Peter E. Pflaum - Golden Globe - The Synergy Network http://www.wiredbrain.net/ Pflaump@wiredbrain.com Peter E. Pflaum Ph.D. 225 Robinson Road New Smyrna Beach FL 32169 (904) 428-9609 June 15, 1994 pflaump@wiredbrain.com NONPUBLIC SCHOOL SURVEY by Mary Anne Watkins Private Schools in America Numbers In 1987-88, there were more than 105,000 elementary, secondary, or combined schools. Of these schools, 78,600 were public and 26,800 were private. More than 45,100,000 students attended these schools: 39,900,000 went to public schools, and 5,200,000 [11.5%] went to private schools. The average school had 428 students. Public schools were larger (averaging 508 students) than private schools (averaging 195 students). In 1987-88 there were just over 2,630,000 elementary and secondary school teachers: about 2,320,000 public school teachers and 307,000 private school teachers. There were more than 103,000 school principals (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], July 1992, School and Staffing Survey (SASS), 1987-88, p. v). In public schools less than 1% of urban and suburban schools enroll less than 150 students; 3.4% of rural schools enroll less than 150 students. In nonpublic schools, about 12% of urban and suburban schools and 31% of rural/small city schools have less than 150 students. The average size of these small (150 students or less) schools is 70 (NCES, July 1992, pp. 10-11). The sample of we used in Florida was 63 schools in this study averaged 62.9 students in size. Forty-five percent of the 138 schools in the sample responded. The 39 schools with enrollments below 64 were called "small" and 24 with enrollments above 64 called "big". Nationally the Amish have the smallest nonpublic schools followed by the Mennonites and the Seventh-day Adventists. Roman Catholics (average enrollment 291) tend to have larger schools. Average public elementary school enrollment is 550; secondary is 1,100; overall 650 (NCES, p. 10). Although one expects small schools to have a lower student to teacher ratio (Figure 3.2), this is not always true. Small school size and small class size are not the same issues. Students in Roman Catholic schools make up about 64.6% of nonpublic school students in the United States. Figure 3.1 gives number of schools and enrollments. In Florida (Figure 3.3) Roman Catholic school students make up 36% of nonpublic school students. Students attending Baptist schools in Florida comprise 12.7% of nonpublic school students compared to 6.8% nationally. Florida reports more "other" nonreligious schools (20.7%) than the national average of 11.7%. Different methods of counting explain differences between Florida figures and national figures. The NCES (July 1992) survey did not count hospital schools, daycare centers with kindergarten only, or privately run special education and juvenile detention centers. A large number (1000) of kindergartens in Florida are attached to daycare centers. A large number of these are not counted as schools by the NCES (July 1992) survey. First grade must be part of the school for NCES to include them. In Characteristics of Nonpublic Schools in Florida, 1990-91 (FDOE, 1991), Florida also counts some home education centers where regular classes are not meeting four hours per day. NCES (July 1992) eliminated home schools from the Schools and Staffing Survey - 1987-88 (SASS). In cooperation with the United States Census Bureau, NCES used field representatives to check telephone books, state department of education lists, and lists from private school associations to make the SASS as accurate as possible. The state of Florida did not have such extensive resources. Therefore, the Florida list (FDOE, October 1991) contains home schools, hospital schools, marine institutes, juvenile treatment programs, and many private daycare /kindergartens. In Florida nonpublic school students represent about 9.5% (compared to about 11.5% nationally) of all elementary and secondary school students (about 200,000 of the 2.2 million school children). About 70% of Florida nonpublic school students attend elementary schools, as they do nationally (Figure 1.2). Nationally, 16% of elementary school students attend nonpublic schools; and 7% of secondary school students attend nonpublic schools. Teacher Perceptions Nonpublic school teachers are paid less than public school teachers. Many more nonpublic school teachers are part time teachers than public school teachers. NCES (July 1992, pp. 64-65) figures show $18,378 (nonpublic teacher annual salary compared to $27,231 (public teacher annual salary). However, nonpublic school teachers are happier. They feel they have more influence and would take up teaching again (NCES, July 1992, pp. 98-99). Even more interesting, teachers in smaller schools are happier than teachers in larger schools. Fifty percent of nonpublic school teachers in schools enrolling less than 150 students certainly would be a teacher again, while only 30% of public school teachers in schools enrolling over 750 students would choose the same profession if given that option. This is true regardless of