The Education Gadfly Weekly

Get out your pom-poms. The Alliance for School Choice has released its 2010-11 yearbook—offering a visually stimulating look at the nation’s twenty private-school choice programs, as well as some background on the school-choice movement in general. The report declares that 2010 “showcased the resilience of the school choice movement” after a challenging 2009. A few highlights: Student enrollment in private-school choice programs—defined by the Alliance as vouchers and tax credit scholarships—grew by four percent (bringing total participation in these programs to 190,000); two new choice programs were enacted with bipartisan support in Louisiana and Oklahoma; and existing programs saw growth (those in Ohio and Louisiana even exceeded their enrollment caps)—all amidst a troubling economic environment. The yearbook rounds out with a recap of choice-friendly research from 2010 and state-specific profiles of the various private-school-choice programs in thirteen states. Like any yearbook from advocacy groups, this one is slightly self-aggrandizing. But the fact remains: Private-school-choice programs have come a long way since their inception twenty years ago.

As it turns out, success in growing charter-school networks is about three things: location, location, and location. This report from Bellwether Education Partners speaks to questions of the scalability and financial stability of charter schools; it examines the hypothetical financial health of a single charter network, Aspire Public Schools, if it took up shop in any one of twenty-three states instead of its current home in California. The analysis indicates that, in eighteen out of twenty-three jurisdictions studied, Aspire would be more financially sustainable, enjoying an average of $1,410 in additional surplus funds per student. In D.C., Aspire would receive $6,383 more per pupil. In only three states (Idaho, Colorado, and Arizona) would Aspire operate under a deficit. (In Ohio and North Carolina, the operating costs would be comparable.) Admittedly, the paper is a thought experiment rather than a full-blown financial analysis—it relies heavily on the recent Ball State study of inequitable charter-school financing and on some assumptions about cost differences between California and other states. Noting the gravity of these assumptions, the results of this analysis are still powerful. There is no denying that certain states are much more charter-friendly than others. As such, expect to see robust expansion of charter-school networks only in states with favorable financing landscapes, with CMOs in states with weaker financing just limping along.

On the twentieth anniversary of Teach for America, founder Wendy Kopp (with some help from Teaching As Leadership author Steven Farr) reflects on lessons from TFA teachers and alums about what it takes to lift achievement for low-income kids. Despite an over-abundance of TFA lingo and countless anecdotes that—while inspiring—are redundant, formulaic, and idealized, the book makes several compelling arguments. Most notably, TFA teachers and alums have shown that it’s possible to significantly lift performance of low-income students. Kopp goes on to offer candid perspectives on funding, school choice, class-size reduction, technology, and even “heroic teaching”—noting that not one of these education-reform bullets is silver. Unfortunately, she also leaves some important questions unanswered. Though the book articulates the need for more effective teachers, it doesn’t address the supply-side of the talent equation (i.e., how to attract better teachers to the profession other than through alternative certification). Sure, the book hails success stories from high-performing charter management groups (KIPP, YES Prep), whole cities (New Orleans, NYC, D.C.), and other innovative models (School of One, Rocketship Education), but for those not living in dynamic hubs of educational innovation and able to cultivate such talent-dependent reforms, the book’s lack of tangible policy recommendations is discouraging. Kopp calls for ways to increase the pace of change—including fostering political leadership and advocacy infrastructure—but skims over political and policy barriers affecting these initiatives. While there’s much to like about the book’s inspiring, can-do attitude, it doesn’t go far enough in providing the real-world advice that policymakers need.

This summative report—compiling much primary- and secondary-source information—is the culmination of a four-year charter-school project from the National Charter School Research Project. In it, Betheny Gross offers an insider’s look at charter-school leaders, teachers, and academic programs via surveys, case study analyses, and evaluation of third-party longitudinal data. The report is full of interesting tidbits about charters (35 percent, for example, operate for an extended school year, though few have adopted novel instructional models), and well-articulates the benefits and obstacles for school leaders and teachers who work in the charter-school sector. The abundance of information presented in this report, while informative, also somewhat overshadows the main thesis—that charter autonomy can only create the opportunity for success, not assure it. Based on all of the information garnered through the four-year Inside Charter Schools project, Gross comes away with policy recommendations aimed at supporting charter-school leaders and teachers. Among them: “Authorizers need to look closely for a clear and achievable mission” and “State laws should allow charter schools to operate outside traditional teacher contracts.” Those interested in unlocking the door to the charter-school classroom need look no further.

Betheny Gross, “Inside Charter Schools: Unlocking Doors to Student Success,” (Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education, February 2011).

