The Education Gadfly Weekly

Christopher T. Cross, editor, The National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform
2004

The density of this 170-page book hints that there is much to learn from the past fourteen years of Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) efforts, beginning with the founding of the New American Schools Development Corporation in 1991 and encouraged by the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration program in 1997. The very nature of these interventions, which came in so very many forms (from Success for All to Core Knowledge to High Schools That Work), targeted innumerable aspects of schooling, and occurred amid a hundred other ever-changing factors, makes for complex analysis. One yearns for crisp conclusions and definitive lessons, but you won't find many here. You will instead find complicated inferences about the impact on CSR of factors such as staff development, differences among school districts, and the policy environment, as well as case studies of a handful of CSR efforts. These are mostly predictable, recounting, for example, the importance of principals' leadership and staff professional development in ensuring a reform succeeds. Much of the analysis focuses on organizational changes, and less on student outcomes, though the book does include a meta-analysis of 232 studies examining 29 CSR models. It concludes that "overall, students from CSR schools can be expected to score one eighth of a standard deviation, or 2.5 NCEs higher, on achievement tests than control students in non-CSR schools." However, few CSR interventions were covered by more than a handful of studies, and only seven studies based their observations on randomized experiments. And (as the book acknowledges) a selection bias is ever-present: schools in which CSR failed were places that tended to abandon the reform strategy, while those studied may be biased toward success. Furthermore (the book does not acknowledge), one might look askance at a meta-analysis whose top category is "strongest evidence of effectiveness" and whose lowest is not "strongest evidence of ineffectiveness," but rather "greatest need for additional research." (Does anyone wonder why education research itself enjoys such low repute?) For those looking to dig deeply into the research on CSR, this book may prove useful, but the reader-unfriendliness of its prose makes it unlikely to boost even those programs getting high marks, such as Direct Instruction and Success for All. To obtain a copy of the book, not now available online, call 202.955.9450.

Paul Barton, Educational Testing Service
December 2004

This is a sage analysis of important but neglected elements of standards-based reform, organized under six headings: "alignment," the challenge of setting passing-scores ("cut-scores"), accountability issues, "teaching and the test," how to use assessment to inform instruction as well as to report on performance, and the need to pay greater (and more sophisticated) attention to high-school completion rates as a key barometer of success. Author Paul Barton is perceptive, wise, and straightforward, and the many suggestions, proven practices, and cautions offered herein will richly repay the attention of anyone who wants standards-based reform to succeed?and not to slay innocents via "friendly fire." I was particularly struck by his excellent discussion of teaching in an era of high-stakes testing and his thoughtful take on "growth" measures. (Value-added tracking of individual kids is not the only plausible way to do this.) You can find it here.

Kevin Carey, The Education Trust
January 2005

The smart, productive Education Trust has issued a brace of new reports and related "web tools" that invite your attention. One Step From the Finish Line tackles the problem of student attrition during college and "focuses on the unusually high-performing colleges and universities that have much higher graduation rates than their peers - even after taking into account financial resources, student demographics. . . ." In effect, author Kevin Carey and colleagues are beginning to do for college graduation what "effective schools" researchers began two decades ago to do for high-performing K-12 schools. This report highlights a number of such campuses, using various metrics and analytic modes. Included therein are lists of colleges that have significantly improved their completion rates. You can find it here.

One Step is intimately bound up with, and makes extensive analytic use of, EdTrust's spanking new "web tool," known as College Results Online, which you can find here. It's cool but sometimes puzzling. I checked out one small private college that I know and found that its black students are significantly more likely to graduate (in 6 years) than its Asian students, and its Hispanic students (of whom there cannot be many in rural central Ohio) are more apt to complete their bachelors' degrees than its white students. Have a look for yourself.

Choosing to Improve addresses the huge problem of student attrition during college and asks why some campuses have so much more of it than others. In 17 pages, Carey explains four key elements for helping more students across the baccalaureate "finish line": The college needs to focus on getting its students "engaged and connected"; emphasis needs to be placed on the quality of undergraduate instruction; "new data systems" should help administrators and faculty track patterns of student success (and failure) and make needed corrections; and (perhaps obviously) campus leaders must "make student success a top institution-wide priority." To be sure, boosting college graduation rates isn't easy - and we must guard against efforts to do so by easing academic standards. But EdTrust's basic concern is not to be gainsaid: how much is accomplished by busting our educational backsides to get kids into college if they drop out shortly after arriving? Find it here.

