The Education Gadfly Weekly

Andrew J. Rotherham
Philanthropy Roundtable
September 2008

This new handbook gives philanthropists practical advice on how to support initiatives to boost teacher and principal quality. "Essentially," explains author Andrew Rotherham, "today's school leaders are running a complicated small business, often with a seven- or eight-figure budget, but they are doing so without adequate training or support." Two main groups are involved in this enterprise--innovative and entrepreneurial organizations training and mentoring teachers and principals (e.g. Teach For America, New Leaders for New Schools) and policy shops providing theoretical guidance (e.g. the Progressive Policy Institute, Fordham). And all are privately funded. Enter philanthropy. Rotherham provides a list of five strategic ways in which philanthropists can noticeably affect teacher and principal quality by supporting both kinds of organizations: attracting new talent, reforming teacher and principal training, distributing educators in neediest areas, restructuring incentives to reward excellence, and investing in research and advocacy. All five strands seem straightforward and worthy, and Rotherham lists examples of leading organizations in each of these five areas. Be warned, though, that this book is truly meant for donors. The casual reader's eyes may glaze over as it discusses how and where to give in each strategic area and examples of past philanthropy and its effects. But if you stick with it, you'll eventually reach page 111, where Rotherham lists ten sensible ideas to fill holes in education policy that need further financial support. You can find the (free) pdf version here.

Steven Glazerman, Sarah Dolfin, Martha Bleeker, Amy Johnson, Eric Isenberg, Julieta Lugo-Gil, Mary Grider, and Edward Britton
Mathematica Policy Research
October 2008

This report provides the first-year findings of a 5-year "gold standard" study sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences that compares "comprehensive" or high-intensity teacher induction programs to the (presumably) less comprehensive "business as usual" variety. Since virtually every school district in America offers some kind of new-teacher induction program, with some costing up to $6,600 per head, this study is relevant and timely. Seventeen school districts (serving primarily low-income students) in 13 states were randomly assigned either to a treatment group (that participated in a new comprehensive teacher program provided by Mathematica*) or a control group (that participated in the district's standard teacher induction program, although little explanation was provided as to what "business as usual" really looked like in each district). Not surprisingly, first-year findings show that teachers participating in the "fully loaded" model received significantly more mentoring, guidance on instruction, and time in certain professional development activities (e.g., observing other teachers) than did control group teachers. What was surprising, however, was the neutral or even negative effect of such stepped-up induction interventions on student performance. In fact, there were no across-the-board positive impacts on student test scores in grades 2-6--and larger interventions tended to lower math scores in grades 2 and 3. Neither were there any statistically significant differences between treatment and control teachers' instructional practices (based on single classroom observations) nor in mobility rates between the two groups (i.e., the percentage of teachers returning to the district for a second year after the 1-year intervention). These initial findings don't bode well for comprehensive programs, but it's important to note how exceedingly difficult it is to detect impacts in rigorous evaluations like this one, particularly after only one year. What's even more regrettable, though, is that only a subsample of districts remain "able and willing" (whatever that means) to participate in a second year of the intervention. While it's well known that gold standard evaluations carry a hefty price tag, funding a 5-year $17.6 million evaluation of what will amount to a 1-year intervention for most of the original sample is excessive by any measure. As others have said before, well-funded federal evaluations can still fall short. You can read the report here.

*The comprehensive programs were not provided by Mathematica per se (that would be a significant conflict of interest). Rather, Mathematica convened a panel of experts to review proposals from comprehensive induction providers. Induction programs developed by the Educational Testing Service and the New Teacher Center at UC-Santa Cruz were ultimately selected to participate in the study.

U.S. Department of Education
Office of Innovation and Improvement
October 2008

In the waning weeks of the Bush Administration, the Department of Education has issued new NCLB regulations that garnered some press and a report on America's Catholic schools that barely got any at all. In another little-noticed last hurrah, this report recaps the conversations at a May 2008 forum and highlights the charter movement's evolution from "innovation" to "accountability" to "quality." But the report also admits that the sector "stands at a crossroads," with too many impediments to opening new charters and too many current ones underperforming. To address the former, it urges policymakers to remove state charter caps while also upping facilities funding (easier said than done, given today's economy) and that states establish a diversity of high-quality authorizers--universities, state boards, etc.--to complement the good ole' local education agency (LEA). And to assist with the latter, the report stresses the need for a better support infrastructure and advocates for charter autonomy and accountability, echoing recommendations Fordham made two years ago. And if the bad apples still can't shape up within five years, shut ‘em down, the DOE wisely says. To read more, including how charters can develop political will, human capital, and a unified voice, click here.

