The Education Gadfly Weekly

Paul E. Peterson
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
April 2007

Soon after the RAND Corporation released its mixed review of Philadelphia's school management experiment, the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by Paul Peterson that pointed out serious flaws in the study. Not satisfied with an abridged column's worth of criticism, Peterson has now released an in-depth review of RAND's study, along with his own opinion of Philly's private education providers (such as Edison Schools). Peterson has two main gripes with RAND's methodology. First, for many of the students it tracked, RAND compared only two sets of test scores, not the three required for true "quasi-experimental" studies (a quality standard in the field of statistics). Second, RAND compared scores from three different tests--the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA), the Stanford-9, and the Terra Nova--side by side, assuming that "the standard score obtained... on any one of the three tests was the same as the students would have received had they taken the other one." Such an assumption is flimsy at best, says Peterson. In his own evaluation (for which he didn't have access to the student-level data that RAND did), Peterson measured the growth of PSSA scores for two cohorts of students over three grades. His results contradict the RAND study: In math, privately-managed schools made the greatest gains in getting students to (or above) proficiency in both cohorts. In reading, they did so in Cohort 2 and slightly trailed the district's restructured public schools in Cohort 1. Peterson recognizes that his own methodology isn't perfect either. But you'll want to check out his study here.

Council of Urban Boards of Education
Brian Perkins
2007

This report evaluates survey responses from 4,700 teachers in thirteen urban districts, and from 267 principals and assistant principals in 51 schools. The biggest finding was that teachers and administrators--who, according to the study, tend to have similar perspectives on most facets of school operation--disagree about the potential for student success. Administrators were 25 percent more likely than teachers to disagree with the assertion that most students at their school would be unsuccessful at a community college or university, i.e. they were more optimistic about the kids' prospects. And when asked if students at their schools were capable of high achievement on standardized tests, 95 percent of administrators said yes, compared with 77 percent of teachers. The report recommends that all schools establish and cultivate the idea that all children can learn at high levels, but one wonders why more teachers don't already subscribe to such a philosophy. Fodder for another report, no doubt. But this one makes clear that one quarter of teachers in America's urban schools are less than optimistic about the potential of their charges. But it's heartening that fifteen years of "all children can learn" has yielded a cohort of administrators who run their schools with such expectations. So why, then, do our schools not perform up to the standards of those who run them? That's the tougher question. Read the report here.

Most elementary teachers seem to require intensive, expensive, and continuous professional development in mathematics. Even if current federal and state initiatives to train experienced teachers are successful, their costs are staggering. Other countries sensibly focus on "frontloading" (imparting subject-matter knowledge to teachers before they are licensed and enter the classroom) rather than "backloading" (trying to patch teachers' knowledge after they've started their career). It's reasonable to think that our elementary teachers' understanding of mathematics might be increased more effectively and efficiently via regular or specially designed mathematics courses they take before, rather than after, they begin teaching.

In December 2006, the Massachusetts Board of Education seized this tiger's tail and voted to create a demanding 40-item math test that all elementary and special education teachers must pass in order to earn a license. The new Massachusetts test will be the first in the country to seriously assess the mathematics knowledge of prospective elementary (and special ed) teachers. Designed primarily to assess the conceptual foundations of what the state's mathematics standards now expect them to teach, the prospective teachers' test will be based on the reasonable assumption that candidates who take it should be expected to demonstrate, without the use of a calculator, a deep understanding of the mathematics concepts that underpin what they will teach their students, who in turn must master them without the use of a calculator. The Board wants the test to have strong ripple effects through the state's institutions of higher education. So it is also proposing stronger math requirements for elementary licensure programs as well as detailed guidelines for the content of the mathematics courses for aspiring teachers, courses that it expects to be taught by mathematicians.

Why is the Massachusetts Board of Education making it harder to get an elementary teaching license and expecting education schools to ensure that its teacher candidates have taken more demanding (and probably more) mathematics courses? Both common sense and research tell us that pupils of math teachers who know their subject learn more math than students of teachers who don't. In a February 2001 report for the U.S. Department of Education summarizing teacher preparation research, Michigan State University scholars noted that studies show "a positive connection between teachers' preparation in their subject matter and their performance and impact in the classroom." In one study of 2,829 students and their high school math teachers, from 1994, David Monk found that the number of undergraduate courses in a teacher's background--up to about five--had a positive impact on pupil performance.

The Board also knows that many elementary teachers struggle with mathematics, and fears that they are passing on their limited math mastery to their students. Although Bay State students' average scores are the highest in the nation on NAEP's grade 4 and grade 8 mathematics tests, their scores on the state's own mathematics tests have not risen for several years, and not enough students achieve at the two highest performance levels.

Other states should follow suit. Most teacher licensure tests are pitched at the high school level in terms of overall difficulty, and their cut scores are set so low that a passing score often means no more than middle school achievement. We would expect more from high school students who wanted to become teachers, never mind college graduates.

All states should ensure that newly licensed elementary teachers begin their careers competent to teach arithmetic effectively--and then need only authentic professional development, not endless remediation.