Last summer, the National Endowment for the Arts released "Reading at Risk: A survey of literary reading in America," which, according to a Washington Post op-ed from Sandra Stotsky (author of our own State of State English Standards 2005) and Mark Bauerlein, showed that "from 1992 to 2002 the gender gap in reading by young adults widened considerably. In overall book reading, young women slipped from 63 percent to 59 percent, while young men plummeted from 55 percent to 43 percent." Stotsky and Bauerlein note that, while the boy-girl reading gap has existed since the spread of mass publishing in the mid-19th century, for it to grow so wide so fast "suggests that what was formerly a moderate difference is fast becoming a marker of gender identity: Girls read; boys don't." The authors blame schools in part for exacerbating this particular gap by assigning politically correct books that "do not reflect the dispositions of male students. Few strong and active male role models can be found as lead characters. Gone are the inspiring biographies of the most important American presidents, inventors, scientists, and entrepreneurs. No military vigor, no high adventure. . . . Publishers seem to be more interested in avoiding 'masculine' perspectives or 'stereotypes' than in getting boys to like what they are assigned to read." What's worse, according to Stotsky's recent appraisal of state English standards (see The State of State English Standards), most high school literature standards are woeful, seldom expecting young people to read the kinds of books that they would be most apt to find interesting and challenging, if not always "culturally relevant."

"Why Johnny won't read," by Mark Bauerlein and Sandra Stotsky, Washington Post, January 25, 2005

Sol Stern has a great column reviewing the likely fallout from the Campaign for Fiscal Equity case in New York City, which, if upheld in the courts and heeded by the legislature, will require the Empire State to increase funding for Gotham's public schools by more than $19 billion. Here's what Stern says New Yorkers can expect: "The children of the city will get a gilded school system with upgraded facilities that, based on outlays per pupil...will cost two times as much as the U.S. average. . . . Most of the additional money will go to teachers and other adults who work in the city's public school system, while there is little prospect that the children will get a substantially better education. On the other hand, the added tax burden on businesses and working New Yorkers will further depress economic activity, harming many of the families of the children who were supposed to benefit by this case." What's more, predicts Stern, the money will likely harm the Catholic school system, which has a proven track record in educating poor and minority kids that far outshines the public system, by increasing the pay differential between Catholic and public school teachers and attracting good teachers out of the Catholic system. "New Yorkers," he concludes, "are likely to look back on this case and conclude that it wasn't much of a bargain after all."

"They never learn," by Sol Stern, Barron's, January 24, 2005

Passing rates on Advanced Placement tests are rising in every state and nationally, with 13 percent of all students earning a 3 or better on at least one test. New York leads the pack with more than 20 percent, while Maryland, Utah, Florida, and California are close behind. Since there is research suggesting that passing AP tests is a good predictor of college success, this is good news. In fact, Virginia Governor Mark Warner, head of the National Governors Association, has made increasing AP passing rates a top priority for that group this year. But the passing rate data show a significant achievement gap between whites and Asians on the one hand and blacks and Hispanics on the other. Moreover, as the proportion of high-school graduates with AP passing scores rises, more and more colleges are declining to confer academic credit for this accomplishment. In time, this former mark of distinction may not amount to much. 

"Advanced Placement test success is rising, but blacks trail peers," by Ben Feller, Associated Press, January 26, 2005

"New York tops Advanced Placement tests," by Susan Saulny, New York Times, January 26, 2005 (registration required)

"Students test well for a future in college," by Madelaine Jerousek, Des Moines Register, January 26, 2004

"Maryland second in AP scores; Virginia school on top," by George Archibald, Washington Times, January 26, 2005

The president's proposal to extend NCLB to high school may face rough sledding. Education Week runs through the various high school reform schemes being bandied about, including small schools, a common college-readiness curriculum, increased participation in AP and IB courses, and experimentation with the format of high schools. (Chester Finn ran Gadfly readers through this exercise several weeks ago; see "The blind men and the high school.") Author Lynn Olson notes that "while most educators and policy makers agree that all students - whether bound for the workplace or college - need a common core of high-level skills, that consensus falls apart when it comes to the specifics." To date, the Bush administration has provided few specifics about its proposal and Congress may not be an easy sell. Time magazine reports that Representative George Miller, ranking Democrat on the House Education Committee, won't back the high school initiative until further funding for NCLB is made available. No surprise there, but the proposal is having trouble on the President's side of the aisle, too. Representative Mike Pence, head of the conservative Republican Study Committee, opposes the plan and adds that NCLB is "one of the things we need to undo from the first Bush term." Even administration stalwarts such as Representative John Boehner and Senator Lamar Alexander have hinted at doubts.

