The Education Gadfly Weekly

With his ample ego, it wouldn’t be hard to poke fun at Eli Broad. But while some gentle teasing might be in order, Broad also deserves a full measure of respect and gratitude. As depicted in his surprisingly affecting memoir-cum-business-advice-book, The Art of Being Unreasonable, he’s a pretty amazing guy, someone who has been wildly effective in four separate careers and who now wants to share his hard-earned experience with countless others. His advice and exhortations reminded me of a very influential tome from my own Midwestern roots: William Danforth’s I Dare You. Danforth and Broad share the same overwhelming optimism that all things are possible—with enough hard work. Still, 192 pages later, I was left with a mystery: how to explain Broad’s lifelong allegiance to the Democratic Party, other than as an inheritance from his liberal parents. For there was nothing in the book, really, about his success (or anyone else’s) being the product of communal effort or government help. Indeed, the sense one gets is that Eli Broad believes religiously in the power of the Individual—the one man (or woman) who dares to be Unreasonable, ask hard questions, look at problems anew, and make the world conform to his vision—a notion that fits firmly within the Republican camp these days. Broad doesn’t talk—or at least write—like a Democrat. And his education philanthropy doesn’t fit the “liberal” bill, either. He appears to have no patience for the arguments of the apologists that “it’s the poverty, stupid.” He wants to train up super-talented people to be superintendents and turn them loose on urban school systems, to invest in charter-school networks that are hitting their numbers and performing miracles regularly. He doesn’t want to hear “We can’t” when someone else is willing to promise “Yes we can.” And to his credit, his relatively modest investments in education have, by all measures, been remarkably effective. You might not agree with Eli Broad’s views on education. But it would be foolish to take him as naïve. His unreasonableness has led to tremendous success for sixty years. And he’s not done with America’s schools yet.

SOURCE: Eli Broad, The Art of Being Unreasonable: Lessons in Unconventional Thinking (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing, 2012).

Historically, teacher evaluations have been “nothing burgers,” with nearly 100 percent of educators rated “satisfactory” or better (often based on a single classroom observation, if that). These empty-calorie appraisals of educator effectiveness keep the teaching profession plump—but don’t provide the right regimen to ensure its health. Recently, however, some have begun changing their diets. This report from Public Impact, 50CAN, and ConnCAN offers detailed profiles of ten meaty programs: Delaware, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Hillsborough County (Tampa), Houston, New Haven, Pittsburgh, D.C., Achievement First, and Relay Graduate School of Education. (Why CO's Harrison School District 2 wasn’t included, we’re unsure.) It explains how each handles all aspects of teacher assessment, from student-achievement measures and classroom observations to nonacademic measures; data accuracy, validity, and reliability; and evaluation-result reporting. Tennessee, for example, gathered teams of educators in each of the subjects not on state tests (and therefore not available for value-added analyses) to determine growth measures for these courses. And, to handle the sticky situation of team teaching, Rhode Island weights value-added results to reflect the amount of time each teacher spends with a student. Those hungry for healthier recipes for teacher-evaluation systems—or simply those in need of a beginner’s cookbook—should nibble on this report.

SOURCE: Daniela Doyle and Jiye Grace Han, Measuring Teacher Effectiveness: A Look “Under the Hood” of Teacher Evaluations in 10 States (New York, NY: 50CAN; Hartford, CT: ConnCAN; and Chapel Hill, NC, Public Impact, 2012).

Unwavering vision, relentless hard work, and a little bit of luck—that’s what successful charter-school networks are made of. This heartwarming (and at times heart-wrenching) book chronicles the development of the Harlem Village Academies (HVA), and the conjoined life of their founder and CEO, Deborah Kenny. Convinced that “education is not about developing products; it’s about developing people” and deeply concerned by teachers’ feelings of disempowerment, Kenny created two schools—and growing—grounded in the efficacy of her teachers. Before opening, she spent days vetting would-be instructors, interviewing them, observing them in action—and only hiring amazing teachers dedicated to the mission of HVA. (A recent CRPE study finds that this sort of “hiring for fit” is common among the best charter networks.) With quality ensured (and a commitment to accountability established), teachers at HVA are granted more autonomy over classroom practice and curricular designs—so long as their teaching jives with HVA philosophies. Kenny and HVA offer a powerful and immensely successful model for schooling—though not one that is altogether novel. High-performing nations—yes, with Finland at the fore—have competitive and rigorous teacher-training programs, ensuring quality at the front end and allowing for more autonomy in the classroom. They also allow school leaders exponentially more flexibility in hiring and firing decisions than is typical in America’s traditional district schools. Kenny’s story is inspiring, grounded, and actionable. Developing great teachers (not simply programs) is a keystone to any successful school’s strategy. But that ain’t easy in America outside the realms of charter and private schooling.

