The Education Gadfly Weekly

The Hamilton Project, a Brookings initiative, approaches education as one facet of economic reform—and produces work with a refreshing attention to the cost-effectiveness and economic impact of education reforms. See, for example, a series of papers released last month from some of the most accomplished scholars in education. UChicago whiz Derek Neal, for instance, proposes changes to standardized tests—eliminate multiple-choice, vary test formats, never repeat questions from previous years—that can boost student achievement. Jonah Rockoff and Brian Jacob use cost-benefit analyses to argue convincingly for later school start times, more K-8 schools, and increased teacher content specialization, particularly for young teachers. The most ambitious paper, by the Harvard team of Bradley Allen and MacArthur genius Roland Fryer, navigates what works and what doesn’t with incentive programs. The duo concede that incentives for teachers and outcomes have poor track records, but still lobby hard for carefully designed rewards for student behaviors that can affect higher performance: Kids should get paid—and paid well—for reading books, not acing tests. Give these papers a look.

Adam Looney, Michael Greenstone, and Paige Shevlin, “Improving Student Outcomes: Improving America’s Education Potential,” (Washington, D.C.: The Hamilton Project at Brookings, September 2011).

Derek Neal, “New Assessments for Improved Accountability,” (Washington, D.C.: The Hamilton Project at Brookings, September 2011).

Brian A. Jacob and Jonah E. Rockoff, “Organizing Schools to Improve Student Achievement: Start Times, Grade Configurations, and Teacher Assignments,” (Washington, D.C.: The Hamilton Project at Brookings, September 2011).

Bradley M. Allen and Roland Fryer, Jr., “The Powers and Pitfalls of Education Incentives,” (Washington, D.C.: The Hamilton Project at Brookings, September 2011).

Building off his September 2010 report on out-of-school suspensions in middle schools, this policy brief from UCLA Civil Rights Project analyst Daniel Losen asserts that minority students are being over-punished when compared with their white peers. The data that he reports are jarring: According to the federal Office of Civil Rights, the rate of suspensions has been increasing since the 1970s, dramatically so for minority students. During the 1972-73 school year, 3 percent of white students and 6 percent of black students were assigned an out-of-school suspension. In 2006-07, the percentage of suspended white students ticked up two points while that of suspended blacks more than doubled (to 15 percent). What’s impossible to know from these data, however, is whether the punishments are warranted. Is racism at play here, or are minority students more likely to break the rules? (Is it a little bit of both?) One can readily agree with Losen’s implicit conclusion: More data are needed to understand what’s really going on.

Daniel J. Losen, “Discipline Policies, Successful Schools, and Racial Justice,” (Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center), October 2011.

This paper marks one of the final breaths of the big Pew initiative to expand universal pre-K. (Pew’s Pre-K Now campaign will cease operations at year’s end after a decade of work and more than $10 million pumped into early-ed advocacy.) But a grand breath it is. After much throat-clearing about the benefits of early childhood education, the authors introduce a hefty list of state and federal policy recommendations to ensure expansion of pre-K programs going forward: Pre-K standards must be added to the Common Core, assessments must be developed for the early grades, and education schools must incorporate child development in all teacher-prep programs. Of course, we’ve long questioned the efficacy and financial feasibility of expanding publicly funded preschool programs to all of America’s tots rather than targeting it to the neediest among them. So, while some may wax nostalgic with this passing of Pre-K Now, we aren’t sad to welcome Pre-K Yesterday.

Science will soon join the short list of K-12 subjects for which American states, districts, and schools will have the option of using new, common (aka, “national”) academic standards. Is this a good thing for American students and teachers—and for the nation’s future? It depends, of course, on whether the new standards (and ensuing assessments, etc.) are better than those that states have been devising and deploying on their own.

When those “common” standards are ready, we will review and evaluate them. In the meantime, we are completing our review of existing state science standards and planning to publish those evaluations later this year—just as we did in July 2010 for the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) in English language arts and math.

But unlike the Common Core standards, whose authors scoured the nation and the world for evidence and advice regarding essential content and rigor in those subjects for the K-12 grades, the drafters of these “next generation” science standards are beginning with an anchor document—the Framework for K-12 Science Education that was released by the National Research Council (NRC) in July 2011.

