ALPHACRUCIS COLLEGE
  • Home
    • Our Team >
      • Dr David Hastie Profile
      • Professor Mark Hutchinson Profile
      • Dr Stephen Codrington profile
      • Dr Stephen Fyson
      • Donna McClean profile
  • CFS Newsletter
    • CFS Global
  • New Schools Initiative
    • NSP Media & News
    • Members
    • The Incubator
  • Teaching Schools Alliance
    • TSA Media & News
  • Research & Services
    • Consulting Services
    • Programs
    • Research
  • Resources
    • Resources - links
    • Publications
    • Events
  • Contact
  • Professional Development
  • Christian History Teachers
  • Christian History Teachers
  • About Alphacrucis
  • CSCEFC
  • VETiS

Research in New School Formation

New Schools PODCAST #1

5/12/2019

0 Comments

 
Picture
Mark Hutchinson talks to Garry Paget, long-standing CFO of the St Philip's Christian College group of schools (in the Hunter region) about topics important to those planning new schools, such as:
  • How Garry began in the administration of Christian schools, and grew a system which has proven capable of managing a complex, expanding system of schools.
  • The role of the CFO, and their relationship to a visionary CEO, in growing Christian schools
  • The use of metrics to enable the growth of good schools
  • The organizational underpinning and resources are needed to start a new school 
  • The financial and administrative advantages of networked schools.
St Philip's now embraces six separately registered schools all owned by a common Foundation, built from a mixture of new school plants and school acquisitions.  Several new campuses are on the drawing board.  The school has demonstrated not just remarkable durability but the continuing ability to generate innovative programs, including the remarkable DALE campuses, and the St Philip's Teaching School.

​The entire Podcast can be found here.
0 Comments

Embedded Value Risks in Starting Schools

4/5/2019

0 Comments

 
[Starting New Schools 1: Embedded Value Risk.]

Sectors (Public, Independent, Catholic) plant new schools in different ways. Those sectoral differences will thus affect the various ‘assets’ and approaches taken differentially. In order to conceive of how this works, it is helpful to think of New School Plants (NSPs) as business startups, albeit Not for Profit (NFP) businesses largely in the human services industry.  In his work with Nokia, Valto Loikkanen conceptualized the stages of a business startup as follows:

​Figure 1: Startup Development Phases.
Picture
Loikkanen, et al, at Startupcommons.org.

In a state-funded startup, 
ideation is largely driven by abstracted externalized values, such as the need to provide services to a new planned suburban growth corridor due to some sense of social contract, or a broader strategy (such as stimulation of the economy, or infrastructure development, etc). In a private startup, the ideation may be driven by profit motives, or in NFP settings by ideological commitments (‘reaching the unsaved’ or ‘expanding rationality’, etc). For some writers, such as Felix, the search to ‘re-ideate’ arises from the understanding that ‘it is nearly impossible to reform existing schools’ and that ‘public schools destroy children’. (Felix 2014, p. 1) School planting is thus a way to organizationally hit the reset button, and to open up the opportunity to produce the reform in a new space which was resisted in the old.  This is because Ideation implies (a) the target market in one way or another, (b) the value proposition (ie. what will change in a positive manner via the planting), and (c) a group who shares the vision.  This is a warning as to the flip side of this, ie. that purely opportunistic acquisitions or NSPs may by-pass this phase, and so present problems with:
  • Concepting: the ability to conceptualize (concepting) and address target market, issues and communication of value propositions, and skill concentrations necessary to bring schools into being.
  • Committing: the ability to gather and mobilize a core, capable team, to estimate the actual costs appropriately, and to mobilize stakeholders
  • Validating: the ability to validate and press through the failures and required ‘re-writes’ of the school plan, vision, etc, so causing the project to stall as 'too hard'.
  • Scaling: the ability to deal with exposed weaknesses in the modelling, and to mobilize additional resources to take the prototype to a broader market. This leads to the inability to hire and to expand as required.
  • Establishing: the ability to operate transgenerationally is undermined, with the implementation and maintenance imperatives undermining the founding intentions/ objectives (‘mission drift’).

