The Education Gadfly Weekly

American Institutes of Research
April 2006

In December, we reported on an AIR study of comprehensive school reform models designed for the elementary level. Now AIR is back with a similar look at "education service providers" (ESPs)-companies that manage public schools. The headline is a biggie: Edison Schools show moderate evidence of effectiveness in terms of boosting student achievement; the six other ESPs studied (Imagine Schools, Leona Group, Mosaica, National Heritage Academies, SABIS, and White Hat) do not. That such a major finding (Edison works!) from a government-funded research group would go unnoticed by the nation's news media (save for a small web-only item from Education Week) is a bit surprising. Is it because the press doesn't care for meta-analyses, since there's nothing new to report, or is the media guilty of an anti-privatization bias? Regardless, you should check out the study's executive summary, which graphically depicts the review's effectiveness ratings across five categories. What becomes obvious is the dearth of rigorous research on any of the companies but Edison. (And four of the seven apparently refused to provide any information to the researchers.) There are reasonable explanations. For one, many of these ESPs are still relatively new and don't yet serve the large numbers of students that are needed for rigorous large-scale studies. Still, for reasons of political necessity if not continuous improvement, one would think these companies would see the worth of collecting rigorous evidence of their impact. Maybe their investors haven't valued this activity; that's certainly one impression garnered by Steve Wilson's excellent book about the industry. Let's hope this report serves as a motivator for the Mosaicas, White Hats, and others to develop some serious evaluation capacity. In the meantime, Edison will surely celebrate (and promote) its rating, which, according to AIR, puts it on par with five "whole school reform" models-Accelerated Schools, America's Choice, Core Knowledge, School Renaissance, and School Development Program-trailing only superstars Direct Instruction and Success for All. To download the whole enchilada, click here.

Jay P. Greene and Marcus A. Winters
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
April 2006

Leaving Boys Behind is a misnomer. What purports to be a study on the gender gap is actually a discussion about the methodology of calculating graduation rates and about the methodology's results. The authors used enrollment and diploma counts from the U.S. Department of Education's Common Core of Data (CCD) to determine public high school graduation rates for the nation, individual states, and the hundred largest school districts. These statistics are further broken down by race and gender. Overall, about 70 percent of the class of 2003 earned a high school diploma. While 78 percent of white students and 72 percent of Asian students graduated, the picture is even more disastrous for other ethnic groups. Only 53 percent of Hispanic students and 55 percent of African-American left high school with diplomas. The gender gap is real, too. Females are graduating at higher rates than males, most significantly among minorities (58 percent of Hispanic females and 59 percent of African-American females graduate, while only 49 percent and 48 percent, respectively, of males in each group do). Results in the big urban districts are especially devastating. But the report offers no analysis. That boys are under-performing is hardly news (see here and here), and the minority achievement gap is never far off the radar. But what accounts for this gender gap? Can anything slow the downward spiral? The answers are beyond the scope of this report as the authors readily admit. Check out this report for the latest statistics, but look elsewhere for a more in-depth analysis of what may actually be leaving the boys behind.

Jerry Johnson
The Rural School and Community Trust
April 2006

This short report posits a controversial conclusion: Student achievement depends on school funding. The author examines 132 of Oregon's rural school districts and finds that in 2003-04, the 66 "higher-achieving" districts received more funding per-pupil than the 66 "lower-achieving" districts. Achievement is not based on individual test scores, but rather on the percentage of district students who reached overall "proficiency" on state assessments in math and reading. But is the achievement of these districts actually caused by funding levels, or is it merely related to funding because of other underlying, causal factors (such as family income)? The author's answer: The funding-achievement relationship "has nothing to do with the fact that districts that spend more might have lower levels of poverty, better qualified teachers, or better educated adults." Nor, the report tells us, is achievement strongly influenced by school size (an important consideration in a state with many small school districts). But the author analyzes only three mitigating variables (poverty level, teacher qualifications, and district adult education level), and readers shouldn't discount that other factors-demographic or cultural-may influence student learning and funding. The paper also dodges the important question of why higher spending might lead to better schools in rural Oregon. (One can discern from the data that smaller class sizes are linked to higher achievement, but the report never explores in depth the class size-achievement relationship.) And finally, it would have been useful had the report examined multiple years of data, and perhaps looked at changes in test scores instead of just the percentage of students reaching proficiency in a single year. Such considerations are especially important given that this study is at odds with a considerable body of evidence compiled by Eric Hanushek (prior winner of the Fordham Prize) that shows little relationship between school resources and student outcomes. In short, a more detailed analysis of such an interesting and potentially important topic would make this a better paper. As it is, the reader is largely expected to trust that higher spending leads to better schools in rural Oregon. The report is online here.

