The Education Gadfly Weekly

Caroline M. Hoxby, Sonali Murarka, and Jenny Kang
New York City Charter Schools Evaluation Project
September 2009

This long-anticipated charter school study brings some very positive findings, at least regarding New York City. Using gold-standard lottery-based analysis, Hoxby and her colleagues compare the achievement of 93 percent of Big Apple charter school students who were "lotteried-in" with those public-school students who were "lotteried-out" in schools open through 2005-2006. This means that the authors took one population of students (those applying to typically oversubscribed charter schools) and compared the randomly selected ones who got in (lotteried-in) to the ones who didn’t (lotteried-out) and remained in traditional schools; this method controls for a host of typically immeasurable factors like student motivation and family attitude toward education. Turns out that, when compared with his or her lotteried-out counterpart, each year spent by a pupil in a charter school equals a three point gain on the state Regents test, above typical grade-level progress. That means that, after four years in a charter school, a lotteried-in student would score 12 points higher. Furthermore, students who were enrolled in a charter school from kindergarten through eighth grade scored roughly 30 points higher on the state math exam and 23 points higher on the state English language arts exam, than their lotteried-out complements who remained in a traditional public school. This report is chockablock with other interesting data, including common organizational and pedagogical themes in the charter schools that were examined, as well as an analysis of the racial and socioeconomic backgrounds of NYC charter pupils. (See this Wall Street Journal coverage, for example.) And despite its intricate methodology, it's easy to read. That said, remember that it deals only with the Big Apple, meaning that its findings do not settle anything about the charter conversation elsewhere. Read it here.

Carnegie Corporation
September 2009

This lengthy report compiles much research on adolescent literacy and associated best practices. Though none of the information is new, this is a handy reference guide with five chapters: the latest research on adolescent literacy; the needs of teen-age readers and how these can be met in schools; how teacher professional development can be structured to meet these needs; what needs to happen at the school, district, state, and federal levels to support adolescent readers; and action steps for leaders and policymakers at all levels. The biggest misconception the authors seek to dispel is that literacy gains made by young children in the early grades “inoculate” them against future reading deficits. Instead, argue the authors, “adolescent literacy is a shifting landscape where the heights get higher, the inclines steeper, and the terrain rockier.” This is so for a host of reasons, including such factors as texts getting longer and words becoming more complex as students age. What to do? The report offers a plethora of suggestions, from extending what we learned from the Reading First project into the middle school years, particularly as it concerns data-driven instruction and quality professional development for teachers, to encouraging school leaders to ensure that all content-area classes have a strong literacy focus. But action steps for federal policymakers are less promising: Throw scads of money at the problem, by, for example, increasing Title I support for middle and high schools. It’s far from clear that these costly solutions would ease the literacy woes at the middle and high school levels, though one recommendation might: Develop world-class common standards in English language arts that could lead to the creation of high quality assessments for secondary school students. Stay tuned. You can find the report here.

Karin Chenoweth
Harvard Education Press
September 2009

This is Karin Chenoweth’s follow-up to It’s Being Done, her 2007 profile of fifteen successful public schools (what she calls “an attempt to prove it’s possible to overcome demography”). This time around, she seeks to explain the secrets of their success. The eight schools she profiles herein tend to have well-defined, content-based curricula, clear standards and the “five elements of the ‘wheel’ of school reform”: “personal relationship-building,” “teacher collaboration,” “a laserlike focus on what students need to learn,” “formative assessments,” and “data-driven instruction.” In other words, no student falls through the cracks, teachers can learn from each other (and the schools invest in professional development), teaching is content- rather than skills-based, and testing is used as a diagnostic rather than the rubric for instruction. Yet despite her intentions, Chenoweth admits that these five elements are no cure-all. Actually, that's kind of the point. The schools she profiles all echo certain abstract themes but turn out to be surprisingly diverse in their cultures and methods. To those seeking a formula for replication and “scaling,” Chenoweth responds that she can only give them a framework to create their own school. The book is available for purchase here.