​Failure at the Ideation stage can create significant internal or pipeline resistance to the concept of a new school. Al Shanker noted in 1988, for example, that in publicly-funded systems, those who start new types of school are often treated “as traitors or outlaws for daring to move outside the lockstep” or subjected to “to insecurity, obscurity and outright hostility ... ” (Shanker, 1988, p. E7). As Felix notes in her phenomenological study of school planters, “each school founder discovers one or more gaps in the educational landscape s/he then seeks to fill. The journey includes rebellion against established norms with a distinct philosophy and vision, and focus amidst a barrage of risks and naysayers.” Underlying all successful school planters is “a sense of purpose and an obligation to develop other people’s children.” (Felix 2014)

The type of system brings with it embedded values, and those values and related structures drive the barriers which face NSPs. Felix (2014) notes that school planting, homeschooling and the growth of charter schools in the USA are all responses to perceived ills in, and the inflexibility of, publicly funded schools. The embedded values in NSPs, therefore, are both negative (a pre-Ideational sense of ‘what this NSP will NOT be like’, or will be a solution for) and positive (‘what this school will be/ do/ achieve’).  This may be seen in the work of the Centre for Collaborative Education, a think tank and consultancy program specifically aimed at dealing with the problems of rapidly changing, plural technological societies. CCE emphasizes “equity, rigor, and continuous improvement”, and works out of a vision ‘of a world where every student is college- and career-ready and prepared to become a compassionate, contributing global citizen’. On the basis of work at Minnesota New Country School in Henderson, Minnesota, Edvisions was planted by the Gates Foundation in order to foster ‘new school development and the transformation of existing schools that wish to create more personalized, engaging learning through meaningful and relevant, student-centered project based learning and teacher empowerment’.  Such values may not be sufficiently focused for Christian school networks, but they do demonstrate the advantages very large systems have in being able to sustain think tanks and systemic innovation. 

In Christian school settings, such innovation/ adaptation is often not systemic, and being ‘hit and miss’ can depend on the charisma and insight of a founding leader.  Interestingly, the CCE has also ‘landed’ on an apprenticeship style of education for new school leaders, not unlike that pioneered by Alphacrucis College in Australia. The AC Hub Model embeds an HDR-based reflection process in the middle of the learning ecology.  Likewise, the Centre for School Change runs ‘a leadership academy with district and charter leaders in Minneapolis/St Paul that has helped educators and young people, while recognizing the value of what has been done before’. (Nathan 2012) The first question with regard to developing a systematic approach to new school planting (NSP) and innovation (two non-identical but related terms) is thus the ‘Why?’ – what are the values which underpin a particular approach to NSP, and why do it in the first place? Is growth of the system a value which lies at the core of the network (as it does with the ‘Achievement First’ network of Charter Schools in the USA), or are additional campuses and ‘sponsoring’ of innovations not directly of advantage to the existing campuses seen as a threat or an impost?

Unreflective approaches can lead to unexpected results. Positive discrimination and negative discrimination can further act to limit the drawing pool for talented leaders. In state-funded systems, new school planting can require founding leaders to step outside the normal promotions pathways, and to stick with a developing school for many years (so limiting mobility and the rewards which come with it). One might assume that this would be less the case for a leader appointed within a networked Christian school setting. In such a setting, after all, the rewards are less bureaucratically driven, there is potentially a higher level of group mission orientation, and the leader is actualizing strategy for the group. However, it is also the case that
  • the risks associated with the new school can also be associated with the leader to whom the task is committed, producing resistance to the ‘newcomer’, or regret that such a troubler of the waters has been introduced into the core leadership group.
  • the costs associated with the new school can also be associated with the new leader, and so give rise to opposition to ‘taxation without representation’.
Personally, new school leaders may face:
  • mismatch between the systems required for implementation as opposed to the legacy systems in place across the broader system
  • ‘ranking’ on the basis of small start-up numbers or the sense that the new plant is not ‘the core business’ of the network
  • blocking and gerrymandering behaviour by existing leaders or existing knowledge elites, and impacts on personal advancement.
  • resistance to innovation and a pressure back towards the norm.
  • Difficulties in HR and funding arrangements.
  • critical news media coverage

​When someone is asked to do something new, they are being asked to sacrifice something. The sponsoring school network needs to take that sacrifice (as a form of ‘embedded risk’) into account in how the program is designed.
 
Sources:
  • Centre for Collaborative Education, ‘District + School Design’, http://cce.org/work/district-school-design, accessed 5 April 2019.
  • Felix, D. (2014), Minding the Gap: Uncovering the Lived Experience of Starting a School, PhD Dissertation, University of Maryland.
  • French, D., et al. (2014), The Path Forward: School Autonomy and Its Implications for the Future of Boston’s Public Schools, Boston: CCE.
  • Loikkanen, V., et. al., 'Startup Development phases', https://www.startupcommons.org/startup-key-stages-previous-versions.html.
  • Nathan, Joe (2012), review of Starting Up: Critical Lessons from 10 New Schools by Lisa Arrastia and Marvin Hoffman (Eds.): (2012). New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 174 pp., $29.95, in the Journal of School Choice  6.4 (October), pp.518-520.
  • Shanker, A. (1988, July 10). Convention plots new course–A charter for change (paid advertisement). The New York Times, p. E7.

