The Education Gadfly Weekly

Education Sector
Marguerite Roza
January 2007 

This paper by the insightful and prolific Marguerite Roza analyzes eight common provisions in teacher contracts, showing how each contributes to overall education spending. For example, experience-based pay accounts for about 10 percent of the more than $500 billion America spends on K-12 education annually. Salary increases linked to educational credentials (e.g., a master's degree) and class size limitations each account for about 2 percent. The other contract provisions account for smaller percentages--sick, personal, and professional-development days; teachers aides; and excess health and retirement benefits (above those provided in other professions) each tally between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of total spending. Of course, even 1 percent of $500 billion is a big number, which brings us to the report's fundamental assertion. We spend billions on teacher perks with little or no evidence that the money is spent wisely, or wouldn't be better used to recruit stronger teachers, reward the best teachers, or target resources to the neediest students. This paper is best read as a national overview; it doesn't dig into specific examples or variations between states or districts. But it poses key issues. Have we made optimal tradeoffs in our public-education budgets or are they simply haphazard accumulations of myriad decisions made in years past? You already know the answer. But the unions don't want to hear it. The Washington Post caught Antonia Cortese of the AFT saying that the report was "on thin ice for its sweeping ... and often inaccurate" assertions. Reg Weaver of the NEA could only repeat his favorite mantra when asked about the report: "fully fund public education." One hopes more substantive discussions are occurring somewhere. One can be confident that Dr. Roza will keep raising such issues and for that we are grateful. The report is online here.

Title IX has inspired many an imbroglio since 1972, but the law's latest controversy is truly daffy. Responding to a parent's complaint about inequitable resources for girls, 14 high schools in upstate New York now require female cheerleaders to rouse the crowds at girls' as well as boys' basketball games "regardless of whether the girls' basketball teams wanted and/or asked for" them. An important caveat, since neither the cheerleaders nor the female athletes seem pleased with the situation. Amanda Cummings, cheerleading co-captain at Whitney Point High School, says it "feels funny" to cheer for girls. Many girls' teams, meanwhile, not used to such rah-rahing during games, complain that the cheerleaders are distracting. The districts, for their part, say the parents who forced the issue are interpreting Title IX in a sexist and archaic manner. "We regard our cheerleaders as athletes," says one district official, "while [proponents of the new mandate] are working on a 1970s' stereotype that cheerleaders are here to support the boys." May Gadfly suggest a better approach? Outfit some comely young lads with pom-poms and make them cheer for the girls' teams. That would be the spirit of Title IX at its finest. And the girls might even like it.

"Equal Cheers for Boys and Girls Draw Some Boos," by Winnie Hu, New York Times, January 14, 2007

An authority on Vietnamese education I don't pretend to be, but a recent trip yielded a couple of surprises.

First, even Vietnam, still in many respects a doctrinaire communist nation, is opening up its education system (both elementary/secondary and postsecondary) to competition and privatization, including for-profit providers. A natural consequence, most likely, of the country's accelerating efforts since 1986 to liberalize its economy in order to be more effective on the world market. (See here and here.) Like those who run its immense northern neighbor, Vietnam's overlords seem to think they can have it both ways: capitalism sans political freedom.

Second, even Vietnam, which still tends to ration access to certain opportunities and services according to people's rank (and Party membership), is moving toward uniform national academic standards that all students must meet at the end of secondary school--via a standard national test--in order to gain access to any of the country's proliferating (but still scarce) institutions of higher education.

Mine was a touring holiday, not a professional expedition, so most of what I gleaned about education in Vietnam came from looking out the van window, talking to our guides and reading the local English-language morning newspapers.

I learned that Vietnam has a very high rate of basic literacy, thanks to free and compulsory primary education (through fifth grade) and the even more consequential fact that most Vietnamese parents take their children's education seriously. (The latter pattern is common in East Asia, as the late Harold Stevenson explained two decades ago, and is on vivid display among Vietnamese immigrant communities in the U.S.)