Rollin Binzer, director
Dinosaurs of the Future Productions
September 25, 2009

This big-screen film tells the story of Providence St. Mel, an inner-city Chicago private school that for thirty years has boasted a 100 percent college acceptance rate. Founder Paul J. Adams III may contend that the success of this independent (formerly Catholic) K-12 school is no miracle--it’s “what we’re supposed to be doing”--but it’s certainly exceptional in a city where relatively few students even make it through high school. You’ll get the story of how Adams took charge of the school in the 1970s when it was abandoned by the Archdiocese and full of gangs, drugs, and violence. You’ll also hear about today’s instructional methods, which afford flexibility to the classroom while empowering the principal and holding teachers accountable. This is all wonderful--but can its success be replicated within the public education system? Turns out that in 2006, St. Mel opened its own charter school, Providence Englewood, to prove that it could. Unfortunately, the film only gives cursory attention to how what we’d deem the most interesting part of this story. We get a brief mention of difficult union negotiations but scant attention is paid to how Providence Englewood actually operates, for example, or whether lottery admission instead of academic prerequisites (St. Mel has an entrance exam) demands any modifications to the school model. Still, in just two years, the charter school has posted respectable score gains. But it’s surely an inspiring and tantalizing movie, even if it skips the most titillating part of the plot. Watch the trailer here or see the film in theaters starting September 25.

What's the point of having standards if they're so low that everybody meets them? That’s the Q in Maryland this week following the announcement that only 11 of 62,000 students were denied graduation as a result of failing the state graduation exam (despite its many alternatives, loopholes, and escape clauses). The test, which was the source of some brouhaha when enacted and was supposed to boost academic rigor, covers biology, algebra I, American government, and tenth grade English; students who fail have the option to complete “bridge” projects that prove their competency in the subject material or apply for a waiver to graduate without meeting requirements. That so few failed is not all that surprising, though; state officials made clear when the test was enacted that almost everyone would pass the first year. Ironically, the Old Line State’s data release came one day after that of the new draft Common Core standards. We can only hope the former reminds the latter that having standards is only a first step; to make a difference, they have to be rigorous.

“Near-universal passing provokes debate on school standards,” by Liz Bowie, The Baltimore Sun, September 23, 2009

“Md. Says Graduation Stats Prove Exit Exams Work,” by Nelson Hernandez, The Washington Post, September 22, 2009

The first Massachusetts charter school to unionize (nearly a year ago) now has a collectively-bargained contract with its teachers. Charters in other jurisdictions have unionized, so what’s so special about this one? The contract includes a merit-pay provision! Not only are performance pay schemes typically anathema to collective bargaining, but this one, unlike most, is not a school-wide bonus. In fact, in the second and third years of the new contract, teachers will be placed in an eight-tier pay schedule based on their performance, with placement determined by a committee of teachers and administrators. State test scores will--regrettably--not be one of the criteria though other kinds of (unidentified) student assessments will be allowed. And while the details haven’t been completely hashed out, teachers will not have the right to appeal their performance-pay-scale placement. Head of school (and former this and that, including a less-than-stellar deputy schools’ chancellor for New York City) Diana Lam says that the Conservatory Lab Charter School is “dedicated to including teachers in the development of performance criteria and the professional development process.” When teachers unionize, there’s obviously dissatisfaction in the ranks that is not being addressed by the administration. They have the right to pull together and then (in most states) to bargain collectively. That they’ve bargained for merit pay is good. But how much sense does it make to devise a compensation system that’s basically a step pay scale with another name?

 “Teachers pact reached for Massachusetts charter school,” Associated Press, September 17, 2009

“Updated: Unionized Boston Charter Will Decide New Pay Structure,” by Steven Sawchuck, Teacher Beat a blog of Education Week, September 17, 2009 (subscription required)

I just returned from potentially one of the most portentous conferences in recent memory. If I’m reading the tea leaves correctly, we may soon see big changes in the urban education landscape with major implications for tens of thousands of low-income students, charter schooling, choice, and Catholic education.

Hosted by the University of Notre Dame’s Institute for Educational Initiatives and Seton Education Partners, the event brought together about 100 people to discuss “Financing At-Risk Catholic and Faith-Based Schools: Exploring Alternatives to School Closures.” Obviously, I’m interested in this subject, and for some time, I’ve been trying to get others to realize that, given the paucity of great schools in urban America, it makes no sense to allow any high-performing, inner-city schools to disappear. But heading into the conference, I wasn’t so sure what could be accomplished. Those toiling in these fields already know about scholarships, vouchers, and tax credits; what could more palaver contribute?

While those subjects were discussed--including a compelling presentation by Scott Jensen of the Alliance for School Choice--the bigger story turned out to be everyone’s deep interest in the subject of converting struggling Catholic and other faith-based schools into charters.

I recently completed a long case study of the conversion of seven DC Catholic schools into charters, so I was up to speed on the subject and aware of the quiet interest of a number of dioceses in learning more. What I didn’t realize was just how many--and how strongly--Catholic education leaders and supporters have gotten behind this idea.

To be clear, this is a thorny matter and stakeholders understand exactly what’s at stake. Big philosophical questions are involved, including what this suggests about the future of the largest and longest-lasting sector of private education, and what it would do to diversity in K-12 schooling. There are tricky policy issues here, too, such as what’s allowed under various state charter laws and the federal charter schools program, not to mention the influence of mass school conversions on the broader choice movement.