© CFS NSP Team, 2019.​
0 Comments

Price Effects of Quality Schools

3/28/2019

0 Comments

 
Transformational effects on communities are often not to be found in direct government interventions or funding.  In dealing with massified systems such as schools or population growth, there is just not enough public money available. For this reason, educational economists have looked to unpack the market links between guardian/ parent choice, schools and their benefits to the broader community.  How, for instance, can the presence and functioning of different kinds of schools influence well-being or population behaviour by affecting the engines of choice?

In her survey of the literature, Lauren Taylor notes that, beyond the appeal factors of location, sticker and operating costs, and house design, proximity to amenities, neighborhood quality, and school quality are all reflected in a house’s retail price.  In Australia, any new area will eventually have a state school provision – but the supply of educational services here (as opposed to other places in the world) is highly variegated. David Hastie, Associate Dean for Education Development at Alphacrucis, notes that “Australia has the fifth highest school choice in the world”, after countries such as the Netherlands and Chile (sometimes for unrepeatable local historical reasons.)
​
Taylor notes that: ‘Of particular interest to homeowners, economists, and policy makers is the effect of school quality on housing prices in any given area.’  This depends, of course, on how one defines ‘quality’.  Measuring “school quality is often difficult and very subjective”. She distinguishes between studies based on “output-based” means of measurement (standardized test scores, school ranking, etc) as opposed to “input-based” measurements (teacher-pupil ratio, per-pupil spending) compared to house prices in a defined region. Clark & Herrin (2000) note that both input and output measures are important. "However, elasticity estimates of input measures tend to be higher than those of output measures, with the average class size by far the strongest influence. There is some evidence to suggest that the benefits of additional teachers likely outweigh the costs." Taylor notes attempts by economists such as Tiebout (1956), who predict house choice (and so population movements toward homogeneity) in the basis of preference patterns for local public goods (including schools, parks, and other amenities).  ‘According to such a model, individuals with similar preferences will populate a community’, on the basis of the average, shared measure of perceived Local Public Good. Such economic logic is particularly suited to advanced consumerist societies such as the USA, where choice is conceivably less restrained by embedded ‘thick cultures’. Livy notes that it is also important to distinguish when the buyer is making a choice: "standardized test scores positively drive this relationship during the housing market decline in the latter half of the period from 2007 to 2012; in contrast, there is no overall relationship between school quality and appreciation rates during the preceding period of housing price increases from 2000 to 2006." (Livy 2017)

Three studies based on output scales find positive relationships between school quality and house prices. A 2000 survey (based on self-reporting) ‘found that the presence of good schools was selected as the third most important neighborhood characteristic for both buyers and sellers between ages 25 and 44 with children.’[1] The Reinvestment Fund (TRF) replicated this by geocoding residential sales between 2006 and 2007 with linked percent of elementary school students scoring proficient or above on the combined Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) for Reading and Math at the schools in that zone.  The study discovered that ‘for every level of school quality improvement, the housing price increases 0.52 cents per square foot on average. For a 900 square foot home, a 10 point increase in school quality translates into a $4,500 increase in sales price.’ [2] Disincentives included the impact of new construction and neighborhood disinvestment (-$1.50 per square foot) and Crime scores (-$1.00 per square foot).   Owusu-Edusei and Molley Espey’s 2003 study in Greenville, South Carolina used school rankings related to a ‘hedonic’ classification of houses (ie. their amenity) and found that, 1) high-ranked schools have values embedded in single-family housing prices and 2) greater commuting distances to schools has a negative impact on the value of property.  Proximity to and quality of a school does affect the prices of housing in its respective school district: houses with elementary schools within 2640 feet (a half of a mile) of their properties have prices 18% higher than those of houses located further than 10560 feet (2 miles) from an elementary school.  Houses with middle schools within 10560 feet of their properties have prices 16% higher than those of houses located further than 10560 feet from a middle school and houses with high schools within 10560 feet of their properties have prices 12% higher than those of houses located further than 10560 feet from a high school.  Quality had a marginal price effect: where elementary schools were rated Good, houses sold at 12% higher than those in districts with schools with a worse rating; while a middle school rated Average bolstered house prices by 31% compared with a school of a worse rating. 