I also learned that families must pay school fees for secondary and tertiary education, and that by local standards these institutions are not cheap. (One of our guides, himself a university graduate, estimated that college costs about $600 a year in a land where the GDP per capita is around $800--and both numbers are rising.)

Thus access to post-primary education hinges on having some financial means as well as suitable institutions nearby. Which means it's inequitably distributed across the population--and particularly difficult for Vietnam's millions of rural farmers and village dwellers.

Yet demand exceeds supply. Many schools run double sessions (and we heard of triple sessions), and the papers were full of talk of teacher shortages--the latter also owing to abysmal salary levels in government schools.

Now the government, which (after disastrous collectivization policies from the mid-seventies to 1986) has twenty years of experience inching toward market mechanisms, seems to have concluded that the next stage of education development calls for private-sector help. Hundreds of privately-operated colleges and schools have sprung up, mainly in urban areas, and the papers contained ads for people to staff them.

So far as I could determine, the government provides minimal financial assistance to such institutions and they are largely tuition-dependent, though regulated in regard to core curriculum and teacher credentials. Part of their appeal, however, is that they can offer more than the government curriculum and that non-certified people can be hired to teach the extra courses and subjects. (Teachers can also be paid extra.) Such schools may develop specialties and occupy distinctive market niches. (One, for example, advertised that it offers "western education" and "eastern values." Another touted its American-style curriculum.) In return, their operators invest capital to launch the schools, adapt them to local conditions and market demands, and shift most if not all of their operating costs from state to family.

I was reminded of James Tooley's seminal research on the burgeoning role of private education in the developing world. (See here.) His most interesting finding, however, is that unsubsidized private schools serve poor as well as prosperous families--and often serve them better than nearby government schools. I couldn't determine whether private schools for the poor are part of the current picture in Vietnam. But privatization surely is--this in a land that twenty years ago made people queue to procure meager quantities of moldy rice from state-run stores and obtain government-issued coupons and ration tickets for everything from sandals to radio batteries to spare parts for one's old bicycle.

As many U.S. states and other nations have found, with privatization and diversity in education comes the challenge to devise mechanisms for enforcing some sort of uniform or minimum performance standards. In Vietnam, this will now mean new national standards and exams for university entry. Here's an excerpt from the January 12 issue of Viet Nam News:

"The Ministry of Education and Training is making the general entrance exam mandatory for all students attending post-secondary institutions in 2007....The announcement was made on Tuesday by ministry officials during a teleconference connecting about 350 post-secondary institutions....All senior-secondary school students must take the exam to make sure they meet new national standards that are in the works....The ministry expects the exam will promote a sense of fairness and eliminate the need for post-secondary institutions to conduct their own testing. The multiple choice format will be applied to four subjects: chemistry, physics, biology and foreign languages. The ministry is expected to use the testing method for mathematics, history, and geography in the future."

That being all I know, I dare not declare that standards-based reform cum school privatization and choice is sweeping modern Vietnam. All I can say with confidence is that this approach to education change has gained a toehold there.

Vietnam, by the way, repays a visit. With the world's 13^th largest population, it boasts one of the planet's fastest-growing economies and fastest-changing societies, not to mention chaotic traffic, fantastic food, manageable prices, a good tourist infrastructure (at least in the high spots), lovely scenery, fascinating sites (and sights) spanning two millennia, and friendly people. Though it's still far from free by world standards, people are getting more rights. To a tourist's eye, it doesn't look like a police state. Its historic wariness toward its giant neighbor (a frequent invader and conqueror over the centuries) is turning it into a nascent U.S. ally in containing Chinese ambitions. And the rapid spread of capitalism and consumerism across the land surely complicates one's picture of the communism that America dedicated so many lives to repelling. "South" Vietnam today is visibly the country's liveliest, most prosperous and most market-driven region, but the north is bustling, too.