   Photo by Daniel Borman

Well, we must hand it to them: The folks behind Ed in ’08 were successful after all. It just appears that they are achieving their goal—making education a central plank in the presidential election—four years behind schedule. As reported by Politico this week, the President used “the issue of education to help frame the budget debate.” Expect to hear a lot about his support for America’s public schools (versus Republican indifference) between now and November 2012.

But his rhetoric—that education is a critical investment that deserves protecting—isn’t backed up by his own policy. Sure, Mr. Obama called for a few small-scale programs that Republicans will oppose, like extending Race to the Top (for districts this time, not states) and recruiting 100,000 new math and science teachers. But this is “school uniforms” sort of stuff. Regardless of what happens to the federal education budget (which will sway a few billion in this direction or a few billion in that—on an Education Department budget nearing $80 billion), even under the “draconian” Republican plan for 2011), education spending in the real world is going to take a huge hit. That’s because of the “New Normal”—as Arne Duncan described it—that is playing out in states and local districts, with enormous budget cuts pending.

If Obama is sincere about “protecting education,” he would call for another massive bailout, on the order of $100 billion or so, to hold the nation’s schools harmless from the steep drop in state and local revenue. (To be clear, I’m not advocating for that, for a variety of reasons.) That’s what it would take to keep schools level-funded. But he doesn’t have the political capital to suggest such a thing, so he’s chosen to play presidential politics instead. (“Democrats in Washington are “for” education. Republicans are “against.”)

To his credit, Obama’s budget proposal would provide incentives (via the new Race to the Top program mostly) for districts to find ways to do more with less. So he’s not tone-deaf to the funding cliff over which localities are currently tumbling. But by pretending that his policies would address the problem, he’s participating in the worst kind of cynical politics. It’s a long way from “the change we can believe in.”

This piece originally appeared (in a slightly different format) on Fordham’s Flypaper blog. Sign up to receive a daily compilation of Flypaper posts here.

Two years and one hundred billion dollars later, what impact did the big federal stimulus package have on education reform? According to a recent Hechinger-led analysis: not much. Yes, the stimulus funds slowed teacher firings and kept short-term school budgets level, but we’re already seeing (thanks to the “funding cliff”) that they merely delayed the inevitable. Furthermore, skeptics are increasingly calling Race to the Top’s long-term efficacy into question. Nineteen districts, for instance, have already dropped out of the program in Massachusetts and the lure of the Bay State’s $250 million in Race to the Top winnings isn’t keeping the state’s teacher unions from pushing back against the use of student test scores in evaluating their members. In Maryland, political and policy hang-ups have stalled implementation of the state’s promised legislation tying 50 percent of teacher evaluations to student performance. In other words, even in winning states, the big policy victories that reformers scored last winter and spring are seeping away.

“Impact of education stimulus far from certain,” by Michele McNeil, Hechinger Report, February 12, 2011.

“How many jobs did the education stimulus save?,” by Michele McNeil, Hechinger Report, February 12, 2011.

D.C.’s classy new teacher-evaluation system, IMPACT, is just gaining traction (even as the new Mayor is hinting that he wants it redone). But the data generated through its process are already finding other uses. The evaluation tool, which grades teachers based on classroom observations and value-added measurements, has thus far been used to fire instructors ranked ineffective (seventy got the boot under Michelle Rhee’s reign) as well as to reward those in the upper echelons (Rhee also doled out performance-based bonuses to 600 teachers). But District education officials are beginning to think bigger. Most encouragingly, they’re noodling ways to use IMPACT data to assess teacher-preparation programs, tracking both stellar and shoddy teachers back to the source. Never mind about the NCTQ/U.S. News and World Report assessment of education schools; D.C. is generating a homegrown ranking system all of its own.

“D.C. schools to use data from teacher evaluation system in new ways,” by Stephanie McCrummen, Washington Post, February 14, 2011.

Meet Michelle López-Mullins, a student of Peruvian, Chinese, Irish, Shawnee, and Cherokee descent. Under new Department of Education requirements that take effect this year, Ms. López-Mullins—who acknowledges partial Hispanic ethnicity—will, regardless of her rainbow-hued heritage, be reported to federal officials only as Hispanic. Multiracial students with no Latino blood will be labeled with the vague catchall “two or more races.” As the Times notes, these new designations for K-12 students will probably “increase the nationwide student population of Hispanics, and could erase some ‘black’ students who will now be counted as Hispanic or as multiracial.” This sort of racial classification, we are told, is necessary: It’s the only way the nation can judge how a certain race is doing academically, and whether or not its members are being “left behind.” But in a society where one in seven couplings are now interracial or interethnic, where these types of categorizations can whimsically change from year to year, maybe it is time to move away from outdated classifications and toward a post-racial society.

“Counting by Race Can Throw Off Some Numbers,” by Susan Saulny, New York Times, February 9, 2011.

