The Education Gadfly Weekly

Americans are ambivalent about testing, standards, and accountability in their children’s schools. This is clear from survey results that swing wildly depending on how, exactly, the question is phrased—and on whether the practice in question might inconvenience one’s own kid, as apart from fixing those awful schools across town.

The public shows far greater tolerance for tests whose scores may yield things we crave—admission to the college of one’s choice, for example (SAT, ACT), even advance credit for college work (AP)—than for the kind whose foremost purpose is to rank schools or teachers and give distant officials data by which to fine-tune their policies. Indeed, when it comes to statewide standardized testing of the sort that’s become universal in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) era, a great many parents—and a huge fraction of teachers—appear to have had enough. They grump, with some justice, that

• Too much school time is given over to test prep—and the pressure to lift scores leads to cheating and other unsavory practices.
• Subjects and accomplishments that aren’t tested—art, creativity, leadership, independent thinking, etc.—are getting squeezed if not discarded.
• Teachers are losing their freedom to practice their craft, to make classes interesting and stimulating, to act like professionals.
• The curricular homogenizing that generally follows from standardized tests and state (or national) standards represents an undesirable usurpation of school autonomy, teacher freedom, and local control by distant authorities.
• Judging teachers and schools by pupil test scores is inaccurate and unfair, given the kids’ different starting points and home circumstances, the variation in class sizes and school resources, and the many other services that schools and teachers are now expected to provide their students.

The political fracas brought on by Common Core standards has certainly exacerbated all of the above.

Although decent responses exist for every one of these concerns, as do sundry ways of curbing their excesses, it’s probably time for education reformers and policymakers to admit that just pushing harder on test-driven accountability as the primary tool for changing our creaky old public-school system is apt to yield more backlash than accomplishment. In any case, the NCLB-era strategies—centered on setting standards, administering assessments, and holding everybody “accountable” for the results on those tests—have yielded only modest gains, especially in the high-school years.

That’s not to say testing should cease. It’s still essential to know how kids and schools (and districts and states) are doing at the requisite skills and knowledge of the core curriculum, to inform families making school choices, and to enable educators to fine-tune their own work. The end-of-year results, in particular, make possible all manner of diagnoses, ratings, gain calculations, and interventions at every level of the system, and we’d be crazy to do away with such hard-won information. Yet testing is not a sufficient engine to drive the next generation of education reforms.

So what might be?

The wrong answer is to give up (or declare victory) and settle for the status quo. Far too many kids are still dropping out, far too few are entering college and the work force with the requisite skills, and far too many other countries are chowing down on our lunch.

Major-league education change is still needed, maybe now more than ever, and it’s no time for either complacency or despair.

Alongside transparency-oriented testing based on rigorous standards for the curricular core, here are four drivers of tomorrow’s reforms that are already nudging in promising directions and have the potential to push much harder:

1. Individualization. Without going crazy—everybody still needs to learn to multiply, to compose a grammatical sentence, to explain the background of the Civil War—education is ripe to shift from batch-processing to customizing kids’ instructional experience, moving from pre-set menus to some version of “grazing.” Not just with regard to what is learned or when, but also the mode of instruction—and the rate at which a youngster moves through school.

2. Technology hugely simplifies individualization. Over time, it will also save money, and some of those savings can be redeployed toward hiring better—but fewer—flesh-and-blood teachers. Completely “virtual” out-of-school education will have limited appeal—eight-year-olds still need an adult nearby, plus other kids—but there’s vast potential in “blended” learning under the school roof. And older kids can carry these options beyond the classroom.

3. Quality choices. Choice among schools is a fine thing, and the U.S. has made major strides in widening access for millions of kids via vouchers, charters, tax credits, savings accounts, and more. But some youngsters still have few options—and too many of the available options are mediocre. This part of the reform agenda needs more work, as does widening the marketplace to include choices among courses, delivery systems, even teachers.

4. Attaching the money to the child. All of the foregoing strategies will stumble so long as education dollars flow to schools and districts through multiple program channels that have little to do with which students attend which schools, that fund traditional district schools far more generously than “schools of choice,” and that cannot be counted upon to move if the child changes schools, courses, speed, or delivery system. Solidly placing all the money in the child’s backpack, varying the amount according to her circumstances, giving families substantial say over what schools (or other vendors) will receive it, then empowering the school to spend it however does that child the most good—this may turn out to be the most liberating reform of all.