Then you visit the remaining (museum-like) portion of the bleak Hanoi prison where John McCain and other captured U.S. pilots were held and sadistically tortured for years. You notice that the rest of the land under that grim old French-built penal institution now supports a spiffy modern commercial skyscraper. You drive past today's "Hanoi Hilton," a five star hotel operated by the eponymous U.S. chain. And you come back to Washington and see the wreaths, letters, photos, and tens of thousands of names engraved on the Vietnam War memorial. Yes, it's complicated. But 32 years after the painful end of our military involvement there, you, too, may want to visit this ancient and fascinating land. And if you learn more about their education reforms, please get in touch.

by Chester E. Finn, Jr.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg looked slightly presidential yesterday, calling for major tax relief for Big Apple citizens while forwarding an ambitious, thoughtful education reform plan. Like any good politician, he exaggerated the academic gains made under his watch, but his trifecta of bold proposals earns him absolution. Most controversial is his bid to make teachers earn tenure rather than receive it automatically--and to support principals when they need to pull the plug on ineffective instructors. Next up is a whopping enlargement of his "empowerment schools" initiative, which demands tougher accountability for results from school leaders in exchange for considerably greater freedom to run their schools as they think best. And, saving best for last, he embraced a phased-in version of the Fund the Child approach to "weighted student funding," explaining that "the funding gaps between comparable schools can top a million dollars or $2,000 per student, year after year. That's not right and we're going to fix it." Hooray. And the "ideas primary" has begun.   

"Bloomberg Proposes Overhaul of City Schools," by Maria Newman, New York Times, January 17, 2007

"Mayor Sets Schools Showdown," by Sarah Garland, New York Sun, January 18, 2007

"Hurry up and weigh," by Chester E. Finn, Jr., New York Sun, January 18, 2007

You've no doubt read the articles citing Education Week's recent study that ranked the Sunshine State 31st in the nation.

You've no doubt read the editorial pages, encouraging you to stop focusing on accountability, and, instead, to raise taxes and dump more money into failing schools.

Governor, you should ignore the headlines and the editorial advice. Here's why:

At first glance, Florida's schools don't look good: In fourth-grade reading, for instance, only 12 states perform worse; in eighth-grade math, only 14 states do.

But it's not enough to just take a snapshot of where Florida's students are right now. What you most want to know--and can only tell by looking at multiple pictures, taken over time--is whether your schools are catching up, falling behind, or keeping pace.

Unlike many of your counterparts in other states, when looked at this way you find considerable good news. Florida is catching up--rapidly. It's one of just three states in the nation to make statistically significant improvements in math and reading for its most disadvantaged students in the last decade (see here). That positive change is happening because of the innovative, accountability-based reform ideas that have been at work in Florida's schools over the past eight years.

At the fore is Florida's state accountability system--the A+ Plan--which preceded the federal No Child Left Behind law. A+ is arguably the most comprehensive and accurate statewide education accountability system in the land.

Unlike the federal system (which looks at groups), A+ tracks individual student achievement, and it grades schools on an A through F scale based largely on how much academic improvement each student demonstrates from one grade to the next.

While NCLB's concern is with getting all students to a certain level of proficiency and identifying and sanctioning schools that don't, Florida's system seeks to identify which schools are making progress with their students. Which schools, A+ asks, are seeing their students improve?

That focus on individuals rather than group data helps make Florida's system more precise. A+ can pinpoint the schools whose students are making little or no educational progress. Policymakers and educators can then focus energy on solving the most acute problems. And because A+ focuses on individual student achievement, it can show if little Johnny is actually making any academic gains. That's something parents and teachers need to know, even if Governors don't need to know it (and little Johnny might not want to know).

The system is working. The number of Florida schools receiving D or F grades is in decline, and the number receiving As or Bs reached record highs in 2006--without any credible evidence of "grade inflation."

To build on those gains, the state could also begin using the A+ system not just to grade schools but also to help teachers target specific areas in which students are struggling and may need extra classroom attention (and to target areas in which students are excelling, too). With such a tool at teachers' disposal, Florida schools could offer a truly personalized education that challenges all students while giving some the extra help in areas where they need it.

