Educating School Teachers
Arthur LevineThe Education Schools ProjectSeptember 2006
Arthur LevineThe Education Schools ProjectSeptember 2006
Arthur Levine
The Education Schools Project
September 2006
In this 140-page report, Arthur Levine, former president of Teachers College, Columbia and would-be Abraham Flexner of educator training, seeks to do for teachers what his solid 2005 report did for administrators: appraise the current state of their professional preparation and suggest needed reforms. There is good news ("[we found] excellent teacher education programs at more than a quarter of the schools we visited") and bad news ("Teacher education in the U.S. is principally a mix of poor and mediocre programs."). The hoi polloi of the teacher-prep industry are plebian indeed. That this enormous industry (175,000 university degrees annually) isn't doing an adequate job is hardly news, but having Levine join this reform chorus is a healthy thing. The problem is determining how to rectify the situation. As Levine readily admits, nobody really knows what makes for effective teacher education. Of course, that doesn't stop him from suggesting nine criteria, identifying four exemplary programs and making five big policy recommendations. But readers need to understand that teacher training today lacks the scientific base that equipped Flexner in the early 20th century to prescribe with confidence how physicians should be trained. Levine's policy guidance--such as arguing that ed schools should be less "ivory tower" and more "professional schools focused on classroom practice"--is sensible on its face. But it's hard to get around the fact that neither he nor anyone knows exactly how best to prepare future teachers and what they most need to learn. That's why one should be wary of Levine's implicit push for uniformity and standardization. When a major enterprise doesn't really know how to accomplish its primary goals, serious experimentation and pluralism (coupled with rigorous evaluation) are in order. In teacher preparation, as in K-12 schools themselves, policy makers would be wise to prescribe the desired ends and assessments, then encourage diverse paths to be taken, at least until some of them prove more direct than others. Regrettably, Levine is too close to his own industry to ask still more fundamental questions, such as why the costly, cumbersome "paper credentialing" process that he seeks to reform is worth keeping at all, considering the plentiful evidence that uncredentialed teachers in private and charter schools (and Teach for America, community colleges etc.) do just fine. Despite its limitations, this report is a devastating indictment of teacher education as we know it; of faculty, admissions offices, and curriculum; and of the institutional mechanisms (e.g., NCATE accreditation) that purport to exert quality control today. The teacher-prep emperor is really clad in rags. Only self-interest, inertia, and lack of imagination can explain why so many still prostrate themselves before him.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
September 12, 2006
Reading the OECD's Education at a Glance report--which compares the world's education systems across a wide range of indicators--has become a painful annual rite for education policy wonks in the United States, and this year is no different. U.S. math scores continue to disappoint, as American 15-year-olds ranked 24th out of twenty-nine countries participating in the OECD's Program for International Student Assessment. And the news doesn't get any rosier. Although the U.S. is still near the top of educational attainment levels among 45- to 54-year-olds, the data for 25- to 34-year-olds suggest a reversal of American dominance. Among this younger cohort, secondary and tertiary graduation rates in the U.S. have stagnated even as the numbers in most Asian and European countries continue to rise sharply. In fact, Korea, Japan, and a few northern European countries have already eclipsed the U.S. in graduation rates, and others are closing in quickly. Furthermore, the number of college students in China and India, although still low as a proportion of total population, has risen dramatically in absolute terms. Between 1994 and 2005, college enrollment in China doubled, while in India it grew by 51 percent. China's 4.4 million graduates now dwarfs the E.U.'s 2.5 million. This should worry Americans, the report says, because the growth of the world's developing economies, along with technology's "flattening of the world," will drastically increase competition for high-skilled workers. No longer will the globe's most perspicacious brains drain directly into the United States. The report also notes that East Asian countries have handled achievement gaps much more effectively than the U.S. Whereas more than a quarter of U.S. students fail to reach baseline proficiency levels in math, East Asia's rates hover around 10 percent, a difference the OECD attributes mostly to the region's success (and our failure) in mitigating socio-economic inequalities. The U.S. does dominate in one indicator, though--per-pupil spending. The $12,000 per child spent on average (an average of primary through tertiary education) places the U.S. second among nations surveyed. A dubious honor, to be sure: we pour the most money into our schools and still end up with middling results. You can see it for yourself here (purchase or subscription required).
