The Education Gadfly Weekly

Martha Abele Mac Iver and Douglas J. Mac Iver
National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education
September 2007

Earlier this year, responding to a RAND study that questioned the efficacy of Philadelphia's privately-managed school experiment, Paul Peterson released findings showing that the private operators were, in fact, producing achievement gains. Unfortunately, both his report and the RAND study it rebutted had methodological weaknesses due to data limitations. This working paper from two Johns Hopkins researchers addresses those shortcomings by using longitudinal, student-level test results to measure the impact of private education management organizations (EMOs) on student achievement. The authors compared state assessment scores of Philadelphia middle-schoolers in EMO schools to those of their peers in traditional public schools. As with the RAND analysis, the results are not encouraging for advocates of privatization. Overall, schools run by Edison Schools made the same gains in math and reading as their district counterparts while other EMO schools were outpaced by traditional public schools. The authors allow that EMO schools may show greater gains over time (they've only been operating in Philadelphia for four years) but note that "privatization has not directly addressed the key determinants of student achievement growth uncovered in previous educational research": teacher quality, principal instructional leadership, "school climate focused on academic achievement," and "consistency and coherence in curriculum and instruction." Read it here.

Joshua S. Wyner, John M. Bridgeland, and John J. Dilulio, Jr.
Jack Kent Cooke Foundation and Civic Enterprises
September 2007

It isn't only struggling students who have been left behind: 3.4 million high-ability but low-income pupils aren't receiving the educations they deserve, either. Case in point: almost half of low-income youngsters who scored in the top quartile on reading tests as first graders were no longer scoring in the top quartile as fifth graders. Of low-income eighth graders who scored in the top quartile on math tests, only 25 percent were still hitting that mark in twelfth grade. Academically talented poor students are, it seems, still lumped in with their lower-achieving classmates and not given challenging material or held to high expectations. This report makes clear that low-performing schools--often in rural and urban areas--are bringing down their high-achievers rather than pushing them up. While schools focus on bringing low-achieving pupils to a "proficient" level, talented kids with the potential to be "advanced" slide to mediocrity (or worse). Find the report here.

Gareth Davies
University Press of Kansas
2007

Oxford historian Gareth Davies has delivered a superb history of federal education policy and politics in the United States from the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the mid-sixties to Reagan's first-term efforts to curb the federal role. (It also includes bits and pieces, particularly in the concluding chapter, on more recent events, including NCLB.) The book's insightfulness is best illustrated by its authors' own words: "The federal role in schools became bolder and ever more entrenched [during this period], despite a lack of convincing evidence that federal dollars were improving the quality of American education, and despite the fact that there were Republicans in the White House much of the time who were committed to reining in federal spending....Why...? One must begin by noting that there was not a dramatic expansion in federal spending on elementary and secondary education.... Rather, what stands out in education policy after the 1960s is the increase in federal regulation.... Other than the degree of federal direction, perhaps the most significant feature of this education regulation regime was its comparative detachment from the world of majoritarian politics. The leading actors in federal policy making by the 1970s were not presidents. Instead, they were, for the most part, unelected political actors.... In the case of education, Americans at the beginning of the twenty-first century were still living in the Great Society era, even if the federal role had expanded in ways that Lyndon Johnson could not have imagined...." This is a volume you will likely want in your library. Learn more here.

The Denver teachers union has proposed to end social promotion in the Mile High City schools and instead tie students' progress to their scores on standardized tests in third, fifth, and eighth grades. Opponents of the plan worry that it will harm the self-esteem of students who are held back and could encourage those youngsters to drop out. "Unless you've got a very serious set of interventions in place, all retaining kids does is drive the dropout rate up," says Denver Superintendent Michael Bennet. The union agrees, which is why its plan calls for extra services for students with low test-grades and reading scores. And what's the alternative? Allowing students to progress through the grades without, say, being able to do basic math? If you want to talk about a blow to self-esteem, talk about the seventh grader who reads at a third-grade level. There may be more to this story: the union and district are embroiled in contentious contract negotiations. But on this issue, regardless of the politics that may be involved, we're taking the union's side.