being urban, suburban, or rural small city. School size appears to be a factor of teacher satisfaction with work and having a feeling of input into decision making. Sixty-two percent of nonpublic school teachers in schools of less than 150 students feel they have a great deal of influence on discipline policy compared to 22.5% of public school teachers in schools of 750 students or more. Percentage of nonpublic and public school teachers who were highly satisfied with various aspects of working conditions (NCES, July 1992, p. 82-83): * Overall view of working conditions (highly satified): Public 750 or more students - 25.6% of teachers Nonpublic less than 150 students - 52.6% of teachers * Administrative support/establish common goals: Public 750 or more students - 12% Nonpublic less than 150 students - 37.8% * Buffering/enforcement of rules: Public 750 or more students - 21.5% Nonpublic less than 150 students - 64.3% * Collaborative norms/teacher participation in decision making: Public 750 or more students - 4.1% Nonpublic less than 150 students - 29.2% * Adequacy of resources: Public 750 or more students - 2.3% Nonpublic less than 150 - 1.7% The smaller the school (both public and nonpublic), the more positively teachers view working conditions, administrative buffering and enforcement of rules, and collaborative decision making. Nonpublic schools, however, are far ahead in all these criteria except for resources where scores are universally low (NCES, July 1992, pp. 82- 83). Small School Survey Fifty-nine schools responded to the Small School Survey (Appendix A, Survey Instrument). Question 1 - Most students are in multi-age classes. The average answer was 3.9 which is between undecided and agree. The sample was broken at the average size of respondents' schools which was 65.5 students. Those schools enrolling 65 or more students are called "big," and schools enrolling less than 64 students are called "small." The small schools answered an average of 4.3 on Question 1. On Question 1 the larger schools answered 3.2 (Figure 3.6). The difference is 1.1 (Figure 3.5). The schools with less than 64 students tend to have multiage classes (Figure 3.4). Question 2 - Teachers have groups of students with three or more years difference in age. The average answer was 3.7 (between undecided and agree). Again the smaller schools are more likely to have classes of students with three or more years difference than the larger schools. Question 3 - Students spend more than one year with the same teacher. The average answer was 4.0 (agree) with the small school answer being 4.6 (between agree and agree strongly). Small school students are more likely to spend more than one year with the same teacher. Question 4 - Students learn to study on their own. Students in smaller schools are more likely to learn to study on their own. The average for all schools was 4 (agree) but the small schools answered 4.5 (between agree and agree strongly). Question 5 - Teachers, parents, students, and administration share a vision for the school. The overall score was 4.5 (between agree and agree strongly). There was a small difference, but vision sharing may be slightly clearer for larger schools. No difference was reflected in religious and nonreligious schools in any of the questions. Clear goals is identified as Goal 1 in What Do Effective Schools Have In Common? "Teachers and principals in effective schools express their expectations clearly, so students and parents understand that high academic standards have been established (Brookover, 1979; Lee County, 1985). Schools that reach board consensus on their goals and expectations are more likely to be successful" (Purkey & Smith, 1983 in FDOE, June 1990, p. 2). Question 6 - The principal is highly visible around the school. The average answer was 4.5 (between agree and agree strongly). No difference was evident between small and larger schools. Some teaching principals answered not applicable to this question. Question 7 - There is clear and effective instructional leadership from the school principal. Schools report they have good leadership (4.6). Questions 6 and 7 relate to strong leadership, Goal 3 of What Do Effective Schools Have In Common? Effective schools have effective principals. It would be difficult to overstate the importance of the principal's role in any school improvement effort, for the principal occupies a "strategic position in the school organizational structure for developing and maintaining a school climate conducive to learning" (Block, 1983). As the chief officer of a school, the principal must lead by visible example (FDOE, June 1990, p. 6). Question 8 - Teachers believe students can master basic skills. Teachers believe each child can master basic skills (4.7). Question 9 - Low-achieving students are called upon as often as other students. Most respondents answered they think so (4.4). Questions 8 and 9 relate to high expectations, Goal 4 of What Do Effective Schools Have In Common? Teachers and administrators believe they can create a climate in which all students can learn and improve. Teachers