SOURCE: Deborah Kenny, Born to Rise: A Story of Children and Teachers Reaching Their Highest Potential (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012).

“We’ve got it; let’s spend it!” seemed to be the motto of most state pension program in the 1990s.

“We’ve got it; let’s spend it!” seemed to be the motto of most state pension program in the 1990s. After finding surpluses in these kitties, most states beefed up their pension benefits (called “benefit enhancement”)—as opposed to putting the money in the bank. In Missouri—as this new study by pension guru Michael Podgursky and colleagues explains—these sweeteners included, but were not limited to, upping basic payouts (by tweaking the calculation of final average salaries), raising the cap on the cost-of-living adjustments (twice), and adding a retroactive bonus for career teachers (those with thirty-one-plus year of service). The state, and its current teachers, are now paying dearly for the spending spree. Podgursky and co. examined personnel data from 1995 through 2009 from the Missouri Dept of Ed and the Public Service Retirement system to determine the impact of these policies. They estimate that the net immediate increase in pension benefits for educators was roughly $25,000 per teacher (double that if the promised increases are factored in). However, these benefits were distributed highly unevenly: Teachers on the cusp of retirement saw “large windfall gains”—upwards of $100,000 in added pension wealth—with novice teachers receiving between 10,000 and 20,000 additional dollars. Worse yet for new (or prospective) teachers, these benefit enhancements meant a constant and aggressive increase in contribution rates (needed to offset past liabilities accrued from the sweeteners): Missouri has raised its contribution rate by a full percent for each of the last eight years, with total contribution rates (for teachers and districts) now standing at 29 percent. (The average state’s total contribution rate is about 25 percent.) In other words, newbie teachers are paying for higher benefit levels enjoyed by the previous generation (levels beyond what these veterans contributed to the system). Who says DB plans are less risky for the employee?

SOURCE: Cory Koedel, Shawn Ni, and Michael Podgursky, Who Benefits from Pension Enhancements? (Columbia, MO:  University of Missouri, Columbia, May 2012).

Mike and Janie discuss the fallout from the Wisconsin recall election and teacher unions’ image problem, while Amber explains what we can learn from the best CMOs.

Amber's Research Minute

Managing Talent for School Coherence: Learning from Charter Management Organizations by CRPE & Mathematica DOWNLOAD PDF

For all of its victories over the last couple of years, including Scott Walker’s on Tuesday night, the school reform movement finds itself in a pickle. To succeed in creating world-class schools and raising student achievement, it needs education’s front line workers—a.k.a. teachers—to feel motivated, empowered, and inspired. And yet, according to the recent MetLife survey and anecdotal reports, many teachers are down in the dumps.

Sure, low morale might simply reflect tough economic times; when (or if) state and local coffers finally recover, higher morale might too. But let’s be honest: The message we reformers are sending isn’t all peace, love, and happiness, and that’s probably having an impact, and not for the better.

The message we reformers are sending isn’t all peace, love, and happiness, and that’s probably having an impact, and not for the better.

We think many teachers are dumb (look at those SAT scores!); greedy (look at those gold-plated healthcare and pension plans!); racist (look at those achievement gaps!); lazy (look at those summers off!); ill-prepared (look at those crappy ed schools!); uncaring (look at all that bullying!); unnecessary (look at what computers can do!); and incompetent (look at those low value-added scores!). Or at least that’s how many teachers hear it, I suspect. We love teachers—we just hate everything about them.