Controlling for variation in neighborhood characteristics, property taxes, and school spending, Black (1999) found similar patterns in correlations between single-family residences across 39 school districts outside of Boston and test scores on the Massachusetts Educational Assessment Program.  
Using North Carolina standardized school quality scores, Wulsin notes “that when families buy a home, they also buy the right for their kids to attend the local public school in that district and that the price of that right is incorporated into the price of the house they purchase”.  In Durham County, factors included the fair market value of the house, observable characteristics that affect house prices, which school attendance zone the house is in, and the distance the house is to the border of the school attendance zone.  Wulsin concluded that “parents do pay more to live in areas with better schools”: a 10% increase in elementary school scores leads to an 11% increase in housing prices, a 10% increase in middle school scores leads to an 11% increase in housing prices, and a 10% increase in high school scores leads to a 5% increase in housing prices.  This trend has been observed across the United States.  Since better quality schools increase the real estate value of houses in their areas, improving schools can be a method for improving neighborhoods and stimulating economic growth. 

Chung notes that the related inverse is also true: if school choice is deregulated (as is the case when, for instance, a Christian school is placed in a new suburban area, providing choice for students locked into mandatory school drawing areas for local state schools, people from high performing, expensive housing areas will flow towards areas where they can get the same quality of educational access options at a lower housing cost. "School choice reform", says Chung, "weakens the link between residential locations and school options by offering more options for schools students can attend. With the introduction of the school choice reform, consensus bidding theory posits that if people in low-performing school districts are able to access high-performing schools without an increased cost of housing, people in high-performing school districts or schools have the incentive to move to a community with low-housing prices at no cost to the school quality. Thus, this leads to an increase in housing prices in lowperforming school districts and a decrease of housing prices in highperforming school districts." 


Notes:

[1]              The Reinvestment Fund, ‘Schools in the Neighborhood: Are Housing Prices Affected by School Quality?’, Reinvestment Brief no. 6, https://www.reinvestment.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Schools_Quality_and_Housing-Brief_2009.pdf, accessed 28 March 2019.

[2]              The Reinvestment Fund, ‘Schools in the Neighborhood’.

[3]              “Instead of the traditional hedonic price function, Black used the formula ln(priceiab) = α + X’iabβ + K’bφ + γtesta + εiab in which boundary dummies (the K term) account for unobserved characteristics shared by houses on either side of the attendance district boundary.” (Taylor)

References:
 
  • Black, Sandra. 1999. “Do Better Schools Matter? Parental Variation of Elementary Education”. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114..4 (February).
  • Chung, Il Hwan. 2015. "School choice, housing prices, and residential sorting: Empirical evidence from inter-and intra-district choice", Regional Science and Urban Economics 52.C, pp. 39-49.
  • Clark, David E. and William E. Herrin. 2000. "The impact of public school attributes on home sale prices in California", Growth and Change 31.3  (July), pp. 385-407.
  • Livy, M. R. 2017.  "The effect of local amenities on house price appreciation amid market shocks: The case of school quality", Journal of Housing Economics  36 (June), pp. 62-72.
  • Owusu-Edusei, Kwame and Molley Espey.  2003. “School Quality and Property Values in Greenville, South Carolina.” Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Clemson University. 30 January 2013.
  • The Reinvestment Fund.  2013. “Schools in the Neighborhood: Are Housing Prices Affected by School Quality?”  Reinvestment Brief: Issue 6. 30 (January).
  • Tiebout, Charles. 1956. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures”. Journal of Political Economy 64.5 (Oct), pp. 416-424 .
  • Wulsin, John.  2009. “An Analysis of the Effects of Public School Quality on House Prices in Durham, North Carolina.” Economics Department, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  2 February 2013.
 
0 Comments

    AuthorS

    David Hastie, Mark Hutchinson and Andrew Youd run the Alphacrucis College 'New Schools' Program, bringing together the best available research and leading practitioners to advise and assist in the planting of new schools and new school campuses.

    Archives

    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

We Would Love to Hear from you!


Hours

M-F: 7am - 5pm

Telephone

1300 228 355

Email

[email protected]
  • Home
    • Our Team >
      • Dr David Hastie Profile
      • Professor Mark Hutchinson Profile
      • Dr Stephen Codrington profile
      • Dr Stephen Fyson
      • Donna McClean profile
  • CFS Newsletter
    • CFS Global
  • New Schools Initiative
    • NSP Media & News
    • Members
    • The Incubator
  • Teaching Schools Alliance
    • TSA Media & News
  • Research & Services
    • Consulting Services
    • Programs
    • Research
  • Resources
    • Resources - links
    • Publications
    • Events
  • Contact
  • Professional Development
  • Christian History Teachers
  • Christian History Teachers
  • About Alphacrucis
  • CSCEFC
  • VETiS