Mark McCaig-who has a beard, holds a master's degree from Harvard, and is purportedly an expert in birds, shark teeth, and shiatsu massage (it's unclear if that's an exhaustive list)-works for Fairhaven School, outside Washington, D.C. But though McCaig manages the institution, don't call him a school administrator. At Fairhaven, "adults teach but are not teachers. They lead but are not administrators." And the students-well, they don't do much of anything and pretty much come and go as they please. The only rule is that they spend at least five hours at the "school" between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. While there, some youngsters play basketball, others muck around in the nearby creek, and a few sit and chit-chat with each other or talk on their cell phones. And for this, families pay $6,680 per student, per year (less for siblings). You may be tempted to think, for example, that playing video games all day, which is perfectly fine at Fairhaven, isn't much of an education. But McCaig answers that charge with an interrogative of his own: "What is an educated individual?" Hmm. Sitting alone beneath his fig tree, Gadfly ponders McCaig's question. He'll get back to us in seven days; in the meantime, don't send your kids to Fairhaven.

"Learning on Their Own Terms," by Nick Anderson, Washington Post, April 24, 2006

Americans are becoming acutely aware of our high schools' failings. Recent media exposure and fresh data (see here) have shown almost 30 percent of students leave high school without a diploma. To put it bluntly, one third of American students drop out.

Nobody disputes that the situation is untenable. (Well, except for these folks.) Yet, the dismal dropout percentage has remained relatively steady since the 1970s. That 30 percent of students don't receive high school diplomas is unacceptable, but it's even worse that education leaders have been unable, or unwilling, to do much about it. Many school reformers say that every child in America's schools can and should go to college, and that American K-12 education should focus exclusively on pushing students toward the university. To their credit, others have embraced initiatives such as the American Diploma Project, which strives to prepare graduates for college and work (and which the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation helped to launch; see here). But initiatives such as ADP do not go far enough to keep high-risk American students in school. 

To be clear, the push toward college should indeed be the major force in American public education. Higher education is worthwhile on many levels. Those who undertake post-secondary education, besides gaining unquantifiable satisfaction and benefits, also open for themselves a wider spectrum of career options.

But it's not enough. When 30 percent of young adults choose to drop out, is it fair to stay firmly entrenched in this College-or-Bust mindset?

No, it isn't. One way to emerge from such stasis is by embracing school choice systems in which parents and students can select from a wide variety of high schools that offer a range of curriculum options (see here, for example). Meanwhile, we should concentrate on offering programs within the traditional high schools that educate the vast majority of America's students, including approaches to learning that tap the world of work. College-prep is not the only worthwhile track.

Yes, it's increasingly difficult to land a good job without a college diploma. But that's not because college is an educational panacea; it's because high schools are such educational wastelands. Almost anyone has the academic ability to graduate high school with ease. A recent Gates Foundation report that surveyed dropouts found 88 percent of them had passing grades before they quit. These dropouts didn't stop attending class because they struggled with coursework. Most stopped attending class because they were bored with their default high school curricula.

One can easily understand why, when confronted with a daily routine both insufferable and irrelevant, so many students decide to stop attending school. We can solve this problem partly by making courses more academically challenging, starting in the elementary grades. But increased rigor by itself is not enough; it must be coupled with increased relevance, and that means allowing a new kind of vocational education to play a prominent role in today's American high schools.

These programs-now known as career and technical education (CTE)-already exist, although they are not nearly as wide spread as they should be. They have a variety of critics, too, ranging from those who believe CTE will dissuade minority students from college, to those who think tough academics will be sacrificed for quick jobs. But when run well, CTE has demonstrated an ability to keep young men and women from dropping out by providing in their educations relevance, ownership, and purpose that would not otherwise exist, while still building key academic skills.