The city that never sleeps has once again borne out this moniker. Who's reaching for the Ambien? Parents. At fault is a salmagundi of complaints about the City's year-old entrance policy for its gifted programs. Having previously allowed sundry methods to identify the brightest tykes for gifted programs, the city aimed to equalize access with a simple standardized test (in 2007) and cutoff score (in 2008). While the plan has resulted in less racial diversity, the upping in standards was well needed. Chancellor Joel Klein says admirably, "We won't compromise standards and thereby dilute our programs." But it seems that standards are not the only cause for declining enrollment. Instead, busing snafus and missing waiting lists are at fault, leaving test-passing children unable to actually enroll and causing a rash of cancelled programs due to low numbers. Kudos to Klein for hewing to standards but we hope he now sorts out these organizational blunders, too.

"Fewer Children Entering Gifted Programs," by Elissa Gootman and Robert Gebeloff, New York Times, October 29, 2008

"Enrollment in gifted program drops 50% and minority admissions skid," by Meredith Kolodner, New York Daily News, October 29, 2008

Pity the school-loving geek in Clarke County, Ga. In a classic case of adults setting a Good Example, the school district cancelled classes last Friday for the Florida-Georgia football game, anticipating empty classrooms. But it wasn't the kids that they expected to go missing. Clark County--and neighboring Madison and Oglethorpe counties--worried they'd find themselves short on teachers. Last year, 137 teachers--twice the daily average--took off pre-game day and the district could find only 113 substitutes. "I've heard parents say that it's ridiculous, but the reality of the situation is, if there are so many people in this system and this community that go to the game--if that's a reality--it's irresponsible [to have school on that day]," opined Barrow Elementary School principal Tad MacMillan. You want to know what's irresponsible, Mr. MacMillan? Irresponsible is denying these students a day of learning for the sake of pigskin rivalry. And too bad, too, since Florida taught Georgia a 39 point lesson on the turf.

"Unable to find enough teachers, Ga. district cancels school," by ESPN.com news services, October 31, 2008

"Ripple effect: Georgia district cancels school," NBCSports.com news services, October 31, 2008

"Teachers fans, too, so no school," by Ryan Blackburn, Athens Banner-Herald, October 30, 2008

Washington election junkies surely aren't the only ones going through withdrawal as the political season comes to a close, but at least parents in the D.C. area have an outlet for their obsessive-compulsive nature. That's because many school systems in the area now allow parents to track their children's every scholastic move via a variety of web-based grade books. The online tools include homework assignments, YouTube videos, and, of course, grades. Some parents report logging on as often as once a day. The shift is part of a country-wide lurch towards technology. And parents are impressed; mom Jeanette Backus explains: "I really would hate to be a student nowadays, there's just too much information for the parents. But I love it, of course." And so do we. This sort of transparency not only allows parents to participate in their children's education but also frees up teacher time typically spent fielding parent calls and complaints. Students report that open grade books have made them more accountable to mom and dad--and themselves. This is good news. The next step? Shoring up data privacy and enticing even more parents to take advantage of their newfound omniscience. Seems technology can cut costs and headaches. With budgets tight and costs skyrocketing, we're all for taking a byte out of these apples and more.

"Online Grading Systems Mean No More Changing D's to B's," by Daniel de Vise, Washington Post, November 3, 2008

KIPP KEY Academy in Washington, DC. North Star Academy in Newark. Roxbury Prep in Boston. Amistad Academy in New Haven. These, and perhaps 200 other high-performing schools nationwide, are the bright lights of the charter movement. Despite social and economic disadvantages, their students not only trounce district peers on state tests, but top statewide averages, and, in some cases, surpass students from surrounding affluent suburban districts.