Emily Ayscue Hassel, Bryan C. Hassel, Matthew D. Arkin, Julia M. Kowal, and Lucy M. Steiner
The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement
September 2006
This report is tailored for administrators tasked with "restructuring" schools that have failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under No Child Left Behind for five consecutive years. NCLB prescribes four Extreme Makeovers for these schools--chartering, contracting, reconstitution, and state takeovers--and then offers one loophole that regrettably permits superficial changes such as the addition of a new curriculum. This guide walks administrators through restructuring step-by-step, from the initial assessment (i.e., what type of radical school restructuring required?) to whether the restructuring should be state- or district-run, and finally through the aforementioned restructuring options. The roadmap addresses all types of restructuring scenarios, such as what to do with schools that missed AYP merely because of the performance of one student subgroup. Three key lessons are highlighted: 1) Big, fast improvements are different than incremental improvements; 2) transforming low-performing schools is an ongoing process, not a one-time project; and 3) strong leadership is necessary to effectively restructure failed schools. No surprises there. Though practical in format, explanation, and recommendations, the report is a bit Pollyannish in presuming that district leaders will opt for radical, as opposed to cosmetic, changes. Indeed, lots of data tell us that's a false presumption (see here and here). But for those who are serious about fixing their schools, not pacifying bureaucrats, this report could be helpful. Read it here.
Before applying to MIT, the Associated Press reports, one young man "built a working nuclear reactor in his garage." While no doubt intriguing to terrorists around the world, MIT's Dean of Admissions, Marilee Jones, was unimpressed. She finds such applicants just a tad run-of-the-mill. "You don't see a lot of [the] wild innovation from individuals you used to see," says Jones, who worries that the so-called teenage resume rat race "is making our children sick," and sapping their creativity and youthful exuberance. Clearly the SOS for upper-middle class suburban kids weighted down by stuffed backpacks (see here and here) has reached her Ivory Tower. So she's making big changes at MIT. While the school's new application forms still ask about extra-curricular activities, "there are fewer slots to list them," and there are not as many "lines for students to list Advanced Placement exams so as not to signal any expectation." So MIT hopefuls: put away your nuclear reactors, shelve those AP syllabi, and just chill. Oh, and make sure you apply to a safety school, because we find it hard to believe that MIT is really going to pass on its most qualified applicants, no matter what Dr. Jones tells the newspaper.
"Taking aim at admissions anxiety," Associated Press, September 18, 2006
Buried in the findings of the recently issued 38th annual Phi Delta Kappan/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools are some useful eye-openers for the charter school community. Unfortunately, because charter advocates have grown accustomed to dismissing or denouncing the poll for its sometimes ill-phrased questions and dubious wording when it comes to school choice, there's a good chance these findings will be overlooked. That would be a mistake.
While charter supporters have spent the past few years discussing quality control, creating--and rebutting--analyses of charter performance, and celebrating success stories, they may have overlooked the fact that most Americans still don't have the faintest idea what a charter school is or how it operates.
Preposterous, you say? It's easy to imagine that by now the public is generally familiar with the charter school phenomenon. The first charter law was enacted fifteen years ago, there are today nearly 4,000 charter schools in operation, charter enrollment has topped the million student mark, and in more than a dozen cities charters enroll 15% or more of K-12 students. This includes such fair-sized media markets as New Orleans; Washington, D.C.; Kansas City; Detroit; Cincinnati; Cleveland; Buffalo; and Milwaukee. Surely, one may assume, media coverage would have produced a base level of public familiarity with charter schooling. But wait just one moment.
For the first time, this year's Gallup poll asked respondents some simple, factual questions about charter schools. Most telling, as always, are not the things that people don't know, but the things they know for certain that just aren't so.
Asked whether it's true or false that "a charter school is a public school," just 39% of respondents told Gallup that the statement was "true," while 53% said charters are not public schools.
When asked if "charter schools are free to teach religion," 50% said they are and just 34% said they are not.
Asked whether "charter schools can charge tuition," 60% of respondents said that they can and just 29% said that they can't.
And asked if "charter schools can select students on the basis of ability," 58% said that they may and just 29% said that they may not.
The numbers don't vary much between parents of children in public schools and other respondents, though modest differences emerge on two questions. On the matter of charging tuition, "just" 54% of parents think charters can do so--compared to 63% of non-parents. On the other hand, parents of schoolchildren are somewhat more likely than the general public to think that charters can teach religion: 57% of parents versus 48% of non-parents.
The bottom line: A majority of respondents understand charter schools to be "non-public" schools that can teach religion, and two-thirds think charters are free to charge tuition and select students based on academic ability. As Gallup dryly reports, "Responses indicat[e] that the [charter] concept is not clearly understood."
Fifteen years on, what most Americans "know" about charters is factually incorrect--egregiously incorrect, even. It's not just that people are unsure or randomly incorrect--it's that they are systematically incorrect in ways that paint charters in the worst possible light. In politics, they call this failing to get your message out. That so many have such wrong ideas also raises a question about the degree to which charter critics have been successful at spreading disinformation or systematically confusing the public.