Take, for example, the Career Academies-small schools, generally housed within larger schools, that teach traditional academics as well as career-oriented skills. The Academies give their students significant work experience and maintain strong ties to outside employers. A recent evaluation found that Career Academies students did no better or worse academically than a control group, but over a four-year follow up period, the students from the Academies earned 10 percent-higher post-school wages. Students with a high-risk of dropping out who enrolled in the Academies were more likely to finish school, too. Another study, this one by James Kulik, found that high-risk students are 8 to 10 times less likely to drop out of high school in the eleventh and twelfth grades if they enroll in a CTE program instead of a general curriculum. 

The worry remains, though, that lower-performing and minority students will be ignored by their teachers and tracked for CTE. But by maintaining rigorous coursework, and by not beginning CTE tracking until the tenth or eleventh grade, this fear is alleviated. Students will have to perform academically, regardless of their personal tracking choices. But high-quality CTE imbues that hard coursework with a purpose, and it gives students a practical reason to buckle down in math, science, and history class. And recent research shows that CTE students are just as likely to go on to college as those who enroll in regular curricula.

Perhaps CTE's most important contribution is that it teaches students the character lessons that K-12 education should, but doesn't. By allowing young men and women to exercise some choice in their public school education, and by giving them a clear and demanding plan for success, CTE can instill personal responsibility and personal pride-values sorely missing in the hallways of most American high schools-in its students.

The key to our nation's success won't come from channeling an indiscriminate mass of students along one track toward college, especially when we lose 30 percent of them along the way. It will come by combining demanding academics with other educational opportunities, and by creating a class of high school graduates who leave with skills to succeed both in a technical job and in the realm of higher education. It will come by graduating classes of students who have something invested in their own success, and who arrive in the world with a vision and the know-how to achieve it.

Might charter schools begin the downfall of teacher unions? David Kirkpatrick, Senior Education Fellow at the U.S. Freedom Foundation, thinks so. He outlines the difficulty unions have faced organizing charter schools, mainly because it's inefficient for six figure-earning union staff members to target individual schools. Here's why. When unions organize districts, they get all the schools simultaneously. Should those district employees strike, parents and students have precious few alternatives but to meet their demands. But charter schools are managed autonomously, and if teachers at one charter strike, well, the students can attend another school. This, says Kirkpatrick, is a win-win situation. Teachers in most charters enjoy a more professional working environment and fewer bureaucratic hassles. Students and parents are pleased with increased educational choice. And taxpayers benefit because charters receive fewer dollars, "and they must succeed or fail with those dollars since they have no taxing power." Some unions are fighting back (see here), but it's a losing battle. Is that Reg Weaver's résumé on Monster.com? 

"Charter Schools and Teacher Unions: Ultimately Incompatible?," by David W. Kirkpatrick, EducationNews.Org, April 21, 2006

Few wonky education articles make good movie scripts, but this excellent New York Magazine piece by Robert Kolker might be the exception. It details the battle over the Big Apple's reading program; the stakes are high. In one corner is Lucy Calkins and her Balanced Literacy program, a whole language approach in sheep's clothing. In the other corner is the "scientifically-based reading research" camp, which looks to thirty years of data showing how most children learn to read. Schools Chancellor Joel Klein backed Calkins when he mandated Balanced Literacy in nearly all of the city's 743 elementary schools in 2003, and he declares it a success. Not so fast, counters Diane Ravitch, who notes that Gotham's leap in fourth grade reading achievement occurred between 2002 and 2003-before Klein's reforms were put in place. Furthermore, to appease critics of Balanced Literacy and qualify for federal Reading First grants, Klein instituted small, supplemental phonics programs in 49 schools that, lo and behold, raised fourth-grade literacy scores for students in those schools by about 20 percent (double the increase in the rest of the school system). See, Mr. Commissioner, curricular choices do matter-and phonics-based reading programs are a knock-out.