Each of these strategies will face opposition from the education establishment and will be disruptive of hoary structures and timeworn policies. But if the available alternatives are status quo on one hand and just doubling down on testing on the other, it’s surely worth giving them a chance.

Education reform is dead. Long live education reform.

This first appeared at National Review Online.

photo credit: flickingerbrad via photopin cc

• On Monday, after years of budgetary woes, Philadelphia suddenly cancelled its contract with the teachers union. The move cuts a number of benefits and forces teachers to contribute between $55 and $140 per month for health care. Of course, these financial problems are nothing new. Philadelphia schools, despite receiving more per-pupil funding than the national average, just can’t seem to run efficiently, and unworkable pension obligations are largely to blame. Fortunately, there’s a fix—even in Philadelphia.
• The fall issue of American Educator highlights the timely, renewed interest in career and technical education (CTE) and how it can benefit both American business and young people. Six articles written by various experts tell of CTE’s history, explain its versatility, correct common misconceptions (e.g., vocational ed can be as challenging as traditional curricula), and profile a number of successful technical schools already in operation. At a time of sky-high college costs and debilitating student loans, it’s important to remember that college prep isn’t for everyone—nor should it be.

Philly’s budget woes, NCLB waiver revocations, NYC school grades, and postsecondary education for the disadvantaged.

Amber's Research Minute

"Is It Worth It? Postsecondary Education and Labor Market Outcomes for the Disadvantaged," by Benjamin Backes, Harry J. Holzer, and Erin Dunlop Velez, CALDER (September 2014)

Transcript

Mike:              Hello, this is your host Mike Petrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Here at The Education Gadfly show, and online at edexcellence.net. Now please join me welcoming my co-host. The Kansas City Royals of education policy, Robert Pondiscio.

Robert:           That could be bad news for us. Do you know why?

Mike:              Why is that?

Robert:           That means this could be a really long podcast.

Mike:              A really long day. I always love going into extra innings, all the time. But they win.

Robert:           They do. We'll try to get this done in nine.

Mike:              They are spunky, I like it. Interesting, the American League, both sweeps. As we do this podcast right now, the National League series each 2-1. That may be different by the time folks listen. What does this mean? It just means in my view that the National League is better.

Robert:           More competitive balance, perhaps?

Mike:              Maybe, that's it.

Robert:           It's hard to root against those Royals.

Mike:              Oh, but I will because I'm rooting for my Cardinals. So Go Cards. It's an exciting time.

                        You know? It's hard Robert, that every year, this time of year, us Cardinals fans have the Cardinals in the playoffs. I mean it's ...

Robert:           Oh yes.

Mike:              I feel bad for the other cities in the country sometimes.

Robert:           It stinks to be you.

Mike:              It's tough.

Robert:           I'm a Mets fan. I feel your pain.

Mike:              What is it that there's the whole meme on the internet about how people hate the St. Louis Cardinals now. What is that?

Robert:          

Robert:           Do you know why? Because the Yankees didn’t make the playoffs. If it weren't for the Yankees, the Cardinals would be the Yankees. They're the second most successful franchise in baseball.

Mike:              Oh my God, but we're not the Yankees. They don’t have the money of the Yankees. They certainly aren't in New York.

Robert:           Rooting for the Yankees is like rooting for Microsoft.

Mike:              Exactly. Okay. Let's get started with, "Pardon the Gadfly." Intern Ellen, take it away.

Ellen:              As a way to combat years of budget woes, Philadelphia freed up money this week by cancelling its teacher's contract. Is it fair to blame the state or the teachers for the district's near bankruptcy?

Mike:              This is the school reform commission. This is the commission appointed by what the state, and I believe, the Mayor had a role in this.

Robert:           Back in '98, or some such?

Mike:              It's been around a long time. They basically have said, "Look, we are tired of being on the brink of bankruptcy as we are every year recently. We are going to cancel this teacher contract because it's costing us too much money"

Mike:              "We're going to make teachers do things like pay some of the co-pays and premiums for their health insurance."

Robert:           Right. That's one way to rein in runaway health costs, I guess. I'm not sure this gets them away from the brink of bankruptcy. At least not for very long. It saved, what? 44 or 54 million dollars, I think?

Mike:              Here's the question Robert. The unions want to say that the state has been under funding Philadelphia schools, causing this crisis. You look at the numbers, I think the last numbers I saw was something like $12,000 per pupil. This is not exactly bottom basement spending here. Maybe not as high as some cities, but certainly not the lowest. What's your take on the situation in Philadelphia? Who's right here? Who's fault is it that every year they have a funding crisis?