Being mislabeled as "private" and selective is damning because Americans embrace what Stanford University political scientist Terry Moe has termed the "public school ideology." Moe, a staunch advocate of school choice, has reported, for instance, that 41% of non-parents and 40% of public school parents agree with the statement, "The more children attend public schools, rather than private or parochial schools, the better it is for American society." Similarly, Moe has found that 43% of public school parents-and even 17% of private school parents!-agree with the statement, "I believe in public education, and I wouldn't feel right putting my kids in private or parochial school." While such data suggest that school voucher proposals face grave doubts from two-fifths of the American public, charters ought not face the same resistance. One of charter schooling's great strengths is that it can appeal to those who embrace the public school ethos and reject school vouchers and exam schools.
Now for the surprise twist. Although most Americans think charters are tuition-charging, student-selecting private schools, a clear majority now tells Gallup that it nonetheless favors charter schooling. When these schools are described as "operat[ing] under a charter or contract that frees them from many of the state regulations imposed on public schools," respondents supported charters 53% to 34%. Among public school parents, that lead stretched to 28 points-59% to 31%. Among non-parents, charters are favored 50% to 37%.
Those figures show dramatic growth in support over the past seven years. In 2000, Gallup reported that just 42% of Americans supported charters, while 47% opposed them; in 2002, the figures had crept to 44% in favor and 43% opposed; and, by 2005, to 49% and 41%. In other words, since 2000, charter schools have enjoyed a positive 24-point swing in support-despite the fact that most people either don't understand them or have a negative perception of how they operate. If the public actually knew that charters can't teach religion, can't select their students, can't charge tuition, and are indeed recognized as "public" schools, the reservoir of skepticism that charter foes draw from when fighting to stifle charters might begin to dry up.
There are two key lessons here for charter advocates.
First, even under adverse conditions, Gallup reports substantial and growing support for the idea of charter schooling. A significant number of adults who believe that charters are "non-public" schools still say they favor them.
Second, even as the public warms to key elements of charters, most Americans still don't have any idea what charter schools are. Advocates have sometimes gotten so engaged in courting friendly public officials, debating statistics, buffing the public image of charters, and struggling with finances and facilities that they've forgotten the fundamentals--educating the public.
Perhaps this inattention comes from the mistaken belief that the public already knows what charter schools are, and that the debate has now shifted to questions of demonstrated results. That's clearly not the case. Americans are far less likely to be convinced by data on charter performance if they think charter schools are free to hand-pick students and charge tuition. Maybe it's time to get back to the basics.
The science teachers at Broken Arrow Elementary in Lawrence, Kansas, originally ordered from Carolina Biological Supply Co. a shipment of ladybugs. What they actually received in the mail was a shipment of fear. Instead of sending the delightful Broken Arrow children some harmless coccinellids, Carolina Supply botched the order and sent the youngsters a strain of E. Coli. Luckily the vial that turned up in Lawrence contained "Escherichia coli K-12 slant culture," a harmless strain that students often observe under microscopes. (E. coli 0157:H7 is the dangerous strain currently motivating the nation's War on Spinach.) Nonetheless, the Broken Arrow brass wasn't taking any chances. "When we noticed it was the wrong shipment," said Superintendent Randy Weseman, "we got the district's science people over there." The bacteria were then dispatched. Carolina Supply recommends doing the deed "by using double bagged autoclavable bags and autoclaving 121°C and 15 psi for at least 45 to 60 minutes," or, if incapable of autoclaving at precise temperatures and pressures, by dumping bleach on the specimen--which Broken Arrow did. Gadfly, the reprobate bachelor, wants to know: what happened to the ladybugs?