At this time, we’ve no idea how the common science standards themselves will turn out. But we can gauge the quality of the framework that will undergird it. How reliable a guide is that document to the essential content of K-12 science? And even if it is solid on content, how good a job does it do of presenting that content in clear, usable form?

We set out to answer those questions by turning, once again, to one of America’s most eminent scientists, Paul R. Gross, who has been a lead reviewer of state and national (and international) science standards and frameworks for Fordham since 2005.

So what did Dr. Gross find? A lot that’s good and strong, timely and useful. He gives the document as a whole a more-than-respectable grade of B-plus and, when it comes to content and rigor alone, he gives it top marks: seven points out of a possible seven. He terms the Framework “an impressive policy document, a collective, collaborative work of high quality, with much to recommend its vision of good standards for the study of science.” In particular, Dr. Gross finds that the progression of content through the grades is intelligently cumulative and appropriately rigorous—and not bogged down by “science appreciation” or “inquiry-based education.”

That’s the good news. But, unfortunately, that’s not the end of it. Dr. Gross also finds the strong content immersed in much else that could distract, confuse, and disrupt the priorities of framework users. He finds, in the Framework’s protracted discussion of “equity and diversity”—especially in its emphasis on differentiating content and pedagogy—the risk of contradicting the Framework’s own core mandate, which is to frame the same science content for all young Americans.

To ensure that the standards this Framework informs don’t end up suffering from the overreach and sprawl that plague far too many existing state versions, standards-writers must make some critical decisions about priorities that were not made by the authors of the Framework itself.

In Dr. Gross’s concluding words, “If the statue within this sizable block of marble were more deftly hewn, an A grade would be within reach—and may yet be for the standards-writers, so long as their chisels are sharp and their arms strong.”

The NRC Science Framework, then, fits into the familiar category of valuable products that are best used carefully, with due attention to users manuals, reviewers’ comments, and consumer cautions. Think of a model train that works beautifully so long as the tracks are properly laid. Picture a restaurant at which you can eat a terrific meal—nutritious, tasty, balanced, and economical. If careless, however, you may find yourself neglecting the good stuff and consuming more than you should of tempting but disappointing fare.

And so we offer this advice to users of the NRC Framework now and in the future: Select carefully.

Keep the money with the kid; it's just good sense
(Photo by Carissa Rogerse)

A series of scathing articles soiled the pristine robes of digital learning this week, revealing stunningly high turnover, lamentable academic performance, and negligent oversight among Colorado’s largest online schools. The investigation by Education News Colorado and the I-News Network finds, among other things, that more than half of the Centennial State’s online students left their virtual schools in favor of local brick-and-mortars during the 2008-09 school year. Yet, though they left mid-year, the per-pupil funding attached to them stayed with their virtual educators. The Centennial State’s virtual schools did not commit malfeasance: They followed the letter of the law. In Colorado, school funding is based on a single “count” day, meaning that schools receive a set number of funds based on enrollment numbers in October, irrespective of how many students still attend that school in June. It’s no big surprise that virtual schools would have high attrition rates—students and families are trying out a very different model of education, after all—which makes it even more inexcusable for states to maintain funding systems that don’t take twenty-first-century realities into account. As digital-learning proponents, we welcome exposés of this ilk—if only to showcase how antiquated our current system is, and how it needs to change fast if we’re going to allow innovation to thrive and succeed.

Geez this boulder is heavy; give me a hand!
(Photo by Kris Bradley)