Robert:           Wow, I'm not really sure. Because this feels to me like legal terra incognito. I'm not aware. Are you? Has this ever been done before? Just unilaterally cancelling a contract?

Mike:              The contract? I was asking a different question. Now they have, I believe they have the authority in the reform law to go ahead and cancel that contract.

Robert:           I'm not sure they do.

Mike:              Well, we'll find out. The bigger question is this, whose fault is it? When you look at the contract, and you look at the situation. Philly, you say, "Okay, they're spending a fair amount of money. Where is the money going?" Well guess what? They have a huge pension problem right?

Robert:           Yep.

Mike:              A huge hole in their pension system, so a huge amount of that money is going to shore up the pensions. Then you also look at the teacher pay, and the teacher benefits. You say for example, "Philadelphia teachers aren't paying much for their health care costs."  It seems reasonable today that "You know what? Like everybody else, you should have to pay some of these premiums."

Robert:           Yes, but they've been negotiating this for quite a while, right? They could not get the teachers to agree to this.

Mike:              Right.

Robert:           This feels to me like a little bit of an exercise in frustration. Maybe bad politics? I'm not sure. You’re point's well taken.

Mike:              You're such a softy. Robert, what are you? Come on! You're going to take the teacher's side on this one? Come on!

Robert:           It's complicated. We're going to say that a lot today, Mike It's complicated.

Mike:              Look, I understand. We want to pay our teachers well. They should have predictable salaries and benefits. We should also not be giving public employees a deal that nobody else gets. Which is basically saying., "We're going to have free health care. We're going to have incentives for you to limit your health care spending." This is a huge issue.

Robert:           I agree, but there's two sets of signatures on that contract.

Mike:              Exactly, and so this one side of this contract is saying, "You know what? We're getting a bad deal. Forget about it. My bad."

Robert:           "We changed our mind."

Mike:              "We changed our mind." Okay, topic number two.

Ellen:              Washington State has lost its NCLB waiver because its legislator refuses to tie teacher evaluations to student scores. Mike, You disagree with waiver revocations, and some are saying that you want to give states a free pass. Is that true?

Mike:              It is not true!

Robert:           Explain yourself Mr. Pachelli, I thought you quoted in the New York Times on this.

Mike:              I did. Look, I think Artie Duncan is way out on a limb here. I would love for Washington State to sue over this. I think they've got quite a case because where in the No Child Left Behind Act, does it say that if you want flexibility from the accountability provisions, you have to adopt a teacher evaluation system?

                        The words teacher evaluation are not in the No Child Left Behind Act. Because back in 2001, nobody was thinking about this. Right?

Robert:           Sure.

Mike:              So Arnie Duncan dreams up this new mandate, attaches it to the waivers. I don’t think there's any legal basis for that whatsoever. I also think it's terrible policy. To have states going thought this process of developing these teacher evaluations because they want to get this federal waiver. Not because they think it's a good idea. It's very predictable, what happens? Many states are doing it poorly.

                        That is causing a backlash to the idea of teacher evaluations. Which the idea is an okay idea. It's also causing a backlash to things like Common Core.

Robert:           Sure.

Mike:              I don’t see what Arnie Duncan is doing here. I think he's totally on the wrong side of this. I don’t want to give states a pass, Robert, or Ellen. They should still have to follow the law in terms of accountability. Arnie Duncan can say how much flexibility they're allowed to have around the accountability provisions of the law. That's fine. He is not allowed to dream up new mandates.

Robert:           Yes, I agree. On the other hand, I shouldn't say on the other hand. This is a little bit bizarre to me that Duncan is saying on the one hand that Washington broke its promise, and has to pay a price. Just a few weeks ago he was saying that the testing is sucking the life out of the room of schools.

Mike:              Yes.

Robert:           So there's very much of a mixed message coming from the administration on this.

Mike:              Robert, it's Orwellian.

Robert:           It kind of is.

Mike:              Here's people  who say, "We are out there saying the old No Child Left Behind system is broken. It's identifying now way too many schools in Washington State as failing." They don’t like the tutoring provisions. They're saying, "But we're going to make you do all of that stuff that we know isn’t working. Is arguably bad for kids. Because a bunch of state politicians wouldn’t do what we wanted them to do. “Talk about "Friendly fire." Explain that to teachers. Explain that to kids.