One option, according to union leaders, Diane Ravitch, and others, is to stop pressing for reform. Stop complaining about unaffordable pensions or healthcare plans. Stop worrying about across-the-board raises. Stop measuring teachers’ contributions to student achievement gains. Stop pressing for LIFO and tenure and collective bargaining changes. Stop obsessing about online learning.

That might get us happier teachers but it won’t get us dramatically better schools.

So what’s the other option? How can we continue to make the case for reform without alienating teachers, without turning them into the enemy, the problem, the object of our disdain?

One way is to put teachers in charge of their own schools. That’s the argument Ted Kolderie and his colleagues at EducationEvolving have been making. (See this great Education Next article for an overview of teacher-led schools.) If we want teachers to feel respected and motivated, we should treat them as true professionals. Let them call the shots. Set the budget. Hire new teachers. Deal with management concerns. In all likelihood, these teacher-leaders will come to some of the same conclusions as reformers. (Such as: low performers need to go; there are trade-offs between small class sizes and more generous salaries and benefits; all teachers need their craft to be regularly evaluated against some clear and common expectations around good practice; etc.)

Let’s try to make some effort to heed teachers’ concerns, and inspire them to excellence, too.

Another way is to champion reforms that teachers do support. For instance, make it easier for educators to discipline unruly students, or to use “ability grouping” in their classrooms instead of mandating the nearly-impossible strategy of “differentiating instruction.”  In other words, remove the obstacles (often ideological in nature) that are getting in the way of teachers achieving success in their classrooms. If we don’t want to put teachers in charge of their own schools, at least give them more control over their work, as Richard Ingersoll argues. And get their backs when they are faced with ridiculous demands from parents or others.

Another possibility: find smart ways to give teachers a “voice” that doesn’t entail subjugating them to union bosses. That’s part of the idea behind Teach Plus, the Association of American Educators, and Educators for Excellence. The other side of that coin is to get better information to rank-and-file teachers in the first place, so they aren’t learning about reform solely through the filter of union rhetoric.

None of these are perfect solutions. As long as reformers are talking about curtailing teachers’ benefits, or making their jobs less secure, or evaluating their instructional practices, there is going to be some anger and resentment. And talk about those reforms we must. Let’s just try to make some effort to heed teachers’ concerns, and inspire them to excellence, too.

Special thanks to Ty Eberhardt, Joanne Jacobs, Steve Farkas, Ted Kolderie, and Amber Winkler for seeding several of the ideas mentioned above.

Not so long ago, I doubted that computers, cell phones, and the internet would make any more difference in American education than television had. Ringing in my ears was a comment by the late Ralph Tyler that the sole technological advance in a century that had really affected classrooms was the overhead projector because, he wisecracked, it was “the only one that the teacher could use while still keeping an eye on her students.”

Education technology is finally moving past the overhead projector. Photo by Marc Wathieu.

Computers, I figured, would continue to be useful to scientists and engineers and others with complex calculations to make. Cell phones would function like traditional telephones, only portable. The internet (whether or not Al Gore had anything to do with it) was for emailing and such. And “information technology” was sort of like engineering, a field for wonky college students wanting to write computer code. K-12 education might benefit marginally from bits of all this but mainly would sail on like a clipper ship of yore, powered by the same winds that had always propelled it.

Well, I was wrong. But this confession isn’t just another paean to the potential of online learning. That’s there, of course, and real. What has struck me more, however, is the number of contemporary education problems to which technology offers at least a partial solution—but only if we can picture it holistically, not simply as a tool for doing one thing or another.

Let me illustrate with five major-league challenges in today’s K-12 reform world—noting in advance that this could as easily be a list of twenty-five.

Formative and summative assessments

Old-fashioned assessments consume much valuable class-time, are either simple-minded in construction or labor intensive to evaluate, rarely work well across a broad range of students (it takes far too many questions to differentiate at the low and high ends as well as in the middle), and their turnaround is too slow to yield useful information when you really need it. (A major reason for the failure of “public school choice” under NCLB is that nobody knew for sure before August or September whether their kids had the right to change schools that year.)

Computer-adaptive assessments combined with computerized scoring, including open-response and even essay-type questions, could go a long way toward salving all those bruises.

