The Education Gadfly Weekly

Timothy J. Gronberg and Dennis W. Jansen
Texas Public Policy Foundation
September 2005

As everyone's mother told them, it's important to make a good first impression. Yet for many education policy wonks, their first impression of charter schools in Texas was, generally, not very good. (Importantly, this is true for U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, whose lukewarm feelings toward charters were surely formed in her Texas days.) True, there are a few standouts, such as the original KIPP Academy in Houston, but on the whole, Lone Star State charters leave much to be desired. That's the rap. Is it true? Well, let's look a little deeper. According to this study by two Texas A&M professors, Texas charters are making the same strong gains in student achievement that we find in other places (see the recent news from Pittsburgh, for example). Specifically, academic gains for Texas elementary and middle school students who stay in charter schools for several years are significantly higher than those for their matched peers in traditional district-operated schools. This is especially true for charter students at the lower end of the achievement spectrum. (The study's authors rely heavily on the methodological trail first cut by Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby, which compares charters with schools that their students would have attended, rather than a less-precise comparison with all public schools in the district.) Why, then, is the wrong impression so widespread? As in many states, Texas charter schools post test scores that are, in the absolute, lower on average than traditional public schools. So the common headline - "Charters lag behind traditional public schools, but are closing the gap" - is true for Texas, too. To view the report, which also provides an in-depth analysis of charter demographics, trends in growth, and a look at "competitive effects" on district schools, surf to www.TexasPolicy.com.

Susan Colby, The Bridgespan Group
Kim Smith, NewSchools Venture Fund
Jim Shelton, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
September 2005

The buzz phrase is "taking it to scale." The question behind it is straightforward: "How do reform leaders grow the number of high-performing public schools serving children?" This short paper describes the school-development landscape so that potential funders and advocates might better understand the models currently used to start or replicate schools. Often the schools referred to are charters, though not always. The authors group the organizational models into categories, depending upon whether their operators exhibit "tight" or "loose" control over each school's design, and whether they exert tight or loose management controls. The key conclusion the report reaches is that the tighter the management that suppliers exercise over the schools being replicated (e.g. an Education Management Organization such as Edison Schools), the better the results - i.e., a greater chance of creating a high-quality school. But there's a downside. It also leads to slower, more costly execution. Loose control (such as an "association" or "design team" model would practice) is faster but also more apt to yield wide variations in quality. The authors add helpful descriptions of BayCES, KIPP, and Aspire Schools, among others, to illustrate their categories and make their points. It's an interesting paper, from three organizations that can speak with authority on this topic, and it brings some analytic thinking to a tricky subject. You can find it online here.

Kevin R. Kosar
Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2005

The celebrated 1983 report A Nation at Risk warned of a rapid decline in American students' academic achievements. But the truth, says Kevin Kosar in his new book Failing Grades, is that mediocrity "is not rising: it has been high for at least three decades." He points the finger of blame at our political system, which specializes in stonewalling serious reform efforts. Legislation that could effect real educational change is repeatedly neutered in the lawmaking process by both conservatives (Kosar calls them "antistatists") and liberals (Kosar calls them "liberals") who subordinate the reforms to their own hodge-podge of interests. Kosar describes this neutering in detail, pulling the wool off the process that reduced America 2000 (pitched in 1991) and Goals 2000 (pitched in 1993) to little more than weak tea. Even the No Child Left Behind Act, arguably the most important education reform legislation in four decades, was conceived only with considerable assuaging of liberal and antistatist fears. Kosar writes: "Though touted as a revolution, the No Child Left Behind Act is more of an evolution." While it may be the most wide-reaching attempt at federal control of the nation's schools, it is actually the states and districts that retain the power. Washington-watchers will then ask, "OK, so what's new? And what now?" They won't find those answers here. Kosar doesn't supply them.. Instead, the value of this book is uncovering what has come before. Thanks to this work, we'll all be a little less blind in the future to the realities of the struggles ahead. Legislation that changes American education for the better will be tough to come by, Kosar notes, but in the end, "It's a struggle well worth undertaking." To be sure.