"Calls for revamping high school intensify," by Lynn Olson, Education Week, January 26, 2005

"No . . . teenager left behind?" by Perry Bacon, Jr., Time, January 24, 2005

Six years ago, when Alan Bersin became superintendent of the San Diego Unified School District, he began to implement his "Blueprint for Student Success," a series of reforms aimed at dramatically improving student achievement. The local teacher union promptly and predictably howled, but until November the school board backed Bersin (3-2). (Click here for more.) Shortly after the most recent election shifted that balance of power, the union began pressing the new board to reverse course on the controversial reforms and run Bersin out of town. Now it appears the union may finally get its way. Earlier this week, the board met to discuss the possibility of buying out Bersin's contract, which is scheduled to end June 30, 2006. Despite marked achievement gains in the district, especially in early literacy, notwithstanding that there is no plan in place to replace him, and no matter that Bersin has already said he'll leave his post when his contract is up, the board is moving forward. In fact, according to the San Diego Union Tribune, it's "close to engineering a settlement for an early exit of the superintendent" and may pull the plug on Thursday.

"Bersin's position hangs in the balance," by Maureen Magee and Helen Gao, San Diego Union Tribune, January 26, 2005

"S.D. school board is scheduled to discuss Bersin contract buyout," by Helen Gao and Maureen Magee, San Diego Union Tribune, January 25, 2005

The irreplaceable Peter Drucker, now 95 years old, wrote a brilliant piece in the December 30th Wall Street Journal about the singular roles and responsibilities of the American-style CEO. It set me to thinking about school leaders and wondering yet again why we don't view the principal as a CEO.

The crux of the CEO's job, Drucker writes, is to link an organization's "inside" with its "outside," by which he means "society, the economy, technology, markets, customers," etc. "Inside," he explains, "there are only costs. Results are only on the outside. Indeed the modern organization . . . was expressly created to have results on the outside, that is, to make a difference in its society or its economy."

Isn't that the way we now view schools, as organizations that incur costs on the Inside in order to produce results and make a difference on the Outside?

The CEO's premier tasks, says Drucker, are to define his particular organization's "Outside," determine "what information regarding the Outside is meaningful and needed for the organization," then "work on getting it in usable form. . . ." That, in turn, "makes it possible to answer the key questions: 'What is our business? What should it be? What should it not be?' The answers to these questions establish the boundaries within which an institution operates. And they are the foundation for the specific work of the CEO."

Such work comes under four headings: (1) Deciding what results the institution must pursue. (2) Determining what information is vital for that pursuit to succeed. (3) Shaping the organization's priorities. ("In any but a dying organization, there are always far more tasks than . . . available resources. But results are obtained only by concentration of resources. . . .") And (4) deploying people in key positions. "This, in the last analysis, determines the performance capacity of the institution."

This view of the chief executive's role, Drucker explains, is peculiarly American and can be tracked back to Alexander Hamilton. "There is no real counterpart to the CEO in the management and organization of any other country."

It is not, however, limited to the corporate sector. Successful nonprofits have CEOs who play kindred roles. (Think of major museums, hospitals, and large charities like the Red Cross.) Highly focused government agencies, though subject to more political constraints (e.g. Congress, legislatures) often have analogous CEO-style leaders. Think of the FBI, the Coast Guard, the Census Bureau, a state or municipal police force.

When we turn to education, however, such people are scarce. We see the odd example heading the occasional college, private or charter school, and a handful of districts (e.g., Boston's Tom Payzant or San Diego's much-beset Alan Bersin - see below for more on his travails). But they're rare, because of governance structures that constrain the executive's authority, because of politics, union contracts and faculty predilections, and because other personal traits often trump executive capacity and leadership prowess when such organizations select their leaders. Giving a university's faculty a major say in the choice of its president, for example, is apt to yield a pliable executive who bends to the faculty's wishes. (Observe recent grumps about Harvard's less plastic Lawrence Summers.) And when teacher unions dominate school board elections, hard-charging superintendents seldom last long.

Most striking, though, is how alien Drucker's account of the CEO is to our usual view of the public school principal and the requisites for success in that position. Check out the ISLLC (Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium) standards for school leaders and see how many parallels you find. I spotted very few.

Drucker assumes that an effective CEO is the hinge between inside and outside; the definer, gatherer, and user of data; the mission shaper and priority setter; and the deployer of the organization's personnel.

How many U.S. public school principals see their role thusly? How many have the leeway, the authority, the personal capacity and drive to define and play such a role vis-??-vis their school? Granted, outside authorities have a lot to say about the definition and gauges of success in public education. Schools are not wholly autonomous. But why not when it comes to deploying resources and people in pursuit of that success? Why are they not data-driven organizations? Why are principals not sophisticated data gluttons?

Yes, the best ones tend to be. But even they seldom have much say over who works in what capacities in their schools - or they acquire that say by bending rules, exploiting relationships, and utilizing every loophole in the system. Yet how can one be accountable for the performance of an organization over which one has limited sway?

Innovative programs for the development of principals, such as New Leaders for New Schools, understand that a principal's authority must be commensurate with his/her responsibility. So do heterodox education thinkers like Rick Hess. But (like Drucker in the corporate domain) they're the exception.