Teacher evaluations

It’s understandable why teachers don’t want to be judged on the basis of a single year-end test or by the difference in student scores between a pair of year-end tests. It’s unfair and inadequate in a dozen ways, and even more so once you get outside the realm of English language arts and math in grades three through eight. Indeed, it’s no better than having the principal pop in for a few minutes once or twice a year.

Technology, however, makes it possible to record, retrieve, and evaluate entire portfolios of student work, daily and weekly learning outcomes, and a host of teacher practices and behaviors, all of them able to be analyzed, reviewed, and discussed at multiple points during the school year—and indeed over multiple years.

Weighted student funding (WSF)

As with most major reforms of school finance, doing WSF right entails complex formulas, oft-changing allocations of money (when a kid shifts schools, for example, or moves to the next grade, or her needs change), sophisticated building-level budgeting, and the integration of dollars from multiple sources that carry different requirements.

Technology can’t solve all those problems—deciding what weight to assign to which conditions, for example—but it can surely simplify the managing and tracking of dollars, the amalgamation of amounts from different programs, and the budget challenges that arise at every level of the system.

Quality education choices for every child

Technology could greatly expand school-choice options in rural America. Photo by fishhawk.

What does school choice mean in rural America? For a child who is unusually gifted in, say, physics, but also wants to play the violin? For a parent whose kid is theoretically free to change schools but who cannot access reliable information by which to evaluate the options? For a youngster who had to drop out to work at a day job or help with baby care but who wants to complete that diploma?

Technology doesn’t guarantee that good information will lead families to make educationally sound school choices but at least it removes the “How was I to know?” excuse for bad choices. It can beam lessons to kids who live on mountaintops or accompany their parents to Thailand. It can be accessed 24/7. It can augment the course offerings of brick-and-mortar schools. And it creates the possibility of changing schools just by inserting a different URL into one’s browser.

Parent engagement

How do we draw parents more deeply into the education of their daughters and sons and turn them into partners with teachers and counselors? It’s not easy—but instant, painless communication between school and home is a big help. So is the ability of Mom and Dad to access their child’s homework assignment, see her test results, retrieve a weekly report on what she did and didn’t learn, even watch her behavior in class in real time (or when convenient.)

One could indeed go on, as these examples really are just slices of the possible. Note that I didn’t even get to individualization of instruction, special ed, saving money, or myriad other potential benefits of technology when used properly in the K-12 context.

Note, though, that pulling off this kind of transformation isn’t like adding a new program to school-as-we-know-it. It’s no bandage. It’s more like heart-lung transplant surgery. Which is exactly how we tend not to think about education reform—and is exactly what engenders fear and loathing in traditional educators, whether because major surgery is just plain scary or because they’re worried about their jobs or just because they’re not too comfortable with technology themselves.

Realizing the promise of technology for American K-12 education is going to be really hard. Misused, it could even aggravate some of today’s education woes. But if we go at it comprehensively, the payoff will justify the struggle. With apologies to Ralph Tyler, it will make the change wrought by the overhead projector resemble that produced by the paperclip.

Chicago Teachers Union members began voting yesterday on whether to authorize a walkout, potentially strengthening CTU President Karen Lewis’s hand in contract negotiations with Rahm Emanuel and the Chicago Public Schools. Even with an affirmative vote, a strike is not guaranteed, but the union and district remain divided over class size and compensation (pay raises, merit pay, pay for a longer school day) and the conflict grows more complex daily as outside advocacy groups join the fray and hizzoner’s star continues its rise. The timing of the vote is revealing: As the Chicago Tribune pointed out, “taking the vote now will allow 1,500 retiring teachers—most of them union stalwarts—a chance to vote as well.” This not-insignificant cohort of the CTU’s nearly 30,000 members could be counted on to toe the line, so the union did the stretching necessary to ensure that loyalists got to cast their ballots. Regardless of whether the union ends up walking out on students next fall, such maneuvering is telling: As the teaching force greys and its faith in unions dwindles, catering to the whims of veterans who benefit the most from the status quo puts the CTU (and the AFT and the NEA) in a precarious position for the future. Younger teachers, who stand to gain the most from the district’s proposals, would do well to remember whose interests the union prioritized this week.