Robert:           Yes. It feels to me like Duncan is saying, "Look, I don't make the laws. I just enforce the laws." But wait a minute. You do make the laws in this instance.

Mike:              You do make the laws.

Robert:           It's kind of bizarre. What a mess. On the other hand, I feel like we're going to have this ...

Mike:              How many hands do you have?

Robert:           I have a lot of hands today. At least three. Then I'm going to borrow one of Ellen's.

                        I feel like we really need to settle once and for all the role of testing in Ed policy. Because we're just going to have these battles over and over again.

                        This is just another example of this complicated relationship that we have with testing. Does it do what we want? Do we need accountability? Is this the kind of accountability, once you start looking at testing that works for some things, not for others? It just gets so muddy.

                        I just wish once and for all as a field, we could settle out our relationship with testing.

Mike:              I like that pun, "Muddy."

Robert:           We were just talking about Washington State.

Mike:              Oh very good.

Robert:           That's a good one.

Mike:              Okay, topic number three, Ellen. Ellen, who now only has one hand. Very strange.

Robert:           Don’t try to clap with that one.

Mike:              All right.

Ellen:              New York City Schools will no longer receive letter grades after the city moved to a gentler system that's more description, than assessment. Does it matter?

Mike:              So Robert, this is the kinder gentler approach of Carmen Farina and Mayor Bill de Blasio?  Is this okay? Do we care?

Robert:           We do care. But first, let's all join hands and sing a little bit of "Kumbaya", here, shall we? This is another one of those issues ...

Mike:              Why are we singing "Kumbaya?"

Robert:           Well, because we're replacing the hard and fast A through F grades, with a more,   call it what you will, "fuzzy", take on accountability and grading schools.

                        I have a complicated relationship with this, too. On the one hand, I want to spur greater parental involvement in schools, and the A through F grades are very helpful in that regard. It's clear, simple, easy to understand. On the other hand, I did it again. On the other hand, it's reductive, right?

Mike:              You really need to be that Indian God. What's his name?

Robert:           With all the arms. That's exactly right.

Mike:              Or an octopus.

Robert:           New York City, where I live and have taught, has a particularly buisenteen

                        way of evaluating schools. The thing that I've never quite liked, which you could argue is condescending even. Is they evaluate schools compared to their peer group. That makes perfect sense, on the one hand.

                        On the other hand, you could have an A school, that you're basically saying that it's an A school for poor kids.

Mike:              Right.

Robert:           As opposed to an A school on the Upper East Side, or Tribeca.

Mike:              Here's the fundamental confusion, I think. What is the purpose of these school grades?

Robert:           Right.

Mike:              If you're trying to provide feedback to a school so that it can improve itself, then a very comprehensive and somewhat complicated scoring system makes sense.

Robert:           Sure.

Mike:              You want to give them a lot of information back that the teacher's and maybe a parents council can sit around and say, "Okay, what can we do better next year" Very different than something that the typical parent can use.

Robert:           Right.

Mike:              Especially in this situation where they're choosing a school. Neroff Kings  made this point this week about in New Orleans, it's very important to have letter grades because it really is a Choice System. When you put the letter grades out there as a part of the application form, the enrollment form ...

Robert:           It changes behavior.

Mike:              It changes behavior, and parents will gravitate towards the better schools. And that makes sense. Part of this is about, "Look does Carmen Farina believe in a Choice System, or not?" If your assumption is that most kids are going to go to their neighborhood school and the goal then is to give feedback to those schools, so that they can have self-improvement, fine.

                        If you actually want transparency so parents can make choices, you've got to make a system that is transparent. That means having, I think, the letter grade is the most easily understood way, or something that parents can get their head around that basically says, "This school is quite good, and this school sucks."

Robert:           Right. Two things. One, it does end up when you’re looking at schools in affluent neighborhoods, you’re differentiating between good, better, and best. In low income neighborhoods, you're differentiating between bad, worse, and, "Oh my God."

Mike:              No, no. Hold on Robert. Not if you're looking at growth. If you’re looking at proficiency rates, yes.

Robert:           Here we go again.

Mike:              If you're looking at growth, there are some of those poorer schools that are doing great, and can use pro-growth.

Robert:           You know what I always say, "Growth matters most, until it doesn't."

Mike:              Ugh.