"Schoolkids sent E. Coli instead of bugs," Associated Press, September 13, 2006
Explanatory letters from Broken Arrow Elementary to parents and from Carolina Supply to Broken Arrow Elementary
Arthur Levine
The Education Schools Project
September 2006
In this 140-page report, Arthur Levine, former president of Teachers College, Columbia and would-be Abraham Flexner of educator training, seeks to do for teachers what his solid 2005 report did for administrators: appraise the current state of their professional preparation and suggest needed reforms. There is good news ("[we found] excellent teacher education programs at more than a quarter of the schools we visited") and bad news ("Teacher education in the U.S. is principally a mix of poor and mediocre programs."). The hoi polloi of the teacher-prep industry are plebian indeed. That this enormous industry (175,000 university degrees annually) isn't doing an adequate job is hardly news, but having Levine join this reform chorus is a healthy thing. The problem is determining how to rectify the situation. As Levine readily admits, nobody really knows what makes for effective teacher education. Of course, that doesn't stop him from suggesting nine criteria, identifying four exemplary programs and making five big policy recommendations. But readers need to understand that teacher training today lacks the scientific base that equipped Flexner in the early 20th century to prescribe with confidence how physicians should be trained. Levine's policy guidance--such as arguing that ed schools should be less "ivory tower" and more "professional schools focused on classroom practice"--is sensible on its face. But it's hard to get around the fact that neither he nor anyone knows exactly how best to prepare future teachers and what they most need to learn. That's why one should be wary of Levine's implicit push for uniformity and standardization. When a major enterprise doesn't really know how to accomplish its primary goals, serious experimentation and pluralism (coupled with rigorous evaluation) are in order. In teacher preparation, as in K-12 schools themselves, policy makers would be wise to prescribe the desired ends and assessments, then encourage diverse paths to be taken, at least until some of them prove more direct than others. Regrettably, Levine is too close to his own industry to ask still more fundamental questions, such as why the costly, cumbersome "paper credentialing" process that he seeks to reform is worth keeping at all, considering the plentiful evidence that uncredentialed teachers in private and charter schools (and Teach for America, community colleges etc.) do just fine. Despite its limitations, this report is a devastating indictment of teacher education as we know it; of faculty, admissions offices, and curriculum; and of the institutional mechanisms (e.g., NCATE accreditation) that purport to exert quality control today. The teacher-prep emperor is really clad in rags. Only self-interest, inertia, and lack of imagination can explain why so many still prostrate themselves before him.
Emily Ayscue Hassel, Bryan C. Hassel, Matthew D. Arkin, Julia M. Kowal, and Lucy M. Steiner
The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement
September 2006
This report is tailored for administrators tasked with "restructuring" schools that have failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under No Child Left Behind for five consecutive years. NCLB prescribes four Extreme Makeovers for these schools--chartering, contracting, reconstitution, and state takeovers--and then offers one loophole that regrettably permits superficial changes such as the addition of a new curriculum. This guide walks administrators through restructuring step-by-step, from the initial assessment (i.e., what type of radical school restructuring required?) to whether the restructuring should be state- or district-run, and finally through the aforementioned restructuring options. The roadmap addresses all types of restructuring scenarios, such as what to do with schools that missed AYP merely because of the performance of one student subgroup. Three key lessons are highlighted: 1) Big, fast improvements are different than incremental improvements; 2) transforming low-performing schools is an ongoing process, not a one-time project; and 3) strong leadership is necessary to effectively restructure failed schools. No surprises there. Though practical in format, explanation, and recommendations, the report is a bit Pollyannish in presuming that district leaders will opt for radical, as opposed to cosmetic, changes. Indeed, lots of data tell us that's a false presumption (see here and here). But for those who are serious about fixing their schools, not pacifying bureaucrats, this report could be helpful. Read it here.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
September 12, 2006
Reading the OECD's Education at a Glance report--which compares the world's education systems across a wide range of indicators--has become a painful annual rite for education policy wonks in the United States, and this year is no different. U.S. math scores continue to disappoint, as American 15-year-olds ranked 24th out of twenty-nine countries participating in the OECD's Program for International Student Assessment. And the news doesn't get any rosier. Although the U.S. is still near the top of educational attainment levels among 45- to 54-year-olds, the data for 25- to 34-year-olds suggest a reversal of American dominance. Among this younger cohort, secondary and tertiary graduation rates in the U.S. have stagnated even as the numbers in most Asian and European countries continue to rise sharply. In fact, Korea, Japan, and a few northern European countries have already eclipsed the U.S. in graduation rates, and others are closing in quickly. Furthermore, the number of college students in China and India, although still low as a proportion of total population, has risen dramatically in absolute terms. Between 1994 and 2005, college enrollment in China doubled, while in India it grew by 51 percent. China's 4.4 million graduates now dwarfs the E.U.'s 2.5 million. This should worry Americans, the report says, because the growth of the world's developing economies, along with technology's "flattening of the world," will drastically increase competition for high-skilled workers. No longer will the globe's most perspicacious brains drain directly into the United States. The report also notes that East Asian countries have handled achievement gaps much more effectively than the U.S. Whereas more than a quarter of U.S. students fail to reach baseline proficiency levels in math, East Asia's rates hover around 10 percent, a difference the OECD attributes mostly to the region's success (and our failure) in mitigating socio-economic inequalities. The U.S. does dominate in one indicator, though--per-pupil spending. The $12,000 per child spent on average (an average of primary through tertiary education) places the U.S. second among nations surveyed. A dubious honor, to be sure: we pour the most money into our schools and still end up with middling results. You can see it for yourself here (purchase or subscription required).