"Teachers want more red lights," by Jeremy P. Meyer, Denver Post, September 16, 2007

When it comes to merit pay, Florida's teachers are about as ill-tempered as a gator buzzed by an Everglades airboat. The state legislature launched the STAR (Special Teachers are Rewarded) program in 2006, which gave 25 percent of public-school teachers five-percent bonuses, based primarily on student scores on the Sunshine State's standardized assessment. Educators growled, claiming that STAR encouraged an unhealthy competition for limited funds. The legislature responded, in March replacing STAR with MAP (Merit Awards Program). The initial response from teachers? NOPE (No merit-pay Options will Placate our Educators). But of late the tide is turning (see here and here) and those who still flat-out reject teacher-pay reform are starting to look like a surly lot who simply refuse to compromise. As we see it,, the performance-pay train is leaving the station, and the "just say no" crowd can either jump on or eventually get left in the dust.

"Teachers Slap ‘F' on Bonus Pay Plan," by Bill Kaczor, Associated Press, September 16, 2007

Michigan's state Department of Education last week finally introduced its proposed curriculum for k-12 social studies. Although the plan has strong points--greater rigor and more focus on preparing students for college--it is also a classic case of political correctness run amok. One outrageous example is the demand that elementary students taking American history spend several months studying African history before beginning to learn about colonial America. Why? "Developers obsessed," says the Detroit News, "over how elementary school students would perceive the relationship between the first European colonists and Native Americans, and whether they would understand why African-Americans arrived in the United States on slave ships." But the teaching of U.S. history is about teaching, well, U.S. history--the key individuals, institutions, and ideas that forged America. Obviously, this should include honest discussions about slavery, its African roots, and Europeans' first contacts with Native Americans. A rational approach would reserve world history for world history class. But this and some other parts of Michigan's plan are more about politics than education. And that has no place in the classroom.

"Drop political games from social studies plan," Detroit News, September 17, 2007

If there's one thing Gadfly is not, it's an apologist for bad schools, and he therefore cannot quibble much with Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann's contention that two chronically-failing Buckeye charter schools should be closed. But when Dann, in a brazen attempt to bypass current state charter-accountability mechanisms, filed a creatively-reasoned lawsuit to strip the schools of their charters--well, such audacity Gadfly cannot abide. Ohio statute stipulates that charter schools must close after three years of "academic emergency" status. It also expects school sponsors and the state education department to take corrective action against failing schools. Yet Dann (whose actions have, unsurprisingly, garnered praise from teacher union leaders) apparently thinks it more politically prudent to lob lawsuits and ask judges to do what they do worst: decide complex matters of applied public policy. There's no question that charter advocates have struggled to find the perfect balance between autonomy and accountability, especially in Ohio (see here and here). But throwing a ton of bricks on one end of the scale hardly brings us any closer to that equilibrium.

"Ohio attorney general sues to close 2 Dayton-area charter schools," by Reginald Fields, Cleveland Plain Dealer, September 13, 2007

"Charter schools fire back at Dann," by Catherine Candisky and Bill Bush, Columbus Dispatch, September 14, 2007

"Dann: Right struggle, wrong tactics," by Terry Ryan and Michael B. Lafferty, Ohio Education Gadfly, September 14, 2007

At first glance, the explosive growth of "alternative" teacher certification--which is supposed to allow able individuals to teach in public schools without first lingering in a college of education--appears to be one of the great success stories of modern education reform. From negligible numbers twenty years ago, alternatively-prepared candidates now account for almost one in five new teachers nationwide.

As longtime supporters of alternative certification, we should be popping champagne, declaring victory, and plotting our next big win, right? Not so fast. As the cliché says, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.