“Take the Politics out of Race,” by Shelby Steele, New York Times Room for Debate, February 14, 2011.

Get out your pom-poms. The Alliance for School Choice has released its 2010-11 yearbook—offering a visually stimulating look at the nation’s twenty private-school choice programs, as well as some background on the school-choice movement in general. The report declares that 2010 “showcased the resilience of the school choice movement” after a challenging 2009. A few highlights: Student enrollment in private-school choice programs—defined by the Alliance as vouchers and tax credit scholarships—grew by four percent (bringing total participation in these programs to 190,000); two new choice programs were enacted with bipartisan support in Louisiana and Oklahoma; and existing programs saw growth (those in Ohio and Louisiana even exceeded their enrollment caps)—all amidst a troubling economic environment. The yearbook rounds out with a recap of choice-friendly research from 2010 and state-specific profiles of the various private-school-choice programs in thirteen states. Like any yearbook from advocacy groups, this one is slightly self-aggrandizing. But the fact remains: Private-school-choice programs have come a long way since their inception twenty years ago.

As it turns out, success in growing charter-school networks is about three things: location, location, and location. This report from Bellwether Education Partners speaks to questions of the scalability and financial stability of charter schools; it examines the hypothetical financial health of a single charter network, Aspire Public Schools, if it took up shop in any one of twenty-three states instead of its current home in California. The analysis indicates that, in eighteen out of twenty-three jurisdictions studied, Aspire would be more financially sustainable, enjoying an average of $1,410 in additional surplus funds per student. In D.C., Aspire would receive $6,383 more per pupil. In only three states (Idaho, Colorado, and Arizona) would Aspire operate under a deficit. (In Ohio and North Carolina, the operating costs would be comparable.) Admittedly, the paper is a thought experiment rather than a full-blown financial analysis—it relies heavily on the recent Ball State study of inequitable charter-school financing and on some assumptions about cost differences between California and other states. Noting the gravity of these assumptions, the results of this analysis are still powerful. There is no denying that certain states are much more charter-friendly than others. As such, expect to see robust expansion of charter-school networks only in states with favorable financing landscapes, with CMOs in states with weaker financing just limping along.

On the twentieth anniversary of Teach for America, founder Wendy Kopp (with some help from Teaching As Leadership author Steven Farr) reflects on lessons from TFA teachers and alums about what it takes to lift achievement for low-income kids. Despite an over-abundance of TFA lingo and countless anecdotes that—while inspiring—are redundant, formulaic, and idealized, the book makes several compelling arguments. Most notably, TFA teachers and alums have shown that it’s possible to significantly lift performance of low-income students. Kopp goes on to offer candid perspectives on funding, school choice, class-size reduction, technology, and even “heroic teaching”—noting that not one of these education-reform bullets is silver. Unfortunately, she also leaves some important questions unanswered. Though the book articulates the need for more effective teachers, it doesn’t address the supply-side of the talent equation (i.e., how to attract better teachers to the profession other than through alternative certification). Sure, the book hails success stories from high-performing charter management groups (KIPP, YES Prep), whole cities (New Orleans, NYC, D.C.), and other innovative models (School of One, Rocketship Education), but for those not living in dynamic hubs of educational innovation and able to cultivate such talent-dependent reforms, the book’s lack of tangible policy recommendations is discouraging. Kopp calls for ways to increase the pace of change—including fostering political leadership and advocacy infrastructure—but skims over political and policy barriers affecting these initiatives. While there’s much to like about the book’s inspiring, can-do attitude, it doesn’t go far enough in providing the real-world advice that policymakers need.

This summative report—compiling much primary- and secondary-source information—is the culmination of a four-year charter-school project from the National Charter School Research Project. In it, Betheny Gross offers an insider’s look at charter-school leaders, teachers, and academic programs via surveys, case study analyses, and evaluation of third-party longitudinal data. The report is full of interesting tidbits about charters (35 percent, for example, operate for an extended school year, though few have adopted novel instructional models), and well-articulates the benefits and obstacles for school leaders and teachers who work in the charter-school sector. The abundance of information presented in this report, while informative, also somewhat overshadows the main thesis—that charter autonomy can only create the opportunity for success, not assure it. Based on all of the information garnered through the four-year Inside Charter Schools project, Gross comes away with policy recommendations aimed at supporting charter-school leaders and teachers. Among them: “Authorizers need to look closely for a clear and achievable mission” and “State laws should allow charter schools to operate outside traditional teacher contracts.” Those interested in unlocking the door to the charter-school classroom need look no further.

Betheny Gross, “Inside Charter Schools: Unlocking Doors to Student Success,” (Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education, February 2011).