For a bit over a year, the National Council on Teacher Quality has been engaging in a mammoth undertaking: to dive behind the Oz-like curtain and collect data on the efficacy and rigor of each and every one of America’s teacher-preparation programs—difficult not only because of the size of the dataset but also because of resistance to such data collection. Slews of education schools have refused to participate in the survey (the University of Wisconsin, all of Georgia’s public institutions, and New York’s SUNY system come to mind). But let that be no hindrance to Arne Duncan, who announced last week a new federal plan to improve teacher-preparation programs. The initiative will center upon three axes: The first will support states as they collect data on training-program quality (based on job placement, a survey of program graduates, and the value-add that alum contribute to student achievement). The second will seek to revamp the TEACH grant program, providing scholarships to strong teacher candidates while also monetarily supporting states that develop rigorous teacher-training systems. And the last will kick in funds to support minority-serving institutions. While mending America’s broken teacher-prep system is an admirable goal, Duncan would be better served by streamlining his objectives. A proposal: Ditch the monetary incentives attached to the proposed, yet amorphous “rigorous teacher-training systems.” Instead, condition receipt of these new federal dollars on a state’s participation in NCTQ’s efforts (they’ve already pushed this boulder halfway up the hill, and would likely appreciate some reinforcements)—and the adoption of improved data systems.

The Hamilton Project, a Brookings initiative, approaches education as one facet of economic reform—and produces work with a refreshing attention to the cost-effectiveness and economic impact of education reforms. See, for example, a series of papers released last month from some of the most accomplished scholars in education. UChicago whiz Derek Neal, for instance, proposes changes to standardized tests—eliminate multiple-choice, vary test formats, never repeat questions from previous years—that can boost student achievement. Jonah Rockoff and Brian Jacob use cost-benefit analyses to argue convincingly for later school start times, more K-8 schools, and increased teacher content specialization, particularly for young teachers. The most ambitious paper, by the Harvard team of Bradley Allen and MacArthur genius Roland Fryer, navigates what works and what doesn’t with incentive programs. The duo concede that incentives for teachers and outcomes have poor track records, but still lobby hard for carefully designed rewards for student behaviors that can affect higher performance: Kids should get paid—and paid well—for reading books, not acing tests. Give these papers a look.

Adam Looney, Michael Greenstone, and Paige Shevlin, “Improving Student Outcomes: Improving America’s Education Potential,” (Washington, D.C.: The Hamilton Project at Brookings, September 2011).

Derek Neal, “New Assessments for Improved Accountability,” (Washington, D.C.: The Hamilton Project at Brookings, September 2011).

Brian A. Jacob and Jonah E. Rockoff, “Organizing Schools to Improve Student Achievement: Start Times, Grade Configurations, and Teacher Assignments,” (Washington, D.C.: The Hamilton Project at Brookings, September 2011).

Bradley M. Allen and Roland Fryer, Jr., “The Powers and Pitfalls of Education Incentives,” (Washington, D.C.: The Hamilton Project at Brookings, September 2011).

Building off his September 2010 report on out-of-school suspensions in middle schools, this policy brief from UCLA Civil Rights Project analyst Daniel Losen asserts that minority students are being over-punished when compared with their white peers. The data that he reports are jarring: According to the federal Office of Civil Rights, the rate of suspensions has been increasing since the 1970s, dramatically so for minority students. During the 1972-73 school year, 3 percent of white students and 6 percent of black students were assigned an out-of-school suspension. In 2006-07, the percentage of suspended white students ticked up two points while that of suspended blacks more than doubled (to 15 percent). What’s impossible to know from these data, however, is whether the punishments are warranted. Is racism at play here, or are minority students more likely to break the rules? (Is it a little bit of both?) One can readily agree with Losen’s implicit conclusion: More data are needed to understand what’s really going on.

Daniel J. Losen, “Discipline Policies, Successful Schools, and Racial Justice,” (Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center), October 2011.

This paper marks one of the final breaths of the big Pew initiative to expand universal pre-K. (Pew’s Pre-K Now campaign will cease operations at year’s end after a decade of work and more than $10 million pumped into early-ed advocacy.) But a grand breath it is. After much throat-clearing about the benefits of early childhood education, the authors introduce a hefty list of state and federal policy recommendations to ensure expansion of pre-K programs going forward: Pre-K standards must be added to the Common Core, assessments must be developed for the early grades, and education schools must incorporate child development in all teacher-prep programs. Of course, we’ve long questioned the efficacy and financial feasibility of expanding publicly funded preschool programs to all of America’s tots rather than targeting it to the neediest among them. So, while some may wax nostalgic with this passing of Pre-K Now, we aren’t sad to welcome Pre-K Yesterday.