I submit that America won't have the schools it craves until it has the leaders they require - and that we cannot equip ourselves with such leaders until such time as we are ready to treat them like "the American CEO."

"The American CEO," by Peter Drucker, Wall Street Journal, December 30, 2004 (subscription required)

Christopher T. Cross, editor, The National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform
2004

The density of this 170-page book hints that there is much to learn from the past fourteen years of Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) efforts, beginning with the founding of the New American Schools Development Corporation in 1991 and encouraged by the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration program in 1997. The very nature of these interventions, which came in so very many forms (from Success for All to Core Knowledge to High Schools That Work), targeted innumerable aspects of schooling, and occurred amid a hundred other ever-changing factors, makes for complex analysis. One yearns for crisp conclusions and definitive lessons, but you won't find many here. You will instead find complicated inferences about the impact on CSR of factors such as staff development, differences among school districts, and the policy environment, as well as case studies of a handful of CSR efforts. These are mostly predictable, recounting, for example, the importance of principals' leadership and staff professional development in ensuring a reform succeeds. Much of the analysis focuses on organizational changes, and less on student outcomes, though the book does include a meta-analysis of 232 studies examining 29 CSR models. It concludes that "overall, students from CSR schools can be expected to score one eighth of a standard deviation, or 2.5 NCEs higher, on achievement tests than control students in non-CSR schools." However, few CSR interventions were covered by more than a handful of studies, and only seven studies based their observations on randomized experiments. And (as the book acknowledges) a selection bias is ever-present: schools in which CSR failed were places that tended to abandon the reform strategy, while those studied may be biased toward success. Furthermore (the book does not acknowledge), one might look askance at a meta-analysis whose top category is "strongest evidence of effectiveness" and whose lowest is not "strongest evidence of ineffectiveness," but rather "greatest need for additional research." (Does anyone wonder why education research itself enjoys such low repute?) For those looking to dig deeply into the research on CSR, this book may prove useful, but the reader-unfriendliness of its prose makes it unlikely to boost even those programs getting high marks, such as Direct Instruction and Success for All. To obtain a copy of the book, not now available online, call 202.955.9450.

Kevin Carey, The Education Trust
January 2005

The smart, productive Education Trust has issued a brace of new reports and related "web tools" that invite your attention. One Step From the Finish Line tackles the problem of student attrition during college and "focuses on the unusually high-performing colleges and universities that have much higher graduation rates than their peers - even after taking into account financial resources, student demographics. . . ." In effect, author Kevin Carey and colleagues are beginning to do for college graduation what "effective schools" researchers began two decades ago to do for high-performing K-12 schools. This report highlights a number of such campuses, using various metrics and analytic modes. Included therein are lists of colleges that have significantly improved their completion rates. You can find it here.

One Step is intimately bound up with, and makes extensive analytic use of, EdTrust's spanking new "web tool," known as College Results Online, which you can find here. It's cool but sometimes puzzling. I checked out one small private college that I know and found that its black students are significantly more likely to graduate (in 6 years) than its Asian students, and its Hispanic students (of whom there cannot be many in rural central Ohio) are more apt to complete their bachelors' degrees than its white students. Have a look for yourself.

Choosing to Improve addresses the huge problem of student attrition during college and asks why some campuses have so much more of it than others. In 17 pages, Carey explains four key elements for helping more students across the baccalaureate "finish line": The college needs to focus on getting its students "engaged and connected"; emphasis needs to be placed on the quality of undergraduate instruction; "new data systems" should help administrators and faculty track patterns of student success (and failure) and make needed corrections; and (perhaps obviously) campus leaders must "make student success a top institution-wide priority." To be sure, boosting college graduation rates isn't easy - and we must guard against efforts to do so by easing academic standards. But EdTrust's basic concern is not to be gainsaid: how much is accomplished by busting our educational backsides to get kids into college if they drop out shortly after arriving? Find it here.

Paul Barton, Educational Testing Service
December 2004

This is a sage analysis of important but neglected elements of standards-based reform, organized under six headings: "alignment," the challenge of setting passing-scores ("cut-scores"), accountability issues, "teaching and the test," how to use assessment to inform instruction as well as to report on performance, and the need to pay greater (and more sophisticated) attention to high-school completion rates as a key barometer of success. Author Paul Barton is perceptive, wise, and straightforward, and the many suggestions, proven practices, and cautions offered herein will richly repay the attention of anyone who wants standards-based reform to succeed?and not to slay innocents via "friendly fire." I was particularly struck by his excellent discussion of teaching in an era of high-stakes testing and his thoughtful take on "growth" measures. (Value-added tracking of individual kids is not the only plausible way to do this.) You can find it here.