Those contemplating this course of action also have to take into account countless implementation challenges, including parental and community resistance, political pressure, special education, teacher certification, changes in student enrollment, facilities, and much more (these are discussed at length in the DC case study).

Despite all this, two realities continued pushing participants forward. First, the current financial model of urban Catholic education is broken. Second, unless something is done, the well being of many, many needy girls and boys will be in serious jeopardy.

Walking out of the conference, one couldn’t help but sense--despite understandable misgivings--that we could see many more school conversions in the not-too-distant future.  So the question for the education- reform community is, “What to do about it?”

That issue deserves a thorough, thoughtful treatment--more than can be offered here. But two matters stand out for immediate consideration. First, the U.S. Department of Education needs to get engaged quickly. Lots of kids, lots of schools, and lots of communities are going to be affected. The Department has numerous points of entry: the Office of Non-Public Education, the Office of Innovation and Improvement, the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, the Charter Schools Grant Program, etc.

Secretary Duncan and his lieutenants must wrestle with a number of policy questions. Can or should states address this issue in Race to the Top applications? Will the Department accept and fairly consider innovation-fund proposals on this issue? Can School Improvement Grants be used? What’s the role of charter school start-up grants?

To date, the Duncan team has been mute on the matter of urban faith-based schools. To my knowledge, the Secretary hasn’t even visited one of these schools during his tenure. Now that a growing number of conversions lie ahead, ignoring the issue is becoming less of an option.

Second, public and private sources alike may want to rethink their allocation of resources going forward. An alternative--or at least a complement--to trying to fix persistently failing schools is helping to preserve already-successful schools. So rather than raising a “turnaround fund,” philanthropy could raise a charter conversion fund. Rather than committing precious human capital to turnarounds, direct these talented teachers and school heads toward workable conversions. Given the miserable track record of turnarounds over decades, it’s worth asking, “Which is likelier to generate high-quality seats for disadvantaged urban students: attempts at turning around chronic failures or sustaining proven successes?

I admit to being torn over some of the large philosophical questions raised by the potential of mass school conversions. But I’m confident of two things: Such conversions are on the way, and, if done right, they hold lots of promise for kids in need.

Talk about an entrepreneurial spirit! As if one salary were not enough in tough economic times, Raquel Downing is pulling two--by running a side business from her seat in one of New York City’s notorious “rubber rooms.” Seems Ms. Downing was placed in teacher detention in 2005 after being fired for insubordination from her post as an assistant principal. She sued and won, retrieving her taxpayer-funded $100,000 salary and benefits, while freeing up her days (in the rubber room) to make a few extra bucks on the side. Wielding a couple of phones and laptops, Downing sells CDs for children during her “work day.” (We can only hope none of the discs teach morality.) Downing even refused a job offer from the city, which would at least have retained her $100K pay, presumably to continue her double dealing. No one likes a double-dipper, especially when it’s more than just a chip.

“Principal is a 'double dipper',” by Angela Montefinise, New York Post, September 20, 2009

While the Senate is consumed by health care, other problem topics are piling up. A recent arrival on its docket is the "Early Learning Challenge Fund," a complex federal pre-school collage, passed last week by the House with several worthy features but more than a little bad stuff. One hopes, with scant confidence, that the Senate will set it right.

The pre-school provisions are tucked into a massive student-aid overhaul measure that knocks banks out of the loan business and turns it over entirely to the Education Department and its contractors. That allegedly saves $1 billion per year to be used for the new early-childhood fund, which incorporates the Obama administration's intentions as well as House Education Chairman George Miller's. Dollar-wise, it's far smaller than the $10 billion per annum for "birth to five" that the president promised during his campaign, but the White House is also adding money to the budget for Head Start and other extant federal programs.

The "Challenge Fund" is meant primarily to leverage state-run early-childhood programs in more or less the direction that the Pew Foundation and its generously funded advocacy groups have been pushing--a direction that I recently examined and found lacking.

(News flash: multiple sources report that Pew is easing back from, if not abandoning, its quest for universal pre-school. This will, of course, make life harder for those advocates, though they're also funded by other foundations and, predictably, by the feds. I don't know what's behind Pew's change of heart, so choose to assume that my misgivings showed them the error of their ways and persuaded them to redirect their resources into other pursuits.)