Alternative Certification Isn't Alternative, a new report authored by Kate Walsh and Sandi Jacobs of the National Council on Teacher Quality and published jointly with Fordham, finds that most alternative certification programs, contrary to their original mission, do not, in fact, provide a true substitute for traditional education schools. In many ways, they represent a setback for education reform and its boosters.

We've suspected as much for years. Just as we came to understand that few charter schools are as estimable as KIPP, so too did we come to wonder whether "typical" alternative certification programs are as strong as the best of their number--"teaching fellows" programs run by The New Teacher Project, for example.

This study confirms our fears and suspicions. Two-thirds of the programs that the analysts surveyed accept half or more of their applicants. One-quarter accept virtually everyone who applies. Only four in ten programs require a college GPA of 2.75 or above--no lofty standard in this age of grade inflation. So much for recruiting the best and brightest.

Meanwhile, about a third of the programs for elementary teachers require at least 30 hours of education school courses--the same amount needed for a master's degree. So much for streamlining the pathway into teaching. As for intensive mentoring by an experienced teacher or administrator--long considered the hallmark of great alternate routes--only one-third of surveyed programs report providing it at least once a week during a rookie teacher's first semester.

In other words, typical alternative certification programs have come to mimic standard-issue pre-service ed-school programs. This shouldn't be a surprise, however: fully 69 percent of the programs in the report's sample are run by education schools, roughly the same proportion as for alternate route programs as a whole.

This is an old story in the world of monopoly power, told and retold in many industries. Consider the organic foods movement. For decades, a small cadre of smallish companies provided organic products for a niche market. But in recent years, Whole Foods and a few other chains demonstrated (and created) growing demand for these goods, at scale, among affluent shoppers. The annual growth rate of organic food and drink is now in the double digits, while the grocery business as a whole stagnates. Mainstream stores, such as Safeway and Wal-Mart, see a threat to their bottom line, but also an opportunity. So do food suppliers like Kraft and General Mills. So they are starting to offer organic products of their own.

That's the way competition is supposed to work, you may say, prodding entities to offer consumers what they want. But there's a downside, too: industry insiders and food experts accuse these big companies of quietly watering down the meaning of "organic." Consider the Aurora Organic Dairy, described in a 2005 New York Times article as "an offshoot of what was once the country's largest conventional dairy company." It resisted a move by the National Organic Standards Board to define "organic" milk as coming from dairy cows that have access to pasture. For good reason. "On a recent visit to Aurora's farm," the Times reported, "thousands of Holsteins were seen confined to grassless, dirt-lined pens." Aurora's "organic" milk, however, sells for twice the price of regular.

On balance, cooptation is easier--and less risky, less expensive, more profitable--than true competition. As in the food industry, so, too, in teacher preparation. It's infinitely simpler, cheaper, and safer for education schools to repackage their regular programs into something called "alternative" than to embrace--much less succumb to--wholesale change. So they offer candidates a choice: either take their regular, cumbersome programs before teaching, or take their "alternative," cumbersome programs while teaching.

There's nothing inherently wrong with this. Just as "sorta" organic milk at Wal-Mart is finding a market, so too is the "sorta" alternative certification offered by ed schools (and similar programs offered by some districts and non-profits). The thousands of teachers coming through these programs must be finding something they prefer, certainly including the chance to earn a salary while paying tuition instead of paying first and earning later. But here's the difference: Shoppers who want "true" organic foods can still find them at Whole Foods, crunchy co-ops and other stores. Aspiring teachers who want "true" alternative certification are mostly out of luck--because the ed school cartel is working overtime to regulate them out of business.

Consider the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence (ABCTE). Candidates who pass its exacting test of subject matter and professional knowledge gain entry into the public-school classroom, where they receive ongoing mentoring. It's unadulterated alternative certification and, to date, seven states have adopted some version of it.

