Are the nation’s 90,000-plus school board members critical players in enhancing student learning? Are they part of the problem? Are they harmless bystanders? Among the takeaways are the following:
Are the nation’s 90,000-plus school board members critical players in enhancing student learning? Are they part of the problem? Are they harmless bystanders? Among the takeaways are the following:
What does this mean for education governance? School board members and their attitudes do matter—so it’s important to take seriously who gets elected and how. Even as we strive to bring about structural reforms and governance innovations in the education system, we should also be working to get better results from the structures in place in most communities today.
____________
If you have questions about the book, please email Dara Zeehandelaar.
Anyone concerned with improving the achievement, efficiency, operations, or other performance of school districts inevitably asks: Shouldn’t the board be responsible for doing this right? How much do school boards matter, anyway?
In the past, school boards have been characterized both as key partners in improving education and as foes of reforms that would benefit children. More recently, they’ve also been depicted as beside-the-point, structural relics of early-twentieth-century organizational arrangements that have little effect on what actually happens in classrooms or on what kids learn.
So which is it? When it comes to the elected leaders of most of the 14,000 school districts in the U.S., are board members critical actors in enhancing student learning, protectors of the status quo, or simply harmless bystanders? If they are critical, are they well suited to delivering the best results for students? And if they are indeed capable and willing to focus on student learning, do such qualities at the board level bear any relationship to academic results in their districts?
Until now, nobody had much evidence one way or the other. So, building on a large-scale survey (done in collaboration with the NSBA and ISBF), we set out to see whether school board members’ characteristics, knowledge, and priorities could be linked to district performance. To explore these questions, we enlisted Arnold F. Shober, associate professor of government at Lawrence University, and Michael T. Hartney, researcher in political science at the University of Notre Dame. Both have conducted significant previous research into the politics and policy surrounding the sometimes-confounding world of education governance.
The present study is, to our knowledge, the first large-scale effort to gauge the capacity of board members to lead school districts effectively. The authors started with the aforementioned survey data (published in 2010) and combined it with detailed demographic and pupil-achievement data. They probed four big questions:
What did we learn?
U.S. school board members are fairly knowledgeable about district conditions. They demonstrate accurate knowledge in four of the five areas that we examined (school finance, teacher pay, collective bargaining, and class size). They’re less knowledgeable, however, about the rigor (or lack thereof) of academic standards in their respective states. Board members turn out to be quite divided in the priorities that they hold for their districts with little consensus that improving student learning is paramount.
School boards with more academically inclined members are, all else being equal, likelier to govern districts that “beat the odds”—i.e., to have pupils who perform better academically than one would expect, given their demographic and financial characteristics. (We also find that members who devote more hours to board service are likelier to oversee districts that beat the odds – although the survey data do not reveal exactly what that time-on-task entails.)
Whether board members self-identify as a conservative, moderate, or liberal is linked to whether they have accurate knowledge of their districts. Members who describe themselves as conservatives are less likely than liberals to say that funding is a barrier to academic achievement, regardless of actual spending in the district. Conversely, liberals are likelier than conservatives to say that collective bargaining is not a barrier to achievement, regardless of actual collective-bargaining conditions. Political moderates are most likely to have accurate knowledge regarding school funding and class sizes in the district.
Board members’ backgrounds also shape their capacity. Rather surprisingly, those with a professional background in public education (e.g., former teachers or other school-system employees) are less knowledgeable about true district conditions than those who are not former educators, particularly with regard to finance, teacher pay, and other areas.
Districts that elect a larger percentage of board members at large (from the entire district rather than from subdistricts or wards) and in on-cycle elections (held the same day as major state or national elections) are substantially likelier to beat the odds. Merely holding board elections concurrently with state or national elections is associated with a student proficiency rate about 2.4 points higher than in comparable districts with off-cycle elections.
***
Though these are exploratory analyses that cannot support ironclad policy recommendations—this truly is a realm where more research is needed—we offer four reflections.
First, board members as a group are not ignorant of what is going on in their districts. They have a reasonably clear understanding of school finance, teacher pay, collective bargaining, and class size.