let children know they are capable of good work and that it will be expected of them. Students feel they can positively affect their futures . . . . The landmark 1968 study, Pygmalion in the Classroom, by Rosenthal and Jacobsen, demonstrated that when teachers had low expectations, even of high achieving children, those expectations became a self-fulfilling prophecy and the students performed poorly (FDOE, June 1990, p. 8). Question 10 - Subject objectives are coordinated and monitored through all grades. Yes -- 4.5, between agree and strongly agree. Goal 5 of What Do Effective Schools Have In Common? concerns having a focused instructional program. Instructional programs in effective schools focus on the achievement of clearly defined and displayed objectives. Commonly stressed is student acquisition of basic skills, particularly reading and math skills. Effective schools implement programs to help students with learning difficulties, and adapt their curriculum and instructional strategies to individual classroom needs (Levine & Stark 1981). Once basic skills are mastered, successful schools focus on higher order/critical thinking skills. The curriculum is well-planned and designed to provide continuity across grades and subjects (FDOE, June 1990, p. 10). Question 11 - Administrators, teachers, and parents participate in school planning and decision-making processes. There is not universal agreement (3.9 between undecided and agree). There is no difference in school size or religious or nonreligious. Question 12 - School coordination reflects democratic decision-making. As in Question 11 on participation, there is some doubt about full democratic decision making (3.7). Goal 6 of What Do Effective Schools Have In Common? discusses collaborative decision making. Comprehensive school improvement involves the entire school structure, so principals, teachers, advisory committees, teachers' unions, parents, and students should participate to some degree in the planning and decision-making process. As Thomas Sergiovanni and John Moore write in Schooling for Tomorrow (1989), "the model of an individual who unilaterally `runs' a school no longer works very well." Schools wanting to improve recognize this and develop many kinds of leadership among the school community. Teachers, for example, are the critical component in the delivery of instruction in a school, so their input in decisions involving curriculum is vital (FDOE, June 1990, p. 14). Question 13 - Generally, student discipline is not an issue at the school. Average answer was 3.9 (agree). Goal 8 concerns order and discipline. Edmonds (1979, 1982) reported that a school must have an orderly, safe, clean, and otherwise pleasant environment for effective learning to take place. In effective schools there is an orderly purposeful atmosphere which is free from the threat of physical harm. The climate is not oppressive and is conducive to teaching and learning (Edmonds & Lezotte, 1982 in Smock, 1986). Successful schools take stock of the physical and disciplinary situations at their schools, and faculty and staff work together to identify areas for improvement. A written code of conduct is produced based on this collaboration, and is distributed and explained to students and parents. Rules are taught -- not merely announced (FDOE, June 1990, p. 20). Question 14 - Outside interruptions rarely interfere with instructional time. Average answer was 3.86. Question 15 - Classroom time is focused on content and students are involved in active learning. Large and small, religious and nonreligious schools indicated an average of 4.6 (between agree and agree strongly). Goal 9 is Maximized Learning Time. "How teachers manage available classroom time is more important than the actual number of minutes allocated for instruction" (Block, 1983 in FDOE, June 1990, p. 23). Question 16 - There is an active parent group in the school involving a majority of parents. Surprisingly, a low score was reflected on average (3.3 or undecided). One would think in small nonpublic schools parents would be very active. Perhaps working parents are not as active as respondents think they could be. This is also reflected in Question 17. Question 17 - Ninety to 100 percent of parents attend scheduled parent-teacher conferences. Average answer was 3.8 (between undecided and agree). This may still be higher than in many large schools. Smaller nonpublic schools indicated a greater parental attendance at conferences. Goal 10 concerns Parent/Community Involvement. Schools which are successful in improving achievement actively encourage and assist parents to help their children master essential skills, particularly with regard to homework. Effective schools welcome parents and meet with them often, providing parents with various options for becoming involved in schooling -- especially in ways that support the instructional program (Armour, 1976; Block, 1983; Brookover et al., 1979; California SDE, 1977; Cotton, 1980; Edmonds & Fredericksen, 1979; Fetters et al., 1968; Fisher et al., 1980; Gigliotti & Brookover, 1975; Levine & Stark, 