Education Intelligence Agency
October 3, 2005

The NEA's passion for liberal causes is well-documented, but how representative are that union's higher ups of those they're elected to represent? Two recent surveys - one of NEA members, filed with the association in July, and one of NEA's local affiliation presidents, filed in August - provide some insight. A surprising 61 percent of NEA members who participated in the annual survey placed their political affiliations with the right. Compare this with the survey of NEA local affiliate presidents, who were grouped into one of five categories based upon the size of their membership (tiny, less than 50; small, 50-149; medium, 150-499; large, 500-999; and jumbo, over 1,000).  Forty-nine percent of local presidents leading tiny shops consider themselves liberal. As the size of the membership increases, so, too, does the percentage of presidents who self-identify as liberal. Sixty-three percent of presidents of medium-sized locals say they're liberal, while a whopping 82 percent of those who lead "jumbo" locals claim that designation. So how is it that a union membership that leans right gets presidents who lean left? Most likely, member inaction - and activist action. Thirty-six percent of surveyed NEA members admit that they are "not at all" involved at the local, state, or national level. Perhaps this creates an opportunity for reform-minded teacher organizations? You can read an analysis of the surveys here.

What does the phrase "charter school" convey? A common working definition is an "independently operated public school of choice, freed from regulations but accountable for results." Yet all that such formulations of the charter school concept address are matters of structure, governance, and accountability. They say nothing about what sort of education is occurring inside the schools themselves. What is their curriculum? Their pedagogy? Their theory of learning?

Discussions of chartering seldom get close to such matters. But the essence of a charter school is supposed to be its differentness from other schools, at least other schools in its vicinity. If it's not different, why attend it? Which leads to the question, How is it different? What makes it tick as an educational institution?

Why these questions rarely get asked, much less addressed, has two answers. First, people are apt to read too much into the "charter" label itself, somehow viewing it as a school's key attribute rather than merely a license to operate under certain conditions. It's akin to using the word "boy" to describe a kind of person, or "bird" to characterize an animal. Yes, it tells you something, mainly about what the creature is not - not a girl, not a mollusk or amphibian. But it doesn't tell you much. The differences among boys - big and little, strong and weak, black and white and brown, toddler and quarterback, law-abiding and delinquent - are vast, and in many ways more consequential than the difference between boy and girl. "Boy" just doesn't tell you a heckuva lot. Neither does "charter school." The fact that a school operates under a charter may, indeed, be the least important thing about it.

Second, and at the opposite extreme, some people think every charter school is sui generis. They see a corpus of 3,500-plus such schools operating in America and believe them to be so unbelievably diverse that each is best seen as a unique educational institution. If you follow that reasoning, you would not be disposed to generalize, save to note that they all have charters.

Both views are wrong. The array of educational institutions that has come to wear the charter label these past 15 years features a number of distinct subsets or types. They're not just "birds." Edison schools are different from Paideia schools; dropout-recovery schools differ from primary schools as "virtual" schools differ from the brick-and-mortar kind; and so forth.

But neither are we looking at 3,500 categories. This ice cream parlor does not contain infinite flavors. It has just a few dozen. The forty-odd KIPP academies have a lot in common with each other, as do, say, the "Core Knowledge" charter schools. Knowing that a school belongs to one of those groupings tells you a lot about it.

Somewhere between an undifferentiated mass of 3,500 "charter schools," and 3,500 unique institutions wholly lacking in subcategories, my Fordham colleagues and I reasoned, there was a "typology" waiting to be created. A reasonably analytic, manageable number of categories or flavors of charter schools. With a typology in hand, we further reasoned, one could learn still more. How many are there of which sorts of schools, for example? Do they serve different populations? Do they tend to be bigger or smaller? And then - the $64,000 question - is there any difference in their academic performance, any difference that corresponds to (or is even caused by) their distinctive characteristics?