The House bill has some merit. On the positive side:

The Challenge Fund is not focused single-mindedly on expanding state-operated pre-schools to serve everybody so much as boosting the quality and performance of programs serving disadvantaged youngsters. Such "targeting" makes much sense. The bill properly regards such kids as needing help from birth onward, not just for a single year at age four. It's also strong on data systems and coordination of the myriad programs that already clutter this field. It does not dump the money into programs operated by public-school systems (though states are free to do so) and it allows funds to be used for developing better indicators of program quality and kindergarten readiness.

The bill attends to professional development for pre-school staff and to effective "classroom observation," which the University of Virginia's Robert Pianta and others have shown to be the surest way to identify elements of effective programs and teachers. Furthermore, it pays at least lip service to "alignment" of pre-school standards with the state's academic expectations for the early grades.

If that were the whole story, this measure would deserve applause. But of course there's more. Three big flaws in particular:

First, H.R. 3221 is a bureaucratic hodgepodge that calls for all manner of councils, commissions, and coordinators. Not the least of those problems is the Washington bureaucracy that it fails to sort out. Because some of the federal programs involved are in the Education Department and some in Health & Human Services (e.g., Head Start and the "Child Care and Development Block Grant" that was part of welfare reform), the House-passed bill calls for the new Challenge Fund to be "jointly administered" by the two agencies. Picture the coordination nightmare ahead.

Second, the bill creates a new national commission on standards, charged with reviewing "the status of state and federal early learning program quality standards" and recommending new benchmarks for such standards--and sets aside a very generous $30 million a year for this purpose. That may or may not turn out to be a good thing--quality standards in the early-childhood field surely need an overhaul--but in the meantime the bill lends oomph to the antiquated notions that prevail in this field. These center on paper credentials for staffers and staff-child ratios that boost costs with no certain impact on effectiveness.

Third and most troubling, H.R. 3221 forbids states to assess children's school readiness in ways that can be traced back to their pre-school teachers or individual pre-school centers and operators. This echoes the Head Start lobby's success a few years back in strong-arming Congress to block then-assistant secretary Wade Horn's effort to establish a "national reporting system" by which Head Start centers would be judged according to their effectiveness in preparing 4-years-olds to succeed academically in kindergarten.

The early-childhood crowd is, of course, gaga over this bill. The New America Foundation's Sara Mead, who follows this topic with a keen eye (and, generally, good sense) told a New York Times reporter that "I haven't talked with anybody who isn't excited" about it. (The journalist also noted, however, that some folks in this field are irked by Arne Duncan's neglect of early-childhood education in his "race to the top" priorities.)

In reality, however, it's a flawed piece of work that the Senate would do well to fix. Not that anyone actually expects such repairs to get made. There's every reason to expect the Senate to accede to the House (and administration) and hand the president a bill to sign on Christmas Eve as his gift to America's children.

It will be particularly disappointing if this--plus more money under the Christmas tree--turns out to be the full extent of Obama's attention to early childhood. While it's good that his team has not climbed aboard the "universal pre-school" bandwagon, strong federal leadership could make valuable contributions in this area, starting with a total makeover of Head Start (and its $7 billion per year) into the school readiness program that it ought to be. What a pity if this mixed bag of a bill is all they do.

In slightly different form, this piece originally appeared on Forbes.com.

Fifteen years after the fall of apartheid, South African schools are flatly failing as vehicles of social mobility; many black schools are plagued by teacher absenteeism (despite the highest teacher unionization rate in the world), scant accountability, even less authority in the hands of principals, and achievement scores that rank below poorer African peers. A system that once swung way too far in one bad direction has now swung all the way in the other, seemingly incorporating the worst of the old U.S. system (no accountability, vast inequality, political cronyism) with the worst of the new (urban challenges, union tension, powerless school leaders). To remedy the situation, South African President Jacob Zuma is considering giving the Education Ministry more control over principal selection and giving principals more control over their schools. Critics fret that this move toward better management might result in authoritarian control. Sounds just like some of the very same issues we’ve dealt with within our own shores--halfway around the world.

“Eager Students Fall Prey to Apartheid’s Legacy,” by Celia W. Dugger, New York Times, September 19, 2009

Carnegie Corporation
September 2009

This lengthy report compiles much research on adolescent literacy and associated best practices. Though none of the information is new, this is a handy reference guide with five chapters: the latest research on adolescent literacy; the needs of teen-age readers and how these can be met in schools; how teacher professional development can be structured to meet these needs; what needs to happen at the school, district, state, and federal levels to support adolescent readers; and action steps for leaders and policymakers at all levels. The biggest misconception the authors seek to dispel is that literacy gains made by young children in the early grades “inoculate” them against future reading deficits. Instead, argue the authors, “adolescent literacy is a shifting landscape where the heights get higher, the inclines steeper, and the terrain rockier.” This is so for a host of reasons, including such factors as texts getting longer and words becoming more complex as students age. What to do? The report offers a plethora of suggestions, from extending what we learned from the Reading First project into the middle school years, particularly as it concerns data-driven instruction and quality professional development for teachers, to encouraging school leaders to ensure that all content-area classes have a strong literacy focus. But action steps for federal policymakers are less promising: Throw scads of money at the problem, by, for example, increasing Title I support for middle and high schools. It’s far from clear that these costly solutions would ease the literacy woes at the middle and high school levels, though one recommendation might: Develop world-class common standards in English language arts that could lead to the creation of high quality assessments for secondary school students. Stay tuned. You can find the report here.