It’s disquieting, though, to see that members who were never educators themselves are more accurately informed than their peers who once were (or still are) educators. Likewise, political moderates appear to have more accurate knowledge than their liberal or conservative counterparts. This is worrying not because ideology or experience shapes board members’ opinions—that’s unavoidable—but because voters in today’s polarized climate might favor strong conservatives or liberals over moderates (“At least they have an opinion!”) and former educators over system outsiders (“They know what it’s really like!”). Voters need to be aware of these tendencies and respond accordingly. (So far—in what we take to be a good sign—school board members as a group are more “moderate” than the U.S. population as a whole.)
Second, the data suggest that a district’s success in “beating the odds” academically is related to board members’ focus on improving student learning. Yet not all board members have this focus. Some prefer developing the “whole child,” not placing unreasonable academic expectations on schools, and celebrating the work of educators in the face of external accountability pressures. Nothing is wrong with those other priorities, but they ought not displace the primary goal of presidents, governors, employers, myriad education reformers, and a great many parents in twenty-first-century America: boosting children’s learning.
Third, how we elect many board members may affect whether the best and brightest take on these key roles. Off-cycle elections have a noble intent: to isolate board elections from partisan politics. So do ward elections: attracting board members who reflect the demographics of the electorate. But given the import of recruiting board members who give top billing to student learning, maybe communities should rethink how elections for those roles are structured.
Finally, we find that training, compensation, and time spent on board business are related to beating the odds. Our data are unable to show the quality of board-member training, how they actually spend their time, and other important questions, so we’re not able to offer concrete guidance about how best to maximize board time and service. Still, we can offer commonsense board-level advice: (1) hire well; (2) hold senior managers accountable for running the system effectively and efficiently, in accord with board-set priorities; and (3) provide responsible oversight without micromanaging.
More than anything, what we take from this study is that school board members and their attitudes do matter—and therefore, it’s important to take seriously who gets elected and how that’s done. Most board members are neither ill informed nor incapable of leadership. Regrettably, however, that’s not true of all. As U.S. public education continues to debate structural reforms and governance innovations, we should also be working to get the best results that we can from the structures that most communities have today, which means getting the very best people elected to school boards.
In the Hoover Institution’s Defining Ideas journal, Tom Loveless has a brief, measured examination of today’s curriculum debates. Entitled “The Curriculum Wars,” the essay reviews age-old disputes between traditionalists and progressives in the 80s, 90s, and 00s, then reframes them in light of two recent developments: technology in education and Common Core.
Loveless recalls the whole-language vs. phonics battle in reading instruction; project-based learning vs. content-oriented instruction in science; problem solving vs. computation skills in math; and multiculturalist, “national-sins” history vs. Eurocentric versions (He doesn’t use the term “Eurocentric,” but it’s implied). While the former (progressivist) approaches dominated education through the 90s, the “rise of accountability systems” that focused on basic literacy and numeracy skills, plus research showing the ineffectiveness of whole-language theories, blunted those approaches in reading and math and marginalized science and social studies/history debates.
We are now in a state of “relative calm” in curriculum matters, Loveless asserts, but technology and Common Core threaten to revive the controversies. In customizing instruction to each student, he warns, we may find the curriculum fragmenting to the point that students “no longer learn a common body of knowledge and skills at approximately the same time.” We might extend that concern to the outcome that there would no longer be any common body of knowledge and skills. (Loveless has a nice comment, too, on the “romantic ideology” of those we might call the “disruptivists,” who rely on doubtful theories of learning styles in their effusive advocacy of customization.)
The threat that Common Core poses lies not in the standards themselves but in the uses to which the initiative may be put. Specifically, Loveless says, teachers and school officials may cite it as justification for “questionable approaches to learning.” When challenged for a controversial reading assignment or dubious constructivist math exercises, people may respond, “But it’s aligned with Common Core—we have no choice.”
Loveless is surely right to forecast a revival of curriculum disputes as technology advances and Common Core is implemented. We see the issue simmering with the delicate rollout of test items by PARCC and Smarter Balanced, as well as in local news stories on this and that objectionable classroom assignment. But in offering prescriptions for better ways of managing those controversies, Loveless begins with a curiously flat assertion:
First, much more research is needed on the effectiveness of different curricula. We need to find out what works, whether it is progressive or traditional in approach.