Robert:           Until they get out into the real world and they're not interested in how much you've grown. They're interested in how much you know.

Mike:              Well, but if we're judging schools, not individual kids, then growth is what matters. Especially at the elementary level.

Robert:           Fair enough. Let me make one other point, which I don’t think is getting enough play in this A through F thing in New York City. Carmen Farina, in her speech, rolling out the new system talked about what she wanted the system to encourage. She said, "A supportive environment that recognizes that social and emotional growth is as important as academic growth."

                        Like, woe, wait a minute. It's important. Is it as important? That's the problem with this report card. It can start to impose, does this sound familiar? Her values, Bill de Blasio's values on what you look for in schools, and grade them accordingly.

                        If she's looking for, and these are the things she says they're looking for, "Rigorous instruction." Is my definition the same as yours Chancellor? She’s looking for "Collaborative teachers and a culture of trust." Whatever that means.

                        I'm not sure that's what I necessarily what I want. I'm not saying those things are not important. But is that the thing that you're going to keep score by? Color me skeptical.

Mike:              I will color you skeptical. Is that an official crayon color? Can I find it in a box?

Robert:           It's the 65th color.

Mike:              Ah, excellent. Okay, that's all the time we've got for "Pardon the Gadfly". Now it's time for everyone's favorite. "Amber's Research Minute."  Welcome back to the show, Amber.

Amber:           Thank you. Mike.

Mike:              Have you been watching the baseball?

Amber:           Of course. I was at the game Saturday night. I left in the 15th inning.

Mike:              Oh, you're kidding me? You were there?

Amber:           I'm like, "I can’t deal with it anymore." 15th inning, and then we lost. It was nuts.

Mike:              I know. Were you freezing, too?

Amber:           Freezing.

Mike:              Yeah?

Amber:           Freezing, but man it was a great game. But I cannot believe we did not hang on to it. We had that one stinking run for inning after inning, after inning, after inning.

Mike:              Yes.

Amber:           Then, boom, we lost it. It was aggravating. But , we came back, woo-hoo. Good game. 

Mike:              Yes. So Amber, a National's fan. I love it.

Amber:           I am a National's fan.

Mike:              Woo. Okay. Well, what have you got for us this week?

Amber:           I have a new NBER paper called, "Is it worth it? Post-secondary education and labor market outcomes for the disadvantaged." You're going to like this one, Mike.

Mike:              Oh, I do like it. By the way, speaking of being a National's fan. Amber's also an MBER fan.

Amber:           I am. I always kind of gravitate to these things.

Mike:              You need a mascot of some sort. Don’t you think? Let me talk to Carolyn Hotsbie about that.

Amber:           Anyhoo, A List examined outcomes for disadvantaged kids. Post-secondary outcomes, like enrolling, and completing a degree. The Vocational certificate, and salary data after high school for 5 years after the student leaves his last educational institution. It's one of these rare longitudinal studies that we hardly ever get.

                        Al right. They used administrative data in Florida for two cohorts of students who number over 210,000. They graduated between 200 and 2002, so they were able to observe them for ten to twelve years.

Mike:              Wow.

Amber:           Post-secondary and labor market outcomes. Then a ton of data. Secondary, post-secondary school, earning, courses taken in high school, grades they got on those courses, GPA. The college data includes credit earned, major, degree attainment. I mean it was like a major data study.

Mike:              Yes.

Amber:           The control for demographics and prior achievement in high school, which you've got to do that. Two key results. Number one, gaps in secondary school achievement likely accounts for a large portion of the differences in post-secondary attainment and labor market outcomes between disadvantaged kids and those who aren't. Which is kind of ...

Mike:              It is a preparation gap.

Amber:           Yes, that's right.

Mike:              Basically, it kids who are not well prepared for college.

Amber:           Then it carries through. Right.

Mike:              Right, sure.

Amber:           Number two. Earnings for disadvantaged kids are hampered by low completion rates in post-secondary programs. Poor college performance, and not, this is the most interesting part to me. Not selecting high earning fields. Which we've seen this before.

                        Here's the part you're going to like. I'm sorry I'm plucking you! They found that Vocational certificates and Associates Degrees in health, transportation, construction, manufacturing and security, are relatively high paying fields for disadvantaged students. As well as though who score in the bottom half of all high school achievers. Particularly young African American men, who see the greatest compensation in these fields.

Mike:              Interesting.

Amber:           Financial returns in the humanities are relatively low compared to virtually all other fields.