China is making headlines for more than trafficking pirated Lost DVDs. Some U.S. educators and employers envy that nation's success in teaching math and science (at least in producing scads of engineers and suchlike) but now China seems to be showing greater curiosity about American schools. Specifically, it's interested in learning from the "American genius for innovation." Like other Asian nations, China has enjoyed good success in teaching its students basic skills and knowledge but has been less effective in fostering creative minds. Japan encountered similar problems in the 1980s; its lagging economy indicates that American innovation may not be easily replicated. That hasn't stopped China from trying, though. The country is reforming its curricula, training educators in more interactive teaching styles, and lauding give-and-take learning in the classroom. But don't be fooled--teachers aren't abdicating authority. Yang Guihong, who teaches math at the Changping No. 2 Middle School outside Beijing, explains the new strategy: "The point is, we make the students curious first, then we tell them what to do." Freedom still comes slowly in China.

"Chinese Hosts Turn Tables on Ed Week Reporter," by Sean Cavanagh, Education Week, April 9, 2007

"China, U.S. taking notes on education," by Mitchell Landsberg, Los Angeles Times, April 8, 2007

"Re-education," by Ann Hulbert, New York Times Magazine, April 1, 2007

It would be easy to berate 2^nd grade teacher David Keyes for his recent op-ed in the Washington Post (as blogger Kevin Carey did here). He argues that No Child Left Behind "created" a system of educational apartheid whereby wealthy schools teach high-level thinking while needy schools "give poor and minority students an impoverished education that focuses primarily on basic skills." Let's be real: before NCLB, few inner-city schools were utopias of high-level thinking. But while we can dismiss Keyes's argument, we shouldn't dismiss his concerns. If it's true that many high-poverty schools are responding to the law's accountability pressures by taking short cuts and deploying drill-and-kill instructional practices, those who support standards-based reform need to come up with a response. Gadfly thinks higher-quality tests that span more of the "domain" and are harder to "game" would be part of a solution; developing one set of such tests (nationally) would be a lot easier than doing it fifty times over (state-by-state). But changing policy is only half of the answer. Changing hearts and minds is critical, too. Someone should tell David's principal that the surest route to improved test scores isn't drill-til-you-drop; it's an old-fashioned, quality education, replete with a sound mix of basic skills, high-level thinking, and everything in between.

"Classroom Caste System," by David Keyes, Washington Post, April 9, 2007

The American way of life changed last Monday when intrepid New York Times columnist Bob Herbert traveled to Avon Park, Florida (a "backward city," he writes), population 8,872, to document an emerging national pandemic. That's how Herbert would tell it, at least. His column recounts the story of 6-year-old Desre'e Watson, who was arrested after a prolonged, violent outburst in her kindergarten classroom, and whose case is apparently part of "an outlandish trend of criminalizing very young children that has spread to many school districts and law enforcement agencies across the country." Of course, one might say that the real "trend" is one of lawsuits and classroom violence forcing school administrators to abdicate authority for fear of being sued. Arresting 6-year-olds is dumb and inexcusable, but one wonders why Herbert needed to fly to Avon Park to make that oh-so-insightful point. (How far is Avon Park from Panama City Beach--Spring break capital of Florida--anyway?)

"6-Year-Olds Under Arrest," by Bob Herbert, New York Times, April 9, 2007 (subscription required)

Council of Urban Boards of Education
Brian Perkins
2007

This report evaluates survey responses from 4,700 teachers in thirteen urban districts, and from 267 principals and assistant principals in 51 schools. The biggest finding was that teachers and administrators--who, according to the study, tend to have similar perspectives on most facets of school operation--disagree about the potential for student success. Administrators were 25 percent more likely than teachers to disagree with the assertion that most students at their school would be unsuccessful at a community college or university, i.e. they were more optimistic about the kids' prospects. And when asked if students at their schools were capable of high achievement on standardized tests, 95 percent of administrators said yes, compared with 77 percent of teachers. The report recommends that all schools establish and cultivate the idea that all children can learn at high levels, but one wonders why more teachers don't already subscribe to such a philosophy. Fodder for another report, no doubt. But this one makes clear that one quarter of teachers in America's urban schools are less than optimistic about the potential of their charges. But it's heartening that fifteen years of "all children can learn" has yielded a cohort of administrators who run their schools with such expectations. So why, then, do our schools not perform up to the standards of those who run them? That's the tougher question. Read the report here.

Paul E. Peterson
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
April 2007

Soon after the RAND Corporation released its mixed review of Philadelphia's school management experiment, the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by Paul Peterson that pointed out serious flaws in the study. Not satisfied with an abridged column's worth of criticism, Peterson has now released an in-depth review of RAND's study, along with his own opinion of Philly's private education providers (such as Edison Schools). Peterson has two main gripes with RAND's methodology. First, for many of the students it tracked, RAND compared only two sets of test scores, not the three required for true "quasi-experimental" studies (a quality standard in the field of statistics). Second, RAND compared scores from three different tests--the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA), the Stanford-9, and the Terra Nova--side by side, assuming that "the standard score obtained... on any one of the three tests was the same as the students would have received had they taken the other one." Such an assumption is flimsy at best, says Peterson. In his own evaluation (for which he didn't have access to the student-level data that RAND did), Peterson measured the growth of PSSA scores for two cohorts of students over three grades. His results contradict the RAND study: In math, privately-managed schools made the greatest gains in getting students to (or above) proficiency in both cohorts. In reading, they did so in Cohort 2 and slightly trailed the district's restructured public schools in Cohort 1. Peterson recognizes that his own methodology isn't perfect either. But you'll want to check out his study here.