Inevitably, the question turns to scale. To narrow America's shameful achievement gaps, we would need thousands more such schools. Will that prove impracticable, because the schools rely on scarce resources, particularly teachers who themselves benefited from elite educations?

To explore the question, I turned to a locale well known for its concentration of strong charters: Boston. The city is host to the Academy of the Pacific Rim, Boston Collegiate, Roxbury Prep, Excel Academy, and a cluster of other star schools. Of 17 charter schools in the city, seven are posting striking results on the state's MCAS test. All but one school hews to something like the KIPP model: Driven and highly-educated teachers lead their students in a rigorous academic program, tightly aligned with state standards, that aims to set every child on the path to college. The approach has been dubbed "No Excuses" schooling because teachers adopt high expectations for their pupils and stoutly reject explanations from any quarter for low achievement, whether a child's excuse for failing to complete an assignment or a district apologist's appeals to demographic destiny. (David Whitman calls schools like these "paternalistic.")

There is no evidence that the seven charters enroll a demographically different population from the Boston Public Schools (although they may benefit from more motivated families, and the selection effects of student attrition await study), and the schools (with one exception) operate at sharply lower cost than the district.

But turning to human capital, I found that more than half of these schools' staff members had attended elite undergraduate institutions (Barron's "most competitive" rank, which includes the Ivies, top liberal arts colleges, and first-tier state schools like UCLA), and fully 82 percent had attended at least a "very competitive" college (Barron's second-highest rank). That compares with just 19 percent of public school teachers generally.

It's not surprising that No Excuses schools recruit from America's best universities; their teaching jobs are incredibly intellectually challenging. These schools rely on nearly heroic efforts by teachers because they inherit students who have been promoted from grade to grade without mastering essential skills at each grade level. Each child presents his teacher with accumulated learning deficits that impede the acquisition of further knowledge and foster a growing disaffection with schooling. Identifying and then filling these gaps across a class of twenty-five or more students, rebuilding their motivation to learn, and freeing them of destructive habits, while also ensuring the mastery of new, grade-level material, is indeed an extraordinary undertaking--all the more so when teachers are left to devise their own approaches.

So let's return to the scale question: how many of these academically gifted teachers are there? Each year, about 142,000 students graduate from highly selective postsecondary institutions (Barron's top two ranks). Even if one in every ten of their graduates entered teaching for two years (the average tenure at many no-excuses schools) before moving onto other careers, they would provide for only six percent of the 438,914 teachers currently working in the 66 member districts of the Council of Great City Schools (CGCS). Simply put, we might have enough of these teachers to staff a few hundred more No Excuses schools, but not a few thousand more, and certainly not enough to reach every disadvantaged child in America.

Another approach would be to develop school models that would be effective with a more broadly available pool of capable career educators, such that teachers with competent academic preparation, working a sustainable work week, could achieve gap-closing results with disadvantaged urban students. If teachers were provided a powerful instructional system--school culture-building tools, placement tests and guides for class formation; a sequential, content-rich curriculum tightly linked to state standards and taught to mastery; frequent electronic assessments and feedback loops; detailed pacing charts, and so on--then skilled career educators of varying backgrounds might be able to achieve results similar to those posted by the No Excuses schools.

One organization, SABIS, has tried to do just that. (A disclaimer: I have licensed the SABIS educational system in New York City.) The SABIS International Charter School in Springfield, Massachusetts enrolls 1,500 students in kindergarten through the twelfth grade. For the past seven years, every graduate has been admitted to an institution of higher learning. Two key NCLB subgroups, low-income students and black students, have by the tenth grade closed the proficiency gap with their peers (all incomes) statewide. SABIS Springfield's results do not depend on faculty with exceptional educational backgrounds working unusually long hours. Career educators work an eight hour, five day work week, and turnover is low. The autonomy the school enjoys as a charter has permitted it to adhere rigorously to the SABIS model for more than a decade.

Both paths to scale should be vigorously pursued, of course. Legislative action should be taken to encourage highly educated students to go into teaching, especially in urban and rural schools. Certification requirements that require scads of ed school courses should be dropped and starting teacher pay increased. Teachers should be rewarded for their performance in the classroom, not for their seniority or degrees earned. Requirements and incentives, whether statutory or contractual, to reduce class size should be eliminated; there is no empirical evidence to support them and hiring more teachers depresses teacher pay.