This was unknown territory but well worth exploring. So we asked Dick Carpenter of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs to work on it. Now a professor and scholar, Carpenter once served as principal of a K-8 charter school - an experience that heightened his interest in this study.

He's completed the first half of it, enshrined in a Fordham Institute study released today.  You can find it on the web, here. The study, based on a careful sorting of 1,182 charter schools, presents a cogent typology. The charter schools he examined and categorized represent 87 percent of all those operating in 2001-2002 in the five states (Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, and Texas) that then accounted for the lion's share of U.S. charter schools.

Carpenter first sorted them into 55 categories - more flavors, even, than Baskin & Robbins - then grouped them into ten larger groupings. He shows how many schools are in each and provides fascinating information on the kinds of kids they enroll, how big they are, etc.

It's a bona fide charter school typology, something that charter watchers have never had before. Moreover, it's pretty interesting. I was surprised to see, for example, that "progressive" schools outnumber "traditional" schools - but that both are surpassed by what Carpenter calls "general" schools, i.e. those with no distinctive curricular or pedagogical emphasis. I was less surprised to see the large percentages of charter pupils in every category who are poor and minority, but it is interesting that low-income pupils are somewhat less common in "progressive" and "alternative delivery" schools.

The 55-category version has some tantalizing tidbits, too, such as that "Core Knowledge" accounts for the second largest category of "traditional" schools (after generic "back to basics") and Montessori is the largest category under "progressive." 

To be sure, the charter world is changing. There are lots more Edison schools today, for instance, than three years ago, and dozens of KIPP Academies (not even a discernible category in 2001-2002). The number of "home study" schools has decreased while "virtual" charter schools have blossomed in many states.

So it's not 100 percent up to date. But few typologies are. We needed a field guide to charter schools, and now we have one. Such a typology, tweaked from time to time, is a valuable contribution to our understanding of charter schools and our capacity to study them.

Next on the agenda for Carpenter and this project: a valiant effort to determine whether student achievement in charter schools corresponds to type. Stand by, please, and in the fullness of time we will share what we learn.  

As Paul Peterson explains in the current issue of Education Next, at the heart of No Child Left Behind's free tutoring provision is a blatant conflict of interest, even for districts "in need of improvement" that are not allowed to provide the tutoring themselves: "If parents are demanding afterschool services, then up to 20 percent of Title I funds given to that district must be used to fund the private providers offering the services. If parental demand for such programs is slight, then the failing school district may use the money for other purposes." So if you're a failing district, and you want to keep the federal money for yourself, your best bet is to tamp down parental demand. Enter Exhibit A: Los Angeles Unified. District staff wanted to enforce a tight enrollment deadline for the tutoring so they could "more readily redirect the unused tutoring funds to other services for low-income students." Thankfully, a couple of school board members came to the rescue and overruled the bureaucrats. Quoth board member Jose Huizar: "We create so many barriers that parents don't understand. It makes it more difficult for students to enroll.... My God, if these programs work, why not do away with this deadline and get the kids the services?" Because, Mr. Huizar, that would mean putting the needs of the kids before the needs of the system.

"Making Up the Rules as You Play the Game," by Paul Peterson, Education Next, Fall 2005

"Deadline Extended for Tutor Program," by Joel Rubin, Los Angeles Times, September 28, 2005

Australian parents worried about their children have less to fear from dingoes than from their country's schools. Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson has released a report that contravenes pie-in-the-sky notions about the Land Down Under's outcomes-based curriculum. His report argues that countries whose students consistently outperform Australia's use a "syllabus approach," whereby teachers are "given a clear, succinct and manageable road map...detailing what is to be taught," in their classrooms. Kevin Donnelly, the report's author, writes in the Australian that syllabus-centered curricula developed in Japan, Singapore, England, and even California consistently yield better results than the murky, touch-feely, no-expectations method currently at work in Australia's classrooms. Perhaps spurred by shoddy academic performance, the island's Liberal (as in conservative) party politicians are now starting to clamor for an expanded voucher system. Even some Labor MPs, such as Craig Emerson, are coming along. "For me," Emerson told the Australian, "it's not important whether they [students] attend a government or a private school; what is important is that they get the resources that are needed." And while neither the Crocodile Hunter nor Russell Crowe has publicly weighed in on the controversy, Gadfly is confident that those rugged individualists wouldn't take lightly the idea of Aussie children trapped in namby-pamby schools. Eh, mate?