Of course, this means sticking with the oft-maligned FCAT. Testing can be a lot of things, distracting and overwhelming among them. But it's the only way the Sunshine State can push educational accountability. The bad old days--when schools may have been less stressful but when youngsters (especially poor and minority ones) were learning little--are precisely why Florida is currently digging out of an academic ditch.

It's right to believe that Florida's schools are nowhere near where they should be. But it's wrong to believe that the state's policies, such as using the FCAT as the basis for a thorough accountability system, need repealing.

Change comes slowly in public education, which everywhere in America is a stodgy bureaucratic system being coaxed from decades of stagnation. By education reform standards, though, Florida's improvement has been glittering. To stay on that course, you're going to need strong, reform-minded, thick-skinned talent and heavy-duty brainpower to lead the education area. You will likely end up regretting the loss of Phil Handy and John Winn (though plenty of other states should seek to woo them). But you have considerable talent still in Tallahassee (including elementary/secondary chancellor Cheri Yecke) and a whole country to recruit from. We urge you not to dawdle.  

Education accountability is yielding results in the Sunshine state. Florida's schools don't need to be tripped as they're gaining position to win the race.

An earlier version of this article appeared in the January 10th edition of the Tallahassee Democrat. 

One nose-bloodying is enough for most of us. Not the brainy, pugilistic Charles Murray. He has resurrected his flawed Bell Curve argument in a three-part series of articles for the Wall Street Journal to try and convince us--again--that a person's IQ says all we need to know about what he can learn in school. Skeptical? "The easy retorts do not work," he says. Of students who go from below grade level to grade level and above, he writes, "That is an underachievement story," not evidence of rising intelligence. (So crackerjack schools like the Amistad Academy must magically recruit all of the underachieving students in town to their campuses; how else to explain their hundred-percent proficiency rates?) Of the possibility that IQ tests can be wrong, he writes, "I am not talking about scores on specific tests, but about a student's underlying intellectual ability." By Murray's estimate, only 25 percent of children (those with IQs above 110) are smart enough to go on to college. And for the other 75 percent? The lucky ones can be plumbers and mechanics (honorable professions both). The rest of you--well, that's not Murray's problem. He somewhat redeems himself in his third installment, calling for more attention for gifted students and a return (at least for some) to a classical liberal arts education. But it's not enough. It is notable, though, to see fatalism and educational determinism (and NCLB pessimism) emerging, for wholly different reasons, from both left and right."Intelligence in the Classroom," "What's wrong with vocational school?" and "Aztecs vs. Greeks," by Charles Murray, Wall Street Journal, January 16-18, 2007

Education Sector
Marguerite Roza
January 2007 

This paper by the insightful and prolific Marguerite Roza analyzes eight common provisions in teacher contracts, showing how each contributes to overall education spending. For example, experience-based pay accounts for about 10 percent of the more than $500 billion America spends on K-12 education annually. Salary increases linked to educational credentials (e.g., a master's degree) and class size limitations each account for about 2 percent. The other contract provisions account for smaller percentages--sick, personal, and professional-development days; teachers aides; and excess health and retirement benefits (above those provided in other professions) each tally between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of total spending. Of course, even 1 percent of $500 billion is a big number, which brings us to the report's fundamental assertion. We spend billions on teacher perks with little or no evidence that the money is spent wisely, or wouldn't be better used to recruit stronger teachers, reward the best teachers, or target resources to the neediest students. This paper is best read as a national overview; it doesn't dig into specific examples or variations between states or districts. But it poses key issues. Have we made optimal tradeoffs in our public-education budgets or are they simply haphazard accumulations of myriad decisions made in years past? You already know the answer. But the unions don't want to hear it. The Washington Post caught Antonia Cortese of the AFT saying that the report was "on thin ice for its sweeping ... and often inaccurate" assertions. Reg Weaver of the NEA could only repeat his favorite mantra when asked about the report: "fully fund public education." One hopes more substantive discussions are occurring somewhere. One can be confident that Dr. Roza will keep raising such issues and for that we are grateful. The report is online here.