Iowa is currently engaged in a contentious, but healthy, debate about how to improve its education system. One central part of this debate is the appropriate balance of state control versus local control in decision making when it comes to our schools. Some argue that the doctrine of local control, or having educational authority vested primarily or completely in the hands of local officials, is the best path forward for improving Iowa’s education system.
One hyper-active version of this philosophy even argues for the abolishment of the Iowa Department of Education so that a state presence is eliminated entirely. This ideological trip-fantasia is being built on a constructed narrative that the relative decline of Iowa’s school system was actually caused by the creation of the Iowa Department of Education. However, the facts simply do not support this assertion. The Department was created in 1913 and was present during much of the expansion and years of success of Iowa’s education system.
Some might argue that my sticking up for the Department of Education is a self interested position. Not so – if there was any evidence supporting the elimination of a state agency (or ministry of education in the case of an international system) was effective at improving student performance, I’d be advocating for that approach. But there simply are no examples of high performing education systems that have used this approach and risen to greatness. In every single case there is the presence of a strong state-wide vision and direction.
It’s not about me either because, put directly, I can find another job. This should be about what policies we should pursue that will result in a better education for our students.
Our collective goal is for Iowa to have a school system on par with the highest performing education systems in the world. Strong local control advocates would have us believe that we should take a sort of “laissez-faire” approach to educational decisions, where we should count on every one of our 348 school districts in the state to make the decisions and have the capacity to miraculously arrive at greatness.
Perhaps, at a surface level, this philosophy has some merit. The local control approach relies on the notion that local school decision makers will make the best decisions on behalf of students and that the local district will internally have all the capacity necessary to deliver a world-class education. Sometimes and on some issues, good decision making happens and sufficient organizational capacity does exist at the local level. But, the evidence does not support a pure local control approach in practice. An over-reliance on local control also leaves a lot of important aspects to chance at the local level. Anyone who has actually been in some of those 348 school districts in Iowa can tell you the capacity for good decision making and for delivering uniformly high quality educational services is all across the board in terms of consistency.
Over-relying on a local control doctrine yields exactly what Iowa doesn’t need more of – variation and uneven results in terms of quality and student results. Let me be more direct. If Iowa designs its education policy featuring an over-emphasis on local control then the state has no chance of becoming a world-class school system and will instead have of pockets of both academic excellence and anemia … with a heavy dose of continued mediocrity.
To reinforce the point, there simply are no examples of high performing or fast accelerating education systems that rely on a pure local control approach in their ascent.
In fairness to this philosophy of local control, it would be equally foolish to put in place a system of tightly centralized and bureaucratically-driven state control. This approach would squelch local innovation, overly standardize decisions that need to be customized to local contexts, and create responsiveness issues in addressing local problems.
Instead of setting up this false dichotomy of local control versus state control, what we should be trying to find is the right balance.
The state has an important role to play in setting high expectations for all students and making sure these standards are being met. The state also serves an important role in making sure that all students are being provided equitable access to a quality education. Finally, the state has a role to play in making sure this important goal of educating its citizens is appropriately resourced and that our schools are fair and honest stewards of tax dollars. With that said, we should have a great deal of deference to the local level in making customized implementation decisions and operational decisions.
Our work must be to find the right mix and balance of state and local control in our schools that sets universally high expectations and universally bold strategies, but also allows for intelligent and flexible customization and problem solving to local contexts. The 2010 McKinsey and Company study How the World’s Most Improved School Systems Keep Getting Better got it right when talking about this balance. Those authors said the responsibility of the state was to “prescribe adequacy, and unleash greatness.”
State and local leadership is necessary for our schools to improve at the pace and scale necessary for Iowa’s education system to reach its goal of being one of the best systems globally. We need big changes and investments in education on the scale of the problems we face and that require a strategic, intentional, and purposeful direction for every school in Iowa.
The future of Iowa’s children is simply too important to be left to chance.
Jason Glass
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 12, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Trace Pickering
Well said, Jason. This isn’t an either/or. The challenge and promise, as you state, is to design the right mix that unleashes the greatness! Thanks!
August 12, 2012 at 6:01 pm
Marc Natanagara
Iowa ( and thoughtful leaders like Dr. Glass) could design a blueprint to inspire states like NJ, where politics tends to trump evidence, research, and, frequently, common sense.