The ed school cartel, however, has struck back with blistering attacks on ABCTE, keeping it out of most states by lobbing all the usual arguments against the program. (It "trivializes the profession" is the National Education Association's standard line.) To this they've added another talking point: we don't really need ABCTE, because we already have alternative certification.

No, ABCTE isn't the only answer. Plenty of other promising models exist. But policymakers, reform advocates, and philanthropists who think they have "won" the battle in favor of alternative certification should think again. Twenty-five years later, concerns about the quality of education schools remain--as does the need for bona fide alternatives: swifter, better, surer, cheaper ways to address teaching aspirations on the one hand and workforce quality and quantity problems on the other. So put away the champagne and roll up your sleeves. Much heavy lifting lies ahead.

Gareth Davies
University Press of Kansas
2007

Oxford historian Gareth Davies has delivered a superb history of federal education policy and politics in the United States from the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the mid-sixties to Reagan's first-term efforts to curb the federal role. (It also includes bits and pieces, particularly in the concluding chapter, on more recent events, including NCLB.) The book's insightfulness is best illustrated by its authors' own words: "The federal role in schools became bolder and ever more entrenched [during this period], despite a lack of convincing evidence that federal dollars were improving the quality of American education, and despite the fact that there were Republicans in the White House much of the time who were committed to reining in federal spending....Why...? One must begin by noting that there was not a dramatic expansion in federal spending on elementary and secondary education.... Rather, what stands out in education policy after the 1960s is the increase in federal regulation.... Other than the degree of federal direction, perhaps the most significant feature of this education regulation regime was its comparative detachment from the world of majoritarian politics. The leading actors in federal policy making by the 1970s were not presidents. Instead, they were, for the most part, unelected political actors.... In the case of education, Americans at the beginning of the twenty-first century were still living in the Great Society era, even if the federal role had expanded in ways that Lyndon Johnson could not have imagined...." This is a volume you will likely want in your library. Learn more here.

Joshua S. Wyner, John M. Bridgeland, and John J. Dilulio, Jr.
Jack Kent Cooke Foundation and Civic Enterprises
September 2007

It isn't only struggling students who have been left behind: 3.4 million high-ability but low-income pupils aren't receiving the educations they deserve, either. Case in point: almost half of low-income youngsters who scored in the top quartile on reading tests as first graders were no longer scoring in the top quartile as fifth graders. Of low-income eighth graders who scored in the top quartile on math tests, only 25 percent were still hitting that mark in twelfth grade. Academically talented poor students are, it seems, still lumped in with their lower-achieving classmates and not given challenging material or held to high expectations. This report makes clear that low-performing schools--often in rural and urban areas--are bringing down their high-achievers rather than pushing them up. While schools focus on bringing low-achieving pupils to a "proficient" level, talented kids with the potential to be "advanced" slide to mediocrity (or worse). Find the report here.

Martha Abele Mac Iver and Douglas J. Mac Iver
National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education
September 2007

Earlier this year, responding to a RAND study that questioned the efficacy of Philadelphia's privately-managed school experiment, Paul Peterson released findings showing that the private operators were, in fact, producing achievement gains. Unfortunately, both his report and the RAND study it rebutted had methodological weaknesses due to data limitations. This working paper from two Johns Hopkins researchers addresses those shortcomings by using longitudinal, student-level test results to measure the impact of private education management organizations (EMOs) on student achievement. The authors compared state assessment scores of Philadelphia middle-schoolers in EMO schools to those of their peers in traditional public schools. As with the RAND analysis, the results are not encouraging for advocates of privatization. Overall, schools run by Edison Schools made the same gains in math and reading as their district counterparts while other EMO schools were outpaced by traditional public schools. The authors allow that EMO schools may show greater gains over time (they've only been operating in Philadelphia for four years) but note that "privatization has not directly addressed the key determinants of student achievement growth uncovered in previous educational research": teacher quality, principal instructional leadership, "school climate focused on academic achievement," and "consistency and coherence in curriculum and instruction." Read it here.