without looking at the top rung.

Ken, you raise a couple of interesting points. Education leaders are part of the problem and have to be part of the solution. How can we make the “top rung” occupants, superintendents, local education and finance board members, and education commissioners more accountable for the size and effectiveness of the bureaucracies which they oversee? Would more transparency help? A new Fordham Institute pilot study, The Red Tape Report, shines a spotlight on key state regulations that impede the autonomy of principals and grades five states on the degree to which they micromanage schools. And why are most parents and voters so complacent about school bureaucracy? How bad does the problem have to get before we declare an emergency?

I would like to make the distinction between bureaucracy and overhead. While both terms have a negative connotation, I think that what Jane Hannaway was referring to is that you do need some overhead to coordinate the system, standardize processes, prioritize investments, and focus resources. Every industry has overhead: in the for-profit world, the average overhead is 25% of all costs (as defined by the percentage of costs that are sales, general and administrative). The most efficient industries go as low as 13% (utilities if you care to know) while others, like the pharmaceutical industry, spend close to 50%. The fact is, not all overhead is bad.

At Green Dot, we have an ambitious goal to have overhead represent only 5-10% of all costs. Meaning all other costs are incurred at schools. We are not there yet, although we are clearly very efficient when compared to a regular district. Our approach is to define as clearly as possible the accountability framework, then decentralize decision-making to schools as much as possible, and intervene promptly when data shows things are not going well. The center (the “overhead”) is responsible for: a) codification of best practices, and then training principals and assistant principals on those best practices; b) managing some services that make more sense to be centralized because they do not need to be personalized for a specific student or school to get better; c) managing growth (real estate, fundraising, etc.); and d) holding people accountable, including ourselves in the "overhead."

We already have the tools to keep superintendents accountable, but we just don't use them. While NCLB has many flaws, it does offer a fairly clear perspective of what should happen to schools and Districts that fail. But, at least in California, there has been very little "bite" to the law. The Los Angeles Unified School District probably has 70 to 80 schools in Performance Improvement 5+ (most over 6-7 years) and they're just allowed to continue. All they had to do at year 4 of PI is submit a plan that was approved by the District itself and voila, you're off the hook. Who cares that you continue to fail—you've checked the box. I'd like to see real accountability in terms of schools being either shut down, or taken away and given to new administrators like charters. Without consequences, there is no accountability.

Whoa, Marco, you can’t go shutting down schools. Well, you could, but that would just add another mess. In Connecticut they have had takeovers of schools—in a corporate way—and threats to take over schools, as well as big turnover at the top admin levels. The corporate-like takeovers don’t work, and I can’t see switching out superintendents like baseball managers either. You have to remember, too, that districts are trying to meet NCLB with all students. It’s just not that easy—and will get more difficult, but that’s another discussion. The answer can’t be closing schools, or superintendents running scared. It’s not that simple—back to red tape.

Here's the list of mandates one state superintendent we interviewed reeled off:

• All children must receive oral health instruction and information about organ donation;
• All schools must have an "anti-bullying" policy;
• Everyone must say the Pledge of Allegiance;
• Social studies classes must celebrate "Freedom Week";
• All schools must have a parent involvement committee;
• Each bus driver must have two paid breaks;
• Districts must have committees on employee policies and committees on "closing the gap";
• Each teacher must have a set amount of money for supplies;
• Every child's body mass index must be listed on the report card.

That's on top of NCLB, special ed, and actually running the school system of course. How many of these are appropriate, useful mandates? Is there any way to get state legislatures to curtail what seems to me to be a lot of "window dressing" legislation?

Jean, this is the stuff that fills faculty-meeting agendas these days. I remember training on how to restrain students, avoiding cupcakes and birthdays before 2:30 PM, recess or not to recess, and lock down practice. A great deal of time was spent on how to practice for the standardized test, and how to avoid infractions when delivering those tests to students. In the old days we discussed kids and teaching after an opener by the principal. At more recent meetings, it was not uncommon for me to hear frustrated teachers ask if they could also have some time to actually teach the curriculum. In most cases, the last five minutes was devoted to new technology presented in a quick fire Robin Williams’ delivery. By the way, two breaks a day sounds wonderful. ;>)

Ken, I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. Several school districts (like NYC and Chicago) have taken the bold steps to shut down chronically underperforming schools and either reopened new ones in their place or contracted them out to third parties. I'm not talking about corporate raiders doing it. I am talking about the lack of urgency and lack of aggressive action that happens when people hide behind phrases like “it is not that easy.” It might not be easy, but in my view, transforming districts will require some boldness. Shutting down underperforming schools, reconstituting them or doing charter conversions would be a healthy shock therapy to the bureaucracy.