"Top marks to syllabus roadmaps," by Kevin Donnelly, The Australian, September 28, 2005

"Libs split on school vouchers," by Patricia Karvelas and Samantha Maiden, The Australian, September 30, 2005

"Reopen schools voucher debate: Lib," by Samantha Maiden, The Australian, October 5, 2005

This week, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) and the Bloomberg administration reached agreement on a new contract for New York City public school educators (who worked without any contract for nearly two years). So who won? Diane Ravitch, writing in the New York Sun, notes that UFT President Randi Weingarten scored big in her battle to stave off the Klein regime's tyranny of progressivism: "The Department of Education will no longer be able to reprimand teachers based on the state of the classroom bulletin board, the arrangement of classroom furniture, or the duration of lessons." (For an explanation of why teachers felt it necessary to put such mundane matters into the contract, click here and here.) Furthermore, the deal includes an across-the-board pay raise for the city's teachers. On the Bloomberg side, the contract eliminates seniority "bumping" rights, whereby veteran teachers get first pick of the best teaching jobs, and trims a bit of red tape surrounding the teacher dismissal process. But that's about all. According to frequent critic Andrew Wolf, Chancellor Klein was the big loser. "Two weeks ago, at a conference in Washington, Mr. Klein boasted of a 'second term' strategy that would provide for comprehensive merit pay differentials [See Gadfly coverage here]...[but] none of these merit pay proposals is incorporated in the contract." Plus, as New York reformer Sol Stern explained to us, the biggest wage increases go to experienced teachers at the top of the salary scale, who are already more likely to be found in the city's more affluent neighborhoods. Newly recruited teachers get far smaller gains, even in percentage terms. Hence the agreement could widen the funding gap between rich and poor schools instead of providing incentives for teachers to volunteer for tougher assignments. Overall, the contract's hardly a resounding "win for the kids."

"City Reaches Tentative Deal With Teachers," by David M. Herszenhorn, New York Times, October 4, 2005 

"A Win for the Kids," New York Post editorial, October 4, 2005

"The UFT Agreement," by Diane Ravitch, New York Sun, October 4, 2005

"The UFT Agreement," by Andrew Wolf, New York Sun, October 4, 2005

"Schooling Ferrer," by Sol Stern, New York Sun, September 30, 2005

Education Intelligence Agency
October 3, 2005

The NEA's passion for liberal causes is well-documented, but how representative are that union's higher ups of those they're elected to represent? Two recent surveys - one of NEA members, filed with the association in July, and one of NEA's local affiliation presidents, filed in August - provide some insight. A surprising 61 percent of NEA members who participated in the annual survey placed their political affiliations with the right. Compare this with the survey of NEA local affiliate presidents, who were grouped into one of five categories based upon the size of their membership (tiny, less than 50; small, 50-149; medium, 150-499; large, 500-999; and jumbo, over 1,000).  Forty-nine percent of local presidents leading tiny shops consider themselves liberal. As the size of the membership increases, so, too, does the percentage of presidents who self-identify as liberal. Sixty-three percent of presidents of medium-sized locals say they're liberal, while a whopping 82 percent of those who lead "jumbo" locals claim that designation. So how is it that a union membership that leans right gets presidents who lean left? Most likely, member inaction - and activist action. Thirty-six percent of surveyed NEA members admit that they are "not at all" involved at the local, state, or national level. Perhaps this creates an opportunity for reform-minded teacher organizations? You can read an analysis of the surveys here.