RELATED ARTICLE: “Chicago teachers to take strike vote on Wednesday,” by Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah, Chicago Tribune, June 2, 2012.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker pulled out a solid victory in Tuesday’s recall election, a stinging defeat for organized labor (teacher unions first and foremost) that should embolden other state leaders to take on previously sacrosanct public-employee benefits. Walker’s move to curtail collective-bargaining rights was messy and expensive, but absolutely necessary in order to protect taxpayers from irresponsible superintendents and school boards and to ensure education dollars end up in classrooms, not benefits plans. Gadfly looks forward to seeing which state comes next.

The Department of Education gave states tens of millions of reasons not to try to stretch school dollars this week when itrejected South Carolina’s appeal of a $36 million fine for cutting special education spending (along with all other spending) during the recession. For anyone puzzled by our nation’s skyrocketing spending on special-needs students, one look at the feds’ dogmatic enforcement of Maintenance of Effort requirements should help explain the problem.

The Sunday Washington Post offered a fascinating look at what it takes to fire a tenured teacher: months of hearings, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and hurdle upon bureaucratic hurdle. Equally frustrating about the particular case examined, however, was that student achievement wasn’t a factor in the district’s evaluation, and the teacher in question’s pupils weren’t low-performing: The case for her termination was based solely on subjective evaluations. The article is a crucial reminder that for tenure reform to gain steam it must be tied to teacher evaluations that include objective measures of student performance.

A new Ed Next survey finds only 22 percent of Americans think teacher unions have a positive effect on schools, and the percentage of teachers holding that view dipped by 16 points over the past year. The latter stat is particularly intriguing: If the unions lose the rank-and-file, the whole tenor of education debates could change.

With his ample ego, it wouldn’t be hard to poke fun at Eli Broad. But while some gentle teasing might be in order, Broad also deserves a full measure of respect and gratitude. As depicted in his surprisingly affecting memoir-cum-business-advice-book, The Art of Being Unreasonable, he’s a pretty amazing guy, someone who has been wildly effective in four separate careers and who now wants to share his hard-earned experience with countless others. His advice and exhortations reminded me of a very influential tome from my own Midwestern roots: William Danforth’s I Dare You. Danforth and Broad share the same overwhelming optimism that all things are possible—with enough hard work. Still, 192 pages later, I was left with a mystery: how to explain Broad’s lifelong allegiance to the Democratic Party, other than as an inheritance from his liberal parents. For there was nothing in the book, really, about his success (or anyone else’s) being the product of communal effort or government help. Indeed, the sense one gets is that Eli Broad believes religiously in the power of the Individual—the one man (or woman) who dares to be Unreasonable, ask hard questions, look at problems anew, and make the world conform to his vision—a notion that fits firmly within the Republican camp these days. Broad doesn’t talk—or at least write—like a Democrat. And his education philanthropy doesn’t fit the “liberal” bill, either. He appears to have no patience for the arguments of the apologists that “it’s the poverty, stupid.” He wants to train up super-talented people to be superintendents and turn them loose on urban school systems, to invest in charter-school networks that are hitting their numbers and performing miracles regularly. He doesn’t want to hear “We can’t” when someone else is willing to promise “Yes we can.” And to his credit, his relatively modest investments in education have, by all measures, been remarkably effective. You might not agree with Eli Broad’s views on education. But it would be foolish to take him as naïve. His unreasonableness has led to tremendous success for sixty years. And he’s not done with America’s schools yet.

SOURCE: Eli Broad, The Art of Being Unreasonable: Lessons in Unconventional Thinking (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing, 2012).

Historically, teacher evaluations have been “nothing burgers,” with nearly 100 percent of educators rated “satisfactory” or better (often based on a single classroom observation, if that). These empty-calorie appraisals of educator effectiveness keep the teaching profession plump—but don’t provide the right regimen to ensure its health. Recently, however, some have begun changing their diets. This report from Public Impact, 50CAN, and ConnCAN offers detailed profiles of ten meaty programs: Delaware, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Hillsborough County (Tampa), Houston, New Haven, Pittsburgh, D.C., Achievement First, and Relay Graduate School of Education. (Why CO's Harrison School District 2 wasn’t included, we’re unsure.) It explains how each handles all aspects of teacher assessment, from student-achievement measures and classroom observations to nonacademic measures; data accuracy, validity, and reliability; and evaluation-result reporting. Tennessee, for example, gathered teams of educators in each of the subjects not on state tests (and therefore not available for value-added analyses) to determine growth measures for these courses. And, to handle the sticky situation of team teaching, Rhode Island weights value-added results to reflect the amount of time each teacher spends with a student. Those hungry for healthier recipes for teacher-evaluation systems—or simply those in need of a beginner’s cookbook—should nibble on this report.