August 12, 2012 at 6:17 pm
Mike Peterson
Balance is the key. Thank you for having the courage to confront this contentious issue. The stakes are too high for educational decisions to be left to chance. Also, the well-being of our children is too important to leave totally in the hands of people with no ties to the local community. It is time to stop the reactionary rhetoric. Our children need and deserve the benefits that come from local control and state control. A healthy, sometimes tense conversation regarding how these two concepts coexist is a perfect example of the kind of critical conversations we should be modeling for our students. Knee-jerk reactions benefit no one.
August 13, 2012 at 2:33 pm
Bob Anderson
Hundreds of “local” school districts are too small to provide the leadership, creativity, and flexibility necessary to maximize student opportunity. Increase the administrative size of rural school districts and the local high school can remain in tact or change based on local needs and decisions. Currently, rural school districts do not have the resources and flexibility that they need to improve educational opportunity for their students.
August 14, 2012 at 12:01 am
Pat
In your discussion of the balance between centralized state and local control you failed to mention impact of the creation of the federal department of education which has dramatically over weighted the ideal balance towards a top down direction since 1980. The role of the state department has now become merely a conduit from the larger, more distant decision makers.
Today, local “responsibility” is simply to adhere to the joint policies of the state and federal departments of education. This is not the road to having “a school system on par with the highest performing education systems in the world” let alone, to improving.
It’s not about the structure or who holds what position, it’s about each student sitting in any Iowa classroom who should be the recipient of the best we can offer to help him learn. What that may be is not some “consistent” dispensation of policy by ever absent policy makers. Rather it is the astute group of educators at the school who are a learning team themselves with the flexibility to bring best practices personalized to each student.
This kind of functional balance will not come from “big changes and investments in education.” We have just implemented “big changes and investments ” since 1980 and the results have been remarkably and consistently poor.
We need smart analysis for smart changes. TIP: Look to professional development at the school level, but do not perpetuate the current delivery system which has fallen short. Encourage principals and teachers to learn and do for their students—who are unique individuals, except in their desire to be successful.
August 14, 2012 at 12:42 am
Jason Glass
Hi Pat -
This post is more focused on the appropriate role of local control. The role of the federal government is dealt with in another post on this site, in case you missed it. Look for the recurring theme of balance there as well.
I appreciate the critique – thanks for stopping by.
August 15, 2012 at 8:38 pm
Greg Stevens
Dr. Glass.
One thing I think could be a real help to us small districts is a way collaborate. I am the only one in my District that teaches the things I do. It would be helpful to have a way to talk with others teaching what I do. Friday, several local districts are coming together to get a briefing on the Common Core. During this meeting I hope to make connections. If the Department of Ed can in some way facilitate these meetings with a page on your website maybe.
The research on collaboration with common assessments and time would be heaven for so many teachers. I do teach with others in my department, but our Spanish teacher is the only one in the District. That is true of many of our teachers. Everyone needs to collaborate. Otherwise, our small school model will fall behind.
The Principal/Teacher symposium was a great day for our school and led to a lot of discussion and will lead to changes. However, without support of teachers in our fields, it will be difficult. Understanding best practices, implementing them, and discussion the implementation success and failures would be a wonderful way to transform our shall schools.
August 17, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Ed Klamfoth
Jason,
I could not agree more that there continues to be a need for a state education department. Those who work in the schools every day with students don’t always have the time necessary to conduct and/or review research around best practice. I think the DE is in a great position to help us in that regard (given that many of the employees in your office are swamped).
Similarly, I am a big fan of the Iowa Core, and encourage the DE to continually evaluate those standards to ensure they are what our students need most. I have often said that one of the most difficult decisions a teacher has to make every day is what not to teach. Again, it’s a challenge for teachers to stay current with what our students need most in order to be successful once they leave our system, so if there is an agency at the state level to help make that determination, I’m certainly in favor and am confident our students will benefit.
These are just but 2 examples of why I feel Iowa will always need a dynamic Department of Education. Thanks to you and all the others in the Department for helping us to be better at what we do.
August 28, 2012 at 9:05 am
Glass: On the doctrine of local control for schools | A Better Iowa
[...] “Iowa is currently engaged in a contentious, but healthy, debate about how to improve its educ… A Better Iowa This is a virtual town hall to focus on the greatest public service issues confronting Iowa. Consider it a digital gathering of community conversations where your ideas, opinions and solutions will be shared, studied and even debated. [...]