Mike:              Shocking.

Amber:           We've heard this before.

Mike:              Yes.

Amber:           Specifically, those earning Vocational certificates in some of these areas, earn 30% more than high school grads. Those with Associates Degrees, roughly 35-40% more.

                        Finally, analysts recommend that public institutions do a better job partnering with industry. We've heard that awhile. And generating better career pathways, talked about that for a while. And that more high quality apprenticeships be made available for disadvantaged kids.

Mike:              I love it, love it, love it!

Amber:           I thought you would.

Robert:           Yes. How about counseling high school students to look at some of these fields?

Amber:           Yes. That's a [crosstalk 00:16:00].

Mike:              Oh, but Robert? That starts to sounds an awful lot like tracking.

Robert:           Ugh, of course it does.

Mike:              Are you going to start saying we're going to send the poor minority kids into those security fields, and the rich kids get to study the humanities?

Robert:           I don’t know. I'm remembering my father wanting me to take a television repair course, which he talked to me about on my way to college.

Amber:           Wow. Isn’t that something.

Mike:              Yeah.

Robert:           He wanted me to have a skill to fall back on.

Mike:              This is the heart of the issue. Now here you are Robert, well known supportive of Core Knowledge, which is heavy on humanities.

Robert:           Sure.

Mike:              So how do you square this? Are you a believer that all kids should go get that broad, rich, deep, large education K-12?

Robert:           Well sure, because it's not vocational. I mean that really pays benefits with language proficiency. That's one of the great misconceptions about a so-called Liberal Arts education. It doesn’t prepare you to major in Art History. It prepares you to have a big vocabulary, and to work well in whatever field you work in.

Mike:              All right. Would you say then that they need that in K-12, or let's say how about K-8? Then they can start doing something that's explicitly technical, vocational, in high school.

Robert:           Yes, you really want to have the tracking argument, don’t you?

Mike:              Yes I do!

Amber:           You say you're going to do both. Mike, you’re going to say one thing…

Mike:              Exactly. All right, you're going to do both. You've got to start, let's face it, at some point in high school, I think probably 9th or 10th grade.

Robert:           Sure.

Mike:              If you start getting kids on a more technical track, that is okay.

Robert:           I do think it's okay, as long as you're building a good solid common foundation. In K-5, or K-8.

Mike:              There it is.

Amber:           Right.

Amber:           By that age, kids are growing up faster than they used to. By 10th grade, you know doggone well whether you want to go to college or not. You've got some idea of what you’re interested in.

Mike:              Yeah.

Amber:           I don’t think it's completely unfair to start having those conversations with kids.

Robert:           Kids are going to have those thoughts regardless.

Amber:           Yes.

Mike:              Were they able to look at any of the common poverty traps? Like, "The reason that the kids were not completing, is because they have early pregnancy, or incarceration, or substance abuse?"

Amber:           No, they did not. But you know we're going to be looking at that question.

Mike:              I love it. I love it. By the way, these kinds of data that we can link all together is what makes a lot of people very nervous.

Amber:           Very nervous.

Mike:              They didn’t ask the kids, "Do you own or have a gun in the home?" Did they?

Amber:           No, they did not.

Mike:              They did not! Listen to that people. We don’t ask those questions to people. Okay? But it is very helpful to be able to do these studies where we find out ...

Robert:           You’re a brave man Mr. Pachelli.

Mike:              What happens from education to labor market. This is super important.

Robert:           It sure is.

Mike:              I'd also be curious to know about family formation stuff.

Amber:           Yes.

Mike:              Were these kids who ended up getting good jobs, were they then more likely to get married, etc.

Amber:           Yes.

Mike:              This is the kind of stuff that is very powerful.

Amber:           Many more questions to be asking, but yeah, we've got to keep doing these studies.

Robert:           This was a good study.

Mike:              You know what Amber? It was great.

Amber:           NBER.

Mike:              I love NBER almost as much as the Cardinals.

Amber:           I could have done this, or yet another Common Core survey. I mean, come on.

Mike:              Thanks you. All right guys. That’s all the time we've got for this week. Until next week ...

Robert:           I'm Robert Pondiscio.

Mike:  And I'm Mike Petrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, signing off. 