At the same time, policymakers and philanthropists should invest in the development of tools that foster teacher effectiveness, including "school designs" that work with mere mortals. While early sponsors of such designs like New American Schools failed to demonstrate strong and consistent academic results, the reason for their failure is now well understood--and avoidable. We now know that precise adherence to a design is essential to achieving consistently strong results. Obstacles in law and policy that degrade implementation quality--such as the prohibition on charter operators holding charters directly--can and must be removed.

Closing the achievement gap needn't await wholesale social transformation. We must overcome human capital constraints. And with ingenuity and action, we can.

Steven F. Wilson is the president of Ascend Learning and a senior fellow at Education Sector. He can be reached at [email protected]. This essay is drawn from an American Enterprise Institute working paper.

How should serious education reformers view the results of Tuesday's election? We find five causes for optimism and an equal number of worries.

Reasons for Cheer

1. In a year when the Democratic nominee was practically guaranteed to win the White House, the most reform-minded Democratic candidate won. While his education policies are semi-inchoate and (insofar as they're clear) far from perfect, Barack Obama's positions on charter schools, merit pay, and even No Child Left Behind point toward a thoughtfulness and willingness to buck the status quo that were strikingly different from the postures of his closest competitors.

2. Support from the teacher unions was not essential to Obama's sweeping victory and frees him--if he's so inclined--to advance policies and programs that they don't love, perhaps starting with charter schools (one of the few issues enjoying bipartisan support during this election).

3. As the first African-American president, Obama will be uniquely positioned to use his bully pulpit to exhort parents, particularly minority parents, to uphold their responsibilities to foster their children's moral and intellectual development. Done right, this could be a powerful complement to whatever formal policies he puts forward.

4. Republican Senators will maintain a hedge against Democrats' worst impulses, thanks to their continued potential for filibuster. This could give reform-minded Republicans (such as Lamar Alexander) and/or Independent Joe Lieberman a pivotal role in education, as the Democrats will need them in order to pass major legislation. Even in the House, Obama's allies will need GOP support if they want to embrace reform, since so many Democratic members do owe their victories to the NEA.

5. George W. Bush's exit, and John Boehner's likely demise as House Minority Leader, remove any obligation for Republicans to swear fealty to No Child Left Behind in its present form and liberate them to turn it upside down the next time around.

Reasons to Fret

1. Changes in control of several state legislatures--the Ohio House, for starters--will make it harder to sustain key education reforms (e.g. charter schools) and enact new ones (e.g. performance based pay) in those jurisdictions.

2. The education schism within the Democratic Party--and inside the Obama camp--will echo through every key decision that the President-elect makes in this field, beginning with his choice of education secretary (Joel Klein? Jim Hunt? Linda Darling-Hammond? Jon Schnur? Randi Weingarten? Arne Duncan?), his approach to NCLB, and much more.

3. The upcoming battle for the soul--and leadership--of the Republican Party will reverberate through every key issue, including education. There's a big schism here, too. Will the past (near-total reliance on parental choice and local control) prevail or will education become a key plank in a new Republican vision of the future (e.g. transforming the governance and delivery system with accountability built in)?

4. With enormous challenges facing the nation at home and abroad, and the incoming administration laden with campaign promises in a dozen other areas, education is likely to loom no higher on Washington's agenda than it did during the presidential campaign.

5. Federal and state budgets will be tight beyond belief, making it hard for political leaders of either party to promote a next generation of bold education policies.

Is this vessel half full or half empty? Your response is invited.