Kevin R. Kosar
Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2005

The celebrated 1983 report A Nation at Risk warned of a rapid decline in American students' academic achievements. But the truth, says Kevin Kosar in his new book Failing Grades, is that mediocrity "is not rising: it has been high for at least three decades." He points the finger of blame at our political system, which specializes in stonewalling serious reform efforts. Legislation that could effect real educational change is repeatedly neutered in the lawmaking process by both conservatives (Kosar calls them "antistatists") and liberals (Kosar calls them "liberals") who subordinate the reforms to their own hodge-podge of interests. Kosar describes this neutering in detail, pulling the wool off the process that reduced America 2000 (pitched in 1991) and Goals 2000 (pitched in 1993) to little more than weak tea. Even the No Child Left Behind Act, arguably the most important education reform legislation in four decades, was conceived only with considerable assuaging of liberal and antistatist fears. Kosar writes: "Though touted as a revolution, the No Child Left Behind Act is more of an evolution." While it may be the most wide-reaching attempt at federal control of the nation's schools, it is actually the states and districts that retain the power. Washington-watchers will then ask, "OK, so what's new? And what now?" They won't find those answers here. Kosar doesn't supply them.. Instead, the value of this book is uncovering what has come before. Thanks to this work, we'll all be a little less blind in the future to the realities of the struggles ahead. Legislation that changes American education for the better will be tough to come by, Kosar notes, but in the end, "It's a struggle well worth undertaking." To be sure.

Susan Colby, The Bridgespan Group
Kim Smith, NewSchools Venture Fund
Jim Shelton, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
September 2005

The buzz phrase is "taking it to scale." The question behind it is straightforward: "How do reform leaders grow the number of high-performing public schools serving children?" This short paper describes the school-development landscape so that potential funders and advocates might better understand the models currently used to start or replicate schools. Often the schools referred to are charters, though not always. The authors group the organizational models into categories, depending upon whether their operators exhibit "tight" or "loose" control over each school's design, and whether they exert tight or loose management controls. The key conclusion the report reaches is that the tighter the management that suppliers exercise over the schools being replicated (e.g. an Education Management Organization such as Edison Schools), the better the results - i.e., a greater chance of creating a high-quality school. But there's a downside. It also leads to slower, more costly execution. Loose control (such as an "association" or "design team" model would practice) is faster but also more apt to yield wide variations in quality. The authors add helpful descriptions of BayCES, KIPP, and Aspire Schools, among others, to illustrate their categories and make their points. It's an interesting paper, from three organizations that can speak with authority on this topic, and it brings some analytic thinking to a tricky subject. You can find it online here.

Timothy J. Gronberg and Dennis W. Jansen
Texas Public Policy Foundation
September 2005

As everyone's mother told them, it's important to make a good first impression. Yet for many education policy wonks, their first impression of charter schools in Texas was, generally, not very good. (Importantly, this is true for U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, whose lukewarm feelings toward charters were surely formed in her Texas days.) True, there are a few standouts, such as the original KIPP Academy in Houston, but on the whole, Lone Star State charters leave much to be desired. That's the rap. Is it true? Well, let's look a little deeper. According to this study by two Texas A&M professors, Texas charters are making the same strong gains in student achievement that we find in other places (see the recent news from Pittsburgh, for example). Specifically, academic gains for Texas elementary and middle school students who stay in charter schools for several years are significantly higher than those for their matched peers in traditional district-operated schools. This is especially true for charter students at the lower end of the achievement spectrum. (The study's authors rely heavily on the methodological trail first cut by Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby, which compares charters with schools that their students would have attended, rather than a less-precise comparison with all public schools in the district.) Why, then, is the wrong impression so widespread? As in many states, Texas charter schools post test scores that are, in the absolute, lower on average than traditional public schools. So the common headline - "Charters lag behind traditional public schools, but are closing the gap" - is true for Texas, too. To view the report, which also provides an in-depth analysis of charter demographics, trends in growth, and a look at "competitive effects" on district schools, surf to www.TexasPolicy.com.