With new Common Core-aligned assessments on the horizon—and states beginning to link accountability systems to student mastery of the new standards—the current school year undoubtedly represents a major milestone for the Common Core. Amid wavering public approval and mounting political opposition, how is it actually going on the ground? A new report released by the Center on Education Policy (CEP) today sheds light on a wide range of issues, including district perceptions of the standards themselves, implementation progress, and common challenges to date. Based on survey responses from leaders in 211 districts, findings range from promising to concerning. Encouragingly, about 90 percent of district leaders believe the CCSS are more rigorous than their state’s prior mathematics and English language arts (ELA) standards, and three-quarters believe Common Core will improve students’ math and ELA skills (both reflecting substantial increases from a similar CEP survey of district leaders administered in 2011). However, district leaders also cite major challenges, including concerns about state officials reevaluating the adoption of CCSS or putting implementation on hold, needing to explain potential drops in student performance on Core assessments to stakeholders, and having insufficient time to get implementation right before tying high-stakes accountability measures to student learning. Equally troubling, about a third of district respondents do not anticipate having adopted CCSS-aligned instructional materials or having the capacity to administer next-generation, CCSS-aligned assessments until the 2015–16 school year (or later). While the study sample is somewhat small and responses were weighted to be nationally representative of all school districts in Common Core states (as of survey administration in spring 2014), this report raises many important implementation issues that districts and states would be wise to mull. 

SOURCE: “Common Core State Standards in 2014: Districts’ Perceptions, Progress, and Challenges,” Center on Education Policy (October 2014).

This report from the Center for American Progress sets out to demonstrate that research about how students learn, as well as “best practices” for teaching, are embedded directly into the Common Core State Standards. An interesting conceit, but the supporting evidence is mixed. The report rightly draws attention to Common Core’s call for a strong knowledge base across subject areas—a singular feature of the English language arts standards, and one that is too often overlooked. In emphasizing the need for a coherent, sequential curriculum, Common Core functionally reasserts E.D. Hirsch’s insight that reading comprehension is less a “skill” than a reflection of the reader’s background knowledge, which also drives critical thinking, problem solving, and a host of cognitive abilities devoutly wished for by teachers. “Prior knowledge is a critical and often determining factor in how well a student learns new concepts,” Marchitello and Wilhelm note. “In fact, some researchers believe that prior knowledge exceeds aptitude in determining learning—that what students know is more important than their raw intelligence.” Just so. The report could have done the field a solid had the authors stopped right there. The point can never be made often or strongly enough that a well-rounded education in history, science, art, and music—not ill-defined fads like “twenty-first century skills”—is the only known route to the big-picture goals of K–12 education. Alas, the authors overreach, conflating standards and pedagogy to stump for project-based learning and collaborative group work. The cognitive research on these teaching techniques is far from settled. Still, the report’s message is an important one: The crafters of Common Core were guided by research when drafting the standards—surely a better idea than just engaging in ideological warfare.

SOURCE: Max Marchitello and Megan Wilhelm, “The Cognitive Science Behind the Common Core,” Center for American Progress (September 2014).

Howard Fuller’s new memoir, No Struggle, No Progress, tells the inspiring story of how a boy in the Jim Crow South became the larger-than-life education leader we know today. There is much to take away from Fuller’s trailblazing career. A former superintendent of Milwaukee Public Schools and current distinguished education professor at Marquette University, Fuller has done as much as anyone to place the issue of education at the center of the civil rights movement. His own upbringing in Shreveport, Louisiana, and the daily injustice he saw in his own neighborhood reinforced his belief that “education offers the best route out of poverty for individuals.” After graduating from Montana’s Carroll College, Fuller worked as a community organizer in North Carolina. Throughout the 1960s and ‘70s he led marches and at one point founded his own Afrocentric college, Malcolm X Liberation University, but a 1971 journey to Africa challenged his vision of pan-African solidarity. Seeing firsthand the continent’s social and economic inequality, as well as with the grim realities of actual warfare, led him to rethink his assumptions about what the American civil rights movement really meant. Dr. Fuller, who became closely associated with school choice and vouchers, now warns us “to be careful not to get committed to any particular strategy or tactic to the point that we ignore the purpose for our actions,” and his commitment to the nation’s neediest students has never wavered. It’s these qualities that make Howard Fuller one of the nation’s most respected and influential education reformers. His hard-earned message should resonate with those who follow in his steps: Without struggle, there is no progress.

SOURCE: Howard Fuller, “No Struggle No Progress: A Warrior s Life from Black Power to Education Reform,” Marquette University Press, 2014.