Steven Glazerman, Sarah Dolfin, Martha Bleeker, Amy Johnson, Eric Isenberg, Julieta Lugo-Gil, Mary Grider, and Edward Britton
Mathematica Policy Research
October 2008

This report provides the first-year findings of a 5-year "gold standard" study sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences that compares "comprehensive" or high-intensity teacher induction programs to the (presumably) less comprehensive "business as usual" variety. Since virtually every school district in America offers some kind of new-teacher induction program, with some costing up to $6,600 per head, this study is relevant and timely. Seventeen school districts (serving primarily low-income students) in 13 states were randomly assigned either to a treatment group (that participated in a new comprehensive teacher program provided by Mathematica*) or a control group (that participated in the district's standard teacher induction program, although little explanation was provided as to what "business as usual" really looked like in each district). Not surprisingly, first-year findings show that teachers participating in the "fully loaded" model received significantly more mentoring, guidance on instruction, and time in certain professional development activities (e.g., observing other teachers) than did control group teachers. What was surprising, however, was the neutral or even negative effect of such stepped-up induction interventions on student performance. In fact, there were no across-the-board positive impacts on student test scores in grades 2-6--and larger interventions tended to lower math scores in grades 2 and 3. Neither were there any statistically significant differences between treatment and control teachers' instructional practices (based on single classroom observations) nor in mobility rates between the two groups (i.e., the percentage of teachers returning to the district for a second year after the 1-year intervention). These initial findings don't bode well for comprehensive programs, but it's important to note how exceedingly difficult it is to detect impacts in rigorous evaluations like this one, particularly after only one year. What's even more regrettable, though, is that only a subsample of districts remain "able and willing" (whatever that means) to participate in a second year of the intervention. While it's well known that gold standard evaluations carry a hefty price tag, funding a 5-year $17.6 million evaluation of what will amount to a 1-year intervention for most of the original sample is excessive by any measure. As others have said before, well-funded federal evaluations can still fall short. You can read the report here.

*The comprehensive programs were not provided by Mathematica per se (that would be a significant conflict of interest). Rather, Mathematica convened a panel of experts to review proposals from comprehensive induction providers. Induction programs developed by the Educational Testing Service and the New Teacher Center at UC-Santa Cruz were ultimately selected to participate in the study.

U.S. Department of Education
Office of Innovation and Improvement
October 2008

In the waning weeks of the Bush Administration, the Department of Education has issued new NCLB regulations that garnered some press and a report on America's Catholic schools that barely got any at all. In another little-noticed last hurrah, this report recaps the conversations at a May 2008 forum and highlights the charter movement's evolution from "innovation" to "accountability" to "quality." But the report also admits that the sector "stands at a crossroads," with too many impediments to opening new charters and too many current ones underperforming. To address the former, it urges policymakers to remove state charter caps while also upping facilities funding (easier said than done, given today's economy) and that states establish a diversity of high-quality authorizers--universities, state boards, etc.--to complement the good ole' local education agency (LEA). And to assist with the latter, the report stresses the need for a better support infrastructure and advocates for charter autonomy and accountability, echoing recommendations Fordham made two years ago. And if the bad apples still can't shape up within five years, shut ‘em down, the DOE wisely says. To read more, including how charters can develop political will, human capital, and a unified voice, click here.

Andrew J. Rotherham
Philanthropy Roundtable
September 2008

This new handbook gives philanthropists practical advice on how to support initiatives to boost teacher and principal quality. "Essentially," explains author Andrew Rotherham, "today's school leaders are running a complicated small business, often with a seven- or eight-figure budget, but they are doing so without adequate training or support." Two main groups are involved in this enterprise--innovative and entrepreneurial organizations training and mentoring teachers and principals (e.g. Teach For America, New Leaders for New Schools) and policy shops providing theoretical guidance (e.g. the Progressive Policy Institute, Fordham). And all are privately funded. Enter philanthropy. Rotherham provides a list of five strategic ways in which philanthropists can noticeably affect teacher and principal quality by supporting both kinds of organizations: attracting new talent, reforming teacher and principal training, distributing educators in neediest areas, restructuring incentives to reward excellence, and investing in research and advocacy. All five strands seem straightforward and worthy, and Rotherham lists examples of leading organizations in each of these five areas. Be warned, though, that this book is truly meant for donors. The casual reader's eyes may glaze over as it discusses how and where to give in each strategic area and examples of past philanthropy and its effects. But if you stick with it, you'll eventually reach page 111, where Rotherham lists ten sensible ideas to fill holes in education policy that need further financial support. You can find the (free) pdf version here.