"A Is for Apple, B Is for Brawl," by Robert Kolker, New York Magazine, May 1, 2006

American Institutes of Research
April 2006

In December, we reported on an AIR study of comprehensive school reform models designed for the elementary level. Now AIR is back with a similar look at "education service providers" (ESPs)-companies that manage public schools. The headline is a biggie: Edison Schools show moderate evidence of effectiveness in terms of boosting student achievement; the six other ESPs studied (Imagine Schools, Leona Group, Mosaica, National Heritage Academies, SABIS, and White Hat) do not. That such a major finding (Edison works!) from a government-funded research group would go unnoticed by the nation's news media (save for a small web-only item from Education Week) is a bit surprising. Is it because the press doesn't care for meta-analyses, since there's nothing new to report, or is the media guilty of an anti-privatization bias? Regardless, you should check out the study's executive summary, which graphically depicts the review's effectiveness ratings across five categories. What becomes obvious is the dearth of rigorous research on any of the companies but Edison. (And four of the seven apparently refused to provide any information to the researchers.) There are reasonable explanations. For one, many of these ESPs are still relatively new and don't yet serve the large numbers of students that are needed for rigorous large-scale studies. Still, for reasons of political necessity if not continuous improvement, one would think these companies would see the worth of collecting rigorous evidence of their impact. Maybe their investors haven't valued this activity; that's certainly one impression garnered by Steve Wilson's excellent book about the industry. Let's hope this report serves as a motivator for the Mosaicas, White Hats, and others to develop some serious evaluation capacity. In the meantime, Edison will surely celebrate (and promote) its rating, which, according to AIR, puts it on par with five "whole school reform" models-Accelerated Schools, America's Choice, Core Knowledge, School Renaissance, and School Development Program-trailing only superstars Direct Instruction and Success for All. To download the whole enchilada, click here.

Jay P. Greene and Marcus A. Winters
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
April 2006

Leaving Boys Behind is a misnomer. What purports to be a study on the gender gap is actually a discussion about the methodology of calculating graduation rates and about the methodology's results. The authors used enrollment and diploma counts from the U.S. Department of Education's Common Core of Data (CCD) to determine public high school graduation rates for the nation, individual states, and the hundred largest school districts. These statistics are further broken down by race and gender. Overall, about 70 percent of the class of 2003 earned a high school diploma. While 78 percent of white students and 72 percent of Asian students graduated, the picture is even more disastrous for other ethnic groups. Only 53 percent of Hispanic students and 55 percent of African-American left high school with diplomas. The gender gap is real, too. Females are graduating at higher rates than males, most significantly among minorities (58 percent of Hispanic females and 59 percent of African-American females graduate, while only 49 percent and 48 percent, respectively, of males in each group do). Results in the big urban districts are especially devastating. But the report offers no analysis. That boys are under-performing is hardly news (see here and here), and the minority achievement gap is never far off the radar. But what accounts for this gender gap? Can anything slow the downward spiral? The answers are beyond the scope of this report as the authors readily admit. Check out this report for the latest statistics, but look elsewhere for a more in-depth analysis of what may actually be leaving the boys behind.

Jerry Johnson
The Rural School and Community Trust
April 2006

This short report posits a controversial conclusion: Student achievement depends on school funding. The author examines 132 of Oregon's rural school districts and finds that in 2003-04, the 66 "higher-achieving" districts received more funding per-pupil than the 66 "lower-achieving" districts. Achievement is not based on individual test scores, but rather on the percentage of district students who reached overall "proficiency" on state assessments in math and reading. But is the achievement of these districts actually caused by funding levels, or is it merely related to funding because of other underlying, causal factors (such as family income)? The author's answer: The funding-achievement relationship "has nothing to do with the fact that districts that spend more might have lower levels of poverty, better qualified teachers, or better educated adults." Nor, the report tells us, is achievement strongly influenced by school size (an important consideration in a state with many small school districts). But the author analyzes only three mitigating variables (poverty level, teacher qualifications, and district adult education level), and readers shouldn't discount that other factors-demographic or cultural-may influence student learning and funding. The paper also dodges the important question of why higher spending might lead to better schools in rural Oregon. (One can discern from the data that smaller class sizes are linked to higher achievement, but the report never explores in depth the class size-achievement relationship.) And finally, it would have been useful had the report examined multiple years of data, and perhaps looked at changes in test scores instead of just the percentage of students reaching proficiency in a single year. Such considerations are especially important given that this study is at odds with a considerable body of evidence compiled by Eric Hanushek (prior winner of the Fordham Prize) that shows little relationship between school resources and student outcomes. In short, a more detailed analysis of such an interesting and potentially important topic would make this a better paper. As it is, the reader is largely expected to trust that higher spending leads to better schools in rural Oregon. The report is online here.