As we wind down our first day of conversation, the weight and intransigence of school bureaucracies is apparent. Marco and Ken highlight an important tension. What should be done about chronic underperformance? Marco thinks it’s time for bold, aggressive action. Ken says we can’t just shut down schools, and that corporate-style takeovers aren’t the way to fix schools or motivate superintendents. And in the midst of this struggle, Jean gives us a magnificent, but troubling list of the endless mandated minutiae schools are drowning in every day. Tomorrow I hope we can turn to practical recommendations and concrete solutions. How do we clean house in school bureaucracy? Indiana has just elected a new State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Anthony Bennett, who will manage the Department of Education and lead the state Board of Education. Bennett wants the Department to run as efficiently as possible and believes regulation handcuffs schools from pursuing their agendas. What advice do we have for him and other newly elected officials about how to translate campaign aspirations into policy realities?

There has been a lot of talk so far about punitive measures for schools, such as takeovers or school closings, as a way to deal with bureaucracy. Punitive measures seem to smack of Taylorism top-down management as well as Theory X management. But are punitive measures the best way to deal with bureaucracy? I would not argue that punitive measures are never appropriate, but would suggest they be used after positive measures have failed. In over thirty years of involvement in public education, I have never known a teacher or school principal who did not want a kid to learn. But I have known scores who are browned out, burned out, and dispirited because of so many rules and mandates. All too many teachers and school principals have expressed to me that they think that legislators, school boards, and sometimes superintendents do not trust them. The bureaucracy has robbed teachers and principals of the opportunity to be creative and innovative, and to use their professional talents to the fullest. I think it is time to try Ouchi's Theory Z and apply it to teachers and school principals. Why don't legislatures accord them a little professional respect and trust? Why must they be micro-managed by the bureaucracy? With more freedom to use their professional judgment, coupled with accountability for their actions, teachers and principals will be empowered and become enthused to act in the best interests of students.

Well, now I have the need to defend myself, because clearly I must be that ‘punitive measure Taylorism’ guy. :)

Jeff, I think you've just defined Green Dot. We are actually the exact definition of a middle of a road approach. Contrary to most charter organizations, we have embraced unions and have put students (first, as always) teachers and principals at the center of a reform platform. Our model is one of decentralization and site-based decision-making. We treat teachers and principals as professionals, giving them autonomy over their budgets, their hiring and retention of staff. We allow teachers to teach their own lesson plans, using their judgment to fit their students’ needs. We, together with our union, have required that clear, fair, and transparent accountability measures are in place. We believe in smaller, safer schools that become better environments for learning and personalization.

My points about shutdowns were referring to the urgency needed for the transformation of the system. The enemy is the bureaucracy, not the teachers or principals. In our model, we will need about 20 to 40% more teachers to serve Los Angeles and probably 10 times the number of principals. What we won't need is a bloated bureaucracy outside of the schools. The "punitive" method of closing schools that are chronically failing refers more to a process to get from point A to point B. I simply don't believe we can legislate ourselves out of this. Adult interests will always take precedence in a legislative process. We need bold action to transform.

Ye gads … Must be losing my advocate and belligerent edge from my law practice days, because I agree 100% with what Marco said. There are certainly a lot more enlightened charter schools than government public schools. This is due in no small part to the lack of a bureaucracy. Imagine Schools in Fort Wayne, IN, is organized and operates with the same philosophy as Green Dot. However, not all charter schools operate in such an enlightened manner. I can think of one charter school in Indiana that drove its new principal out within 3 weeks of starting the job. The president of the charter board was on a power trip and had always wanted to operate a public school, even though of course he had absolutely no teaching or administrative experience, much less any state educator license. His petty politics mimicked many local public school boards.

There is too much bureaucracy in public schools because we have too many chefs in the governance kitchen making the soup. We have state legislators, Congress, state departments of education, the U.S.D.O.E., school boards, central offices, teacher unions, and other interest groups making the soup. When it turns out bitter each part of the governance system can blame the other part. How convenient! What a wonderful way to design a system that assures a complete lack of accountability for any single person or group. The solution may be so simple that policy makers are overlooking the obvious—Why not hire just one chef (the principal) and let the chef be responsible and accountable for a sweet-tasting soup? Let the chef be the CEO of the kitchen, and hold the chef accountable for results. This seems to be the Green Dot way. Why not expand this philosophy to the public schools? Are the adult interests in the way of such expansion?

Everyone would agree that "excessive red tape" and "bloated bureaucracies" are bad. They waste precious and limited resources and often restrict productive behaviors. But I think we want to distinguish between that and decentralization. A school could be highly decentralized and still be hamstrung by its own excessive school rules and regulations. The trade-off, as I see it, is between holding schools accountable for process (following rules, procedures, etc.) and holding them accountable for student outcomes. I think we are in the midst of a big change in this regard...moving toward performance-based accountability...and experiencing all the bumps along the way. And that's how we got to discussions about what to do with the chronically low performing schools. Is simply setting them "free" the answer?

