The 1997 Report on the
Top Ten Destructive Factors Impacting Public Education
By The Horace Mann League

(Click here to see how the AASA audience rated the destructive factors.)

The Horace Mann League’s Second Annual Survey of Destructive Factors was conducted in October 1996, with 305 educators participating nationwide. The purpose of the survey was to determine the prevailing attitudes of school leaders about those factors perceived to inhibit the improvement of public education in communities across the United States. It is believed that, if the destructive factors can be identified, then constructive steps can be taken to strengthen public education–the primary goal of the members of the Horace Mann League.

Two thirds of the participants in the 1997 Report of Destructive Factors were male, over half were 50 years or older, and almost two-thirds had a doctorate. Participants were evening split between large metropolitan centers and suburbs and small cities and rural residency. Over two-thirds were school district superintendents. The next largest group were teachers with just less than 20%.

In reverse order are the top ten destructive factors.

No 10. Low academic standards: Low academic standards and the lack of benchmarks or other indicators to measure the school’s effectiveness, the school’s quality, or learning climate were viewed as the 10th factor. While there are numerous tests to measure student achievement, participants may be indicating that there is no agreement in the profession on how to compare school quality within the nation and internationally. With no agreement on the standards and other critical variables that impact on a school (e.g., poverty level, family structure, common values, and national priorities) there are few, if any, ways to reliably compare student achievement and school effectiveness.

No. 9. Divisiveness of the Religious Right: There remains a pervasive belief among many citizens that there are simplistic solutions to complex educational issues such as school prayer, privatization of education, increased accountability systems, and more “local control” to improve education. These efforts, masked, often by the ulterior motives of the ultra-conservative, religious ideology, have torn communities apart or brought many school reform efforts to a stop. It could be characterized as a mind set indicative of, “if I can’t have my way, then nothing will be approved.”

No. 8. Citizens’ resistance to change: Citizens, while demanding improved schooling for children, are still supporting many dysfunctional practices, such as graded elementary schools based on age than ability; the grouping and tracking of students into low, middle or “gifted” levels; placing emphasis on competition rather than cooperation and teaming activities, and the agrarian school calendar instead of the year-round or extend school year.

No 7. Disrespect for legitimate authority: This means that many parents and students show a distrust, contempt for, and an uncooperative response to legitimate requests related to behavior in schools. This can be demonstrated in the challenge to the authority to discipline students to the adversarial belief that their child is right and the school principal’s allegations are wrong, even before information is shared.

No. 6 School Board Governance: There is an increasing number of school board members willing to pander to the voters, rather than taking a stand on what is believed to be the best for all of the school children in their entire community. There is a tendency in many communities for school board members to pledge “no tax increase” rather than take a leadership role in improving schools. In other communities, some school boards are more concerned about ideological values than learning about the research that supports ways children learn and grow. Finally, is the paradox, that those school boards that need the most information and training are the least interested attending workshops on boardsmanship.

No. 5 Citizens’ inattention to social issues: There is a growing disparity between those that have and those that don’t have access to health care, decent food and clothing, and have a safe and secure place to live. Almost a quarter of today’s school children are living in poverty. These children are coming to school under prepared to take advantage of the opportunities to learn how to read, comprehend tolerance of other’s ideas, let alone grasp the importance of technology in their future.

No. 4 Educators’ inability to see schools being different: Even with the overwhelming evidence of what needs to be done to improve learning, we, as educators, are reluctant to promote significant change. We tend to prefer the traditional than taking a stand against those with a vested interest in the present methodologies. We often back away from the necessary conflicts associated with school reform. We tolerate incompetency rather than agressively dismissing incompetent teachers. We often are swept up in the comfort of harmony and false hopes that all will be better if we just wait long enough. The courage to promote the concepts of non-graded schools, the extended school year, and effective learning strategies, unfortunately, often result in a short tenure for superintendents.

No. 3. Inequitable and inadequate funding of public education: We all know that public education is competing with other public services. Besides the pressure on the public funds, there is the continued dependency, in many states, on property taxes for the support of local schools. This dependency on local property taxes continue to create a greater difference in the quality and quantity of educational opportunity for children. While children in some urban and rural schools are lucky to even see a computer in their school, children in the suburbs are designing home pages and participating in discussions with other children from around the world.

No. 2. Perpetuated negative myths about public education: The public schools are faced with increasing amounts of negative media messages about the alleged decline of quality instruction and learning. Even when presented with reliable information, there are few who can articulate effectively how well the public schools are doing. The challenge of us, as educators, may not necessarily be doing more, but rather explaining what we are already doing to help children learn and grow. Public educators need to regain the offensive by challenging the “myth makers” about the quality of their local public schools and of America’ s entire public school system. Sure, we have room to grow and improve, but we still have the most comprehensive, open, responsive, and effective public schools when compared on the same criteria, internationally.

No. 1. Decline of the parent’s responsibility for their children’s development: Along with the decline of the community structure is the decline of family unit. Even with the two parent family, when both parents are working, there is the decline of home supervision after school and direct involvement in their child’s school activities. Besides the limited involvement, there is the instability in the child’s life, along with the more limited nurturing of basic values such as tolerance of others, respect and responsibility for one’s actions, and a high priority being at school on-time and every day.

For additional information about this study or about the Horace Mann League, contact Dr. Jack McKay, Executive Director, University of Nebraska at Omaha – KH 414, Omaha, NE 68182