Caroline M. Hoxby, Sonali Murarka, and Jenny Kang
New York City Charter Schools Evaluation Project
September 2009

This long-anticipated charter school study brings some very positive findings, at least regarding New York City. Using gold-standard lottery-based analysis, Hoxby and her colleagues compare the achievement of 93 percent of Big Apple charter school students who were "lotteried-in" with those public-school students who were "lotteried-out" in schools open through 2005-2006. This means that the authors took one population of students (those applying to typically oversubscribed charter schools) and compared the randomly selected ones who got in (lotteried-in) to the ones who didn’t (lotteried-out) and remained in traditional schools; this method controls for a host of typically immeasurable factors like student motivation and family attitude toward education. Turns out that, when compared with his or her lotteried-out counterpart, each year spent by a pupil in a charter school equals a three point gain on the state Regents test, above typical grade-level progress. That means that, after four years in a charter school, a lotteried-in student would score 12 points higher. Furthermore, students who were enrolled in a charter school from kindergarten through eighth grade scored roughly 30 points higher on the state math exam and 23 points higher on the state English language arts exam, than their lotteried-out complements who remained in a traditional public school. This report is chockablock with other interesting data, including common organizational and pedagogical themes in the charter schools that were examined, as well as an analysis of the racial and socioeconomic backgrounds of NYC charter pupils. (See this Wall Street Journal coverage, for example.) And despite its intricate methodology, it's easy to read. That said, remember that it deals only with the Big Apple, meaning that its findings do not settle anything about the charter conversation elsewhere. Read it here.

Karin Chenoweth
Harvard Education Press
September 2009

This is Karin Chenoweth’s follow-up to It’s Being Done, her 2007 profile of fifteen successful public schools (what she calls “an attempt to prove it’s possible to overcome demography”). This time around, she seeks to explain the secrets of their success. The eight schools she profiles herein tend to have well-defined, content-based curricula, clear standards and the “five elements of the ‘wheel’ of school reform”: “personal relationship-building,” “teacher collaboration,” “a laserlike focus on what students need to learn,” “formative assessments,” and “data-driven instruction.” In other words, no student falls through the cracks, teachers can learn from each other (and the schools invest in professional development), teaching is content- rather than skills-based, and testing is used as a diagnostic rather than the rubric for instruction. Yet despite her intentions, Chenoweth admits that these five elements are no cure-all. Actually, that's kind of the point. The schools she profiles all echo certain abstract themes but turn out to be surprisingly diverse in their cultures and methods. To those seeking a formula for replication and “scaling,” Chenoweth responds that she can only give them a framework to create their own school. The book is available for purchase here.

Rollin Binzer, director
Dinosaurs of the Future Productions
September 25, 2009

This big-screen film tells the story of Providence St. Mel, an inner-city Chicago private school that for thirty years has boasted a 100 percent college acceptance rate. Founder Paul J. Adams III may contend that the success of this independent (formerly Catholic) K-12 school is no miracle--it’s “what we’re supposed to be doing”--but it’s certainly exceptional in a city where relatively few students even make it through high school. You’ll get the story of how Adams took charge of the school in the 1970s when it was abandoned by the Archdiocese and full of gangs, drugs, and violence. You’ll also hear about today’s instructional methods, which afford flexibility to the classroom while empowering the principal and holding teachers accountable. This is all wonderful--but can its success be replicated within the public education system? Turns out that in 2006, St. Mel opened its own charter school, Providence Englewood, to prove that it could. Unfortunately, the film only gives cursory attention to how what we’d deem the most interesting part of this story. We get a brief mention of difficult union negotiations but scant attention is paid to how Providence Englewood actually operates, for example, or whether lottery admission instead of academic prerequisites (St. Mel has an entrance exam) demands any modifications to the school model. Still, in just two years, the charter school has posted respectable score gains. But it’s surely an inspiring and tantalizing movie, even if it skips the most titillating part of the plot. Watch the trailer here or see the film in theaters starting September 25.