I’ve been following the conversation and even reading the reader comments. We need to forget everyone’s personal agenda and think about what we’ve all said that is consistent in almost every thread of this conversation. It is that there needs to be a fresh look from the top to filter out all the fibrous mess, decrease the number of hoops everyone has to jump through, and get the rules straight forward enough that you can see from point “A” to point “B”. We used to call that common sense, and it works in business and it works in education. Our new president could get this rolling, where as our last just added to the confusion. Wouldn’t it be something if President Obama gathered a group to look at education bureaucracy from the top down? The prerequisite for a member of this new group could be knowledge of education and business, but most importantly it should be that each member has common sense and can see through the tangle to get the shortest distance between each point from national to state to local—right down to the student. The time is right to do it and it can be done. It would take time, and I hate that, but it needs to happen. Sure, there’s dead wood in every field, but to straighten out this bureaucracy it needs a new, fresh look from the top, rather than removing the managers on the ground floor, who are certainly having trouble figuring out the map—and don’t have the funds to cover the jungle that continues to grow. Man, I’d love a chance to do that, and I’m sure everyone it this discussion would as well. Who knows Barack? Sign us up!

Jane, simply setting school principals and teachers "free" is not sufficient. I do believe they need to be free to use their best professional judgment. In over thirty years I have not observed excessive school rules and regulations promulgated at the school building level. These excesses have always been promulgated by state legislatures, the state board of education, the state department of education, school boards, central offices, and teacher unions. Any principal who in the new freedom school environment attempts to establish excessive rules and regulations, and thereby create a one-school bureaucracy, will not last long in a competitive environment. Scientific management types simply don't last long in the school business.

I have had conversations the past few years with various local teacher union leaders about the idea of holding schools (and teachers) accountable for outcomes and not process. The teachers like the idea of being in control of their own classroom. But I have received mixed responses, although the majority would favor the idea. Many are scared of accountability because it has been a foreign concept and not part of public schools' culture.

Unfortunately, teacher evaluations mostly just evaluate the teachers’ processes, and not outcomes. In Indiana we have a statute preventing a teacher's evaluation from being based upon the state's standardized test (ISTEP+). Thus, I have seen very little movement in Indiana toward the idea of freeing up teachers to select their processes, in turn for being held accountable for outcomes.

In my view, academic achievement will take a quantum jump when policy-makers free up teachers to select their own processes (i.e. to control their own destiny in the classroom and use their professional judgment) in return for accountability for outcomes from using those processes.

Love your idea Ken! Sign us all up! I agree totally with your idea to look at education bureaucracy from the top down. This is exactly what is needed. The problem of bureaucracy cannot be attacked from the ground floor, but needs to be attacked from the 20-mile-high view. Bureaucracy as we know it will always be with us until policymakers study public education with a systemic reform lens.

Several posts have focused on the need to avoid micro-managing principals and certainly have made a persuasive case for it. I am just wondering if there are a few more specific near-term measures that might persuade state legislators to think twice before passing non-academic mandates on oral health and "Freedom Week" and the like. Many of them seem well-intended, but passed without much thought about how schools will actually accomplish them. I wonder if there are groups like the National Governors Association or others that could publicly challenge this kind of "mission creep," feel-good legislation. Given the challenges facing today's schools, it really doesn't seem like too much to ask. This may not be a fundamental issue, but it certainly seems to be a frustrating burden for the principals and superintendents we've interviewed. I wonder who could be the bully pulpit here.

Here's another crazy idea: (this is for LA but could be done anywhere) I bet you that if you took the California Ed Code, the full set of LAUSD policies and all LAUSD union contracts and did a thorough analysis, you would find that there are a crazy amount of conflicting rules and regulations. And I do mean conflicting...so, which one "wins"?

I think Jean is on to something. Where can the "bully pulpit" be found? I think the National Governors Association or the Council of Chief State School Officers might be another. The problem with both these organizations is that their membership is full of politicians, many of whom have regularly offered legislation to "fix public schools."

I think we need good research on the plethora of laws that hamstring public education as Marco suggests. This might draw media attention to the problem. Perhaps, as the newly elected President of the United States did, we need an electronic media campaign to build grassroots support to significantly reduce the "bad" bureaucracy. I am not sure anything will be done until teachers and education leaders join in this effort to reduce bureaucracy.

Thank you all for your thoughtful comments. You have been an engaged, thoughtful group and it has been a pleasure serving as your moderator. As most of you know, reducing school bureaucracy is at the heart of Common Good’s Education Initiative. Our Over Ruled project (which will go national next year) is one of the ways Common Good is working to raise awareness of the plethora of laws you have identified. We look forward to a continued dialogue with you about the best bully pulpits. In the meantime, let’s all do our part to cut red tape whenever we can!

Public Agenda announced today that NewTalker Philip Howard, Vice Chair of Covington & Burling, LLP and founder of Common Good, is joining its board of directors.

For over a quarter of a century, Public Agenda has been providing unbiased and unparalleled research that bridges the gap between American leaders and what the public really thinks about issues ranging from education to foreign policy to immigration to religion and civility in American life. Nonpartisan and nonprofit, Public Agenda was founded by social scientist and author Daniel Yankelovich and former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance in 1975. Public Agenda's two-fold mission is to help American leaders better understand the public's point of view. Citizens know more about critical policy issues so they can make thoughtful, informed decisions.

As NewTalk readers know, we work closely with experts from Public Agenda, such as Steve Farkas, Jean Johnson and Ruth Wooden.

Read the full press release here