This suggestion appears to overlook the abundant research that supports content-oriented curricula in the “softer” subjects of English Language Arts and social studies/history. Indeed, research on the necessity of background knowledge for reading comprehension is decisive and uncontroversial, even though reading instruction in our schools continues—foolishly—to favor abstract “comprehension strategies” (“identify the main idea,” etc.) over acquisition of general knowledge across subjects. Indeed, while elements of Common Core’s ELA standards emphasize “close reading” and “finding evidence” and imply the teaching of reading skills in a manner disconnected from the knowledge embedded in and presumed by the assigned texts, other parts of Common Core firmly reiterate the premise that “knowledge is intimately linked to reading comprehension ability” (see Appendix A, p. 4). People may disagree over how much time should be devoted to abstract reading skills, yet the recognition of background awareness relevant to specific texts is universal among cognitive-reading researchers.
E. D. Hirsch has spent twenty-five tireless years bringing these findings from cognitive science to education policy and practice, but the reaction he has evoked indicates that the curriculum debates Loveless recounts may be shaped by a more fundamental opposition than whole language vs. phonics and multicultural vs. traditionalist. It is the distinction between skills and knowledge—or, more precisely, between the belief that thinking skills are independent of background knowledge vs. the belief that thinking skills hinge (in one way or another) on background knowledge. Dan Willingham and Andrew J. Rotherham provide a summary statement of the distinction and the truth of the latter belief in a 2009 article in Education Leadership, which chides the “twenty-first-century-skills” movement for downplaying the importance of domain knowledge. Loveless himself cites Hirsch and implies that learning-styles and multiple-intelligences theories lack empirical support, but he holds off from saying that the scientific evidence has declared one side a winner.
Yes, we need more research on which curricula work best, but we already have ample solid research demonstrating the decided advantage that the traditionalist emphasis on content knowledge has over the progressivist insistence on active learning (disengaged from domain facts and concepts). Before we call for more studies, let’s first disseminate existing findings. In this respect, while some people may miss the rancor and partisanship of the 80s-era controversies, closing the old debates prevented genuine progress of the very kind Loveless calls for. Let’s re-open the curriculum wars once more and let the evidence speak.
All eyes are on the “extraordinary authority districts” in Louisiana (the RSD), Tennessee, (the ASD), and Michigan (the EAA). And for good reason, because as this excellent Hechinger Report article demonstrates, old-style state takeovers almost always disappoint. The article highlights cases in the Magnolia State where districts have improved modestly under state direction but have then fallen back down when returned to local control—a logical outcome when a suite of reforms does not accompany the takeover.
Over the weekend, the Times wrote up the Too Small the Fail initiative, which is working with low-income parents to encourage them to talk to their babies and toddlers more. Hillary Clinton is among its founders. Here’s hoping it works; anything that gets disadvantaged kids off to a stronger start is worth pursuing. But we’d be remiss if we didn’t note that initiatives such as these are explicitly working to change the culture and behavior of low-income communities; Paul Ryan would probably be called a racist if he proposed such an idea.
The headline “Indiana Drops Common Core” has splashed across the national media all week. A more accurate headline might read, “Indiana May or May Not Have Dropped Common Core—We’ll Find Out in a Few Months.” What is certain, though, is that Indiana is in a pickle. Not only are its new draft standards worse than the Common Core standards they replace—but they’re worse than the old Indiana standards, too! The politicization of the standards-setting process is clearly to blame.
Mike and Michelle acknowledge that school board members, for better and sometimes worse, affect student outcomes in their districts. But they don’t have to accept the misleading headlines on Indiana’s standards debacle (a case study in the hazards of politicization if there ever was one), nor must they wholeheartedly back Arizona’s ESA program. Amber wonders if high-flyers maintain their altitude—and has déjà vu all over again.
“The Icarus Syndrome: Why Do Some High Flyers Soar While Others Fall?” by Eric Parsons, Working Paper, July 2013.
Some education reformers contend that elected local school boards are anachronisms that maintain the status quo rather than change agents bent on ushering U.S. education toward a brighter future. Their supporters argue that they embody democracy, give voice and power to the local community, and are more reliable and trustworthy than any other school-governance structure.
Wherever you may stand on this issue, please join some thoughtful leaders for a lively debate about the role of school boards in today’s public-education system—and in tomorrow’s.
The Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education was born in response to A Nation at Risk, and in a 1991 report, it pointed the way toward the Bay State's much-praised 1993 education-reform act. What happened thereafter is widely known: with an entire suite of reforms in place, the “Massachusetts Miracle” propelled that state to a level of educational performance that rivaled leading nations elsewhere on the globe. The past few years, however, have seen some stagnation and backsliding on the ed-reform front in the Bay State, and the MBAE recognized that the time has come for a new kick in the pants. So they engaged Sir Michael Barber and his Brightlines colleague, Simon Day, to prepare the present report, a status update and road map to the future. Even a jaded report reader might fairly term the result thrilling. It acknowledges the stagnation problem and depicts six gaps as the main challenges facing Massachusetts: the employability gap (the dearth of needed skills for success in the modern economy); the knowledge gap (a lack of crucial Hirsch-style content); the achievement gap (similar to NCLB concerns); the opportunity gap (i.e., poor kids don’t get a fair shake); the global gap (the state will lose its international ranking as countries with strong education systems forge ahead); and the top-talent gap (failure to address the education needs of gifted youngsters). For each of these gaps, an audacious but convincing set of remedies is proposed. I've no idea whether the Bay State has the will, the leadership, or the resources to move as far educationally in the decades ahead as it did during the past twenty years. If it follows the Barber–Day recommendations, however, it could indeed lead the world. Every state in America would benefit from something like this, however: an honest appraisal of the present condition of its K–12 education, combined with a bold, even arresting vision of how it should change over the next two decades. So congrats to the MBAE, and eat your hearts out, other states. Better still, get a move on!
SOURCE: Michael Barber and Simon Day, The New Opportunity to Lead: A vision for education in Massachusetts in the next 20 years (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education & Brightlines, March 2014).
A version of this article appeared on Flypaper earlier this week.
This eighth edition of Achieve’s annual report monitoring states’ adoption of core academic expectations arrives at a critical moment—and underscores the mammoth challenges associated with standards implementation. As in years past, the report summarizes states’ policies in four domains: the adoption and successful implementation of college-and-career-ready (CCR) standards (including but not limited to the Common Core), graduation requirements (considered CCR if graduating students are required to complete a course of study aligned with quality standards), assessments (which must align with CCR standards and have credibility with postsecondary institutions), and accountability (a set of indicators that measure college and career readiness). In each area, Achieve outlines a model strategy and highlights states with practices that align with these recommendations. The report begins optimistically: currently, all fifty states and the District of Columbia have adopted CCR standards, and thirty-seven states report that they will have implemented those standards by the present school year. But the report also correctly emphasizes that the existence of standards is not sufficient to achieve their purpose. The combination of standards, graduation requirements, assessments, and accountability is greater than the sum of its parts. Depressingly, not a single state has integrated all of Achieve’s indicators into an accountability system, and only a handful have properly implemented the remaining three categories. Nearly half the states have neither CCR-aligned graduation requirements nor a CCR assessment. This report tempers initial optimism that CCR standards will be effectively implemented in the current or next school year, no matter what the states assert. Note, too, that what Achieve is tallying is the mere existence of policies and practices, not their quality.
SOURCE: Achieve, Closing the Expectations Gap: 2013 Annual Report on the Alignment of State K–12 Policies and Practice with the Demands of College and Careers (Washington, D.C.: Achieve, 2013).
To sort or not to sort? That question vexes many schools. And still will, despite this new research brief, which summarizes pros and cons of tracking students by skill level but fails to resolve anything. The authors looked at a number of studies of the effects of two Chicago Public Schools policies—one that reduced skill-based sorting and one that increased it. They found that sorting improves high-skill students’ test scores and raises low-skill students’ grades and pass rates. On the other hand, low-skill students see no change in their test scores and are more likely to have a weak instructional environment, primarily because of increased behavior problems, while high-skill students see a dip in their grades and pass rates. A mixed bag indeed. Leading the authors to conclude that neither policy is clearly superior for any group of students. I beg to differ. The evidence indicates that students learn more in sorted classroom. Full stop. Low-skill students learn the same but are less likely to fail, while high-skill students learn more. That’s a net gain for society. If the grades of high-skill students decrease even though they learn more, sorting isn’t the problem—grading is. Fix that, but don’t revert back to a higher-grade, lower-learning policy! Moreover, the answer to behavioral problems is not to evenly distribute troublesome pupils throughout the school, causing more teachers—and students—to experience disruption. The answer is to deal with behavioral problems directly and effectively by giving those students extra attention and providing their teachers with extra support and training. If schools do this, they can both reap the benefits of sorting and minimize the drawbacks.
SOURCE: Takako Nomi and Elaine Allensworth, “Skill-Based Sorting in the Era of College Prep for All” (University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research, March 2014).