SOURCE: Daniela Doyle and Jiye Grace Han, Measuring Teacher Effectiveness: A Look “Under the Hood” of Teacher Evaluations in 10 States (New York, NY: 50CAN; Hartford, CT: ConnCAN; and Chapel Hill, NC, Public Impact, 2012).

Unwavering vision, relentless hard work, and a little bit of luck—that’s what successful charter-school networks are made of. This heartwarming (and at times heart-wrenching) book chronicles the development of the Harlem Village Academies (HVA), and the conjoined life of their founder and CEO, Deborah Kenny. Convinced that “education is not about developing products; it’s about developing people” and deeply concerned by teachers’ feelings of disempowerment, Kenny created two schools—and growing—grounded in the efficacy of her teachers. Before opening, she spent days vetting would-be instructors, interviewing them, observing them in action—and only hiring amazing teachers dedicated to the mission of HVA. (A recent CRPE study finds that this sort of “hiring for fit” is common among the best charter networks.) With quality ensured (and a commitment to accountability established), teachers at HVA are granted more autonomy over classroom practice and curricular designs—so long as their teaching jives with HVA philosophies. Kenny and HVA offer a powerful and immensely successful model for schooling—though not one that is altogether novel. High-performing nations—yes, with Finland at the fore—have competitive and rigorous teacher-training programs, ensuring quality at the front end and allowing for more autonomy in the classroom. They also allow school leaders exponentially more flexibility in hiring and firing decisions than is typical in America’s traditional district schools. Kenny’s story is inspiring, grounded, and actionable. Developing great teachers (not simply programs) is a keystone to any successful school’s strategy. But that ain’t easy in America outside the realms of charter and private schooling.

SOURCE: Deborah Kenny, Born to Rise: A Story of Children and Teachers Reaching Their Highest Potential (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012).

“We’ve got it; let’s spend it!” seemed to be the motto of most state pension program in the 1990s.

“We’ve got it; let’s spend it!” seemed to be the motto of most state pension program in the 1990s. After finding surpluses in these kitties, most states beefed up their pension benefits (called “benefit enhancement”)—as opposed to putting the money in the bank. In Missouri—as this new study by pension guru Michael Podgursky and colleagues explains—these sweeteners included, but were not limited to, upping basic payouts (by tweaking the calculation of final average salaries), raising the cap on the cost-of-living adjustments (twice), and adding a retroactive bonus for career teachers (those with thirty-one-plus year of service). The state, and its current teachers, are now paying dearly for the spending spree. Podgursky and co. examined personnel data from 1995 through 2009 from the Missouri Dept of Ed and the Public Service Retirement system to determine the impact of these policies. They estimate that the net immediate increase in pension benefits for educators was roughly $25,000 per teacher (double that if the promised increases are factored in). However, these benefits were distributed highly unevenly: Teachers on the cusp of retirement saw “large windfall gains”—upwards of $100,000 in added pension wealth—with novice teachers receiving between 10,000 and 20,000 additional dollars. Worse yet for new (or prospective) teachers, these benefit enhancements meant a constant and aggressive increase in contribution rates (needed to offset past liabilities accrued from the sweeteners): Missouri has raised its contribution rate by a full percent for each of the last eight years, with total contribution rates (for teachers and districts) now standing at 29 percent. (The average state’s total contribution rate is about 25 percent.) In other words, newbie teachers are paying for higher benefit levels enjoyed by the previous generation (levels beyond what these veterans contributed to the system). Who says DB plans are less risky for the employee?

SOURCE: Cory Koedel, Shawn Ni, and Michael Podgursky, Who Benefits from Pension Enhancements? (Columbia, MO:  University of Missouri, Columbia, May 2012).