1981; New York SDE, 1974; Wilson, 1981 in FDOE, June 1990, p. 25). Question 18 - Assessments measure what students are expected to learn. Average answer was 4 (agree). Question 19 - Assessment information is used regularly to improve curriculum and instruction. Average answer was 4.3 (agree). Goal 12 is Careful and Continuous Evaluation. "Student achievement and overall school improvement efforts are monitored carefully and frequently. Progress is noted and made public. Activities are modified and refined as necessary to improve performance and the instructional program (Block, 1983; Edmonds, 1979; Purkey & Smith, 1983; Squires et al., 1983; Weber, 1971 in FDOE, June 1990, p. 30). There is a high level of agreement among all of the schools that students can master basic skills (Question 8); low achieving students are called upon as often as other students (Question 9); curriculum is coordinated (Question 10); and classroom time is focused and students are active in their learning (Question 15). See Figure 3.4 for average responses to the 19 questions. See Figures 3.5 and 3.6 for the differences between smaller and larger schools. Figure 3.6 shows average scores of larger and smaller schools. Conclusion Small schools seem to be happy schools. They tend to have high levels of participation, cooperation, and coordination. Students in small schools are likely to spend time on task, learn good study habits, and become self- reliant. Structure of the school requires high levels of participation by all students. Standardized test scores appear to be at least equal to larger schools, holding SES constant. Small school structure offers greater opportunity for educational quality. Some reasons are discussed below. Quality in Education Deming's philosophy represents a conceptual shift in how we view organizations. Quality does not result from inspection. Inspection and standards reduce rather than promote excellence. Quotas, inspections, and slogans exhorting persons to work harder and faster do not motivate. They merely defeat the purpose. We must pay attention to process, but effective process cannot be prescribed. It is developed through attention to guiding principles. Process in any organization is unique. Harmonious relations should bloom spontaneously as flowers do. It is a poor workshop where operators and foremen are considered to be part of the machinery and required to do a job specified by set standards. What constitutes a human being is the ability to think. A workshop [and a school] should become . . . place[s] where people can think and use their wisdom (Ouchi, 1981, p. 228). Inspection of schooling through instruments such as standardized tests does not improve quality. Emphasis on teamwork rather than on individual competition enhances productivity. Grades and similar assessment measures do not promote excellence. They defeat it. Some leaders forget an important mathematical theorem that if 20 people are engaged on a job, 2 will fall at the bottom 10 per cent, no matter what . . . . The important problem is not the bottom 10 per cent, but who is statistically out of line and in need of help (Deming, 1986, p. 56). Asking teachers and schools to rework mistakes following years of system failure is not a feasible path to improved educational outcomes. Parents and communities must work with teachers and administrators in developing and adapting a process capable of yielding educated, skilled, value-driven youth. Adapting Deming to schools involves restructuring our educational organizations as dramatically as the Japanese restructured their business organizations. Dewey's presence can be seen in efforts to adapt Deming to education. Thinking and Doing Schools must, as Dewey advised, reconnect thinking and doing. Group and teamwork, projects, integrated curriculum, peer tutoring, and teacher as facilitator reflect views of both Dewey and Deming. Multiage nongraded grouping is a logical framework where such educational approaches can work. In education as in industry "defects are not free. Somebody makes them, and gets paid for making them" (Deming, 1986, p. 11). Rework of defective goods is not free; it is expensive. The product of schools is student knowledge. When student knowledge is defective, it must be reworked, compounding time and expense. Members of the educational community who define quality -- students, teachers, administrators, and society must have input into our system of education. As organizations mature and grow in size, they tend to become more structured and bureaucratic. Bureaucracy separates thinking from doing (teacher-proof curriculum, textbooks, etc.). Under scientific management the doer merely follows instructions. Doers are often placed in difficult and unmotivating circumstances. There may be fool-proof systems, but often the fools are too clever. This results in more inspections, more layers of management, more bureaucracy. Years after publication of A Nation at Risk (1983), American Federation of Teachers president Albert Shanker notes implementation of numerous and various school reforms throughout our country. Largely, these attempts have not positively affected student learning (Shanker, 1990). Often in education sound ideas are found "ineffective" following poor implementation. Sometimes implementors fail to follow guidelines closely enough. Consolidation of One-Room Schools Public schools grew up with the factory system. Scientific managerial practice suggested division of labor into separate units; division of time marked by bells. Rows of desks were attached to floors. Textbooks were divided into units. Teachers, standing before the class, covered material in specified segments of time. Students, seated in fixed desks, all "learned" in standard fashion. The advent of school busses -- "with comfortable seats, heaters, windows, and front and rear doors" (Covert, 1928, p. 2) -- and paved roads encouraged consolidation of small schools into larger factory-like buildings. Scientific management encouraged standardized testing as an accurate measure of educational effectiveness. Because of lack of documentation, we will never know if or how effective one- room nongraded schools were. During the early part of the twentieth century a prejudice evolved-- one-room schools lacked the latest in fashion and the latest in facilities. There was much local control of one-room schools. Consolidation reflected political power as well as educational and managerial theory of the times. Education concerns character and thinking. Many educators have long been uncomfortable with the factory system of schooling and its large impersonal bureaucratic organization. Education is personal and moral. With the economy moving away from factories into information processing, old style industry is disappearing. Eighty percent of employment today is in small business and information processing. Schooling has always followed the leading economic institutions of the period. Education now is dealing with down-sizing, decentralizing, school-based management, and other ideas currently fashionable in the industrial world. As Dewey was the prophet of post-industrial management styles, he was keenly aware of human and moral dimensions of education. The connection of thinking with doing, of learning with practice is critical in modern information- processing businesses. It is equally critical in education. Small is beautiful. Less is more. Fix the System American schooling faces a serious systems problem. Deming urges business and industrial management to fix the system, not the blame. Students must be viewed as workers, not products to be processed. "The traditional model of schooling is . . . incompatible with the idea that students are workers, that learning must be active, and that children learn in different ways and at different rates" (Shanker, 1990, p. 350). Too many American schools today remain based on the factory model where employees produce piecework and scientific managerial principles are administrative guidelines. Small Schools and Educational Quality In a small school quality is easier to accomplish. With fewer students and fewer disruptions, teachers can focus on children. With teacher cycling and multiage nongraded grouping a learning community evolves. Students cannot merely lean on their shovels. They must be involved in their own learning. Good or great education can happen anywhere. Smaller school size is not the entire answer to America's present educational dilemma, but it is a viable place to start. For size to help significantly, schools must become small enough for people to know each other well. Small schools offer opportunities for development of stable, caring learning communities. Today America has about 8500 small nonpublic schools and about 1000 one-room public schools. Evidence suggests these schools are interesting and worthy of further study. Small schools and small sailboats are reminders of our simpler past. Small schools involve a human connection of teachers and children. Small sailboats involve a spiritual connection of sailors and surroundings. Supertankers on autopilot involve a disconnection of thinking and doing. Edward B. Fiske argues . . . the time for tinkering with the current system of public education is over. After a decade of trying to make the system work better by such means as more testing, higher salaries, and tighter curriculums, we must now face up to the fact that anything short of fundamental structural change is futile. . . . . American public schools grew up around an early industrial model that has outlived its usefulness in education as well as in the industry that created it. The renewal of public education in this country requires nothing less than a frontal assault on every aspect of schooling -- the way we run districts, organize classrooms, use time, measure achievement, assign students, relate schools to their surroundings, and hold people accountable. Trying to get more learning out of the current system is like trying to get the Pony Express to compete with the telegraph by breeding faster ponies (Fiske, 1991, p. 14-15). A major helpful educational reform is simply making schools smaller -- MUCH smaller.