The Education Gadfly Weekly

J. Taylor, A.D. Roehrig, B. Soden Hensler, C.M. Connor, C. Schatschneider
Science Magazine
April 23, 2010

This unique teacher effectiveness study examined the reading test scores of roughly 800 pairs of twins in 1st and 2nd grade Florida classrooms. Included were both identical twins, who share 100 percent of their genes, and fraternal twins who share roughly 50 percent. Because twins share these genetic similarities and also have the same family background—two factors that traditionally complicate teacher effectiveness studies—researchers could better isolate the role that teachers play in advancing student achievement. Analysts found that, among identical twins with different teachers, those whose teachers were deemed more effective—as measured by the gain scores of their entire class—tended to have higher scores on oral reading tests than their siblings who had less effective teachers. In addition, when examining both fraternal and identical twins, researchers concluded that, “Genetic variance in oral reading fluency was greater at higher levels of teacher quality.” Translation? When students have a good teacher, they are more likely to reach their genetic potential (and when they don’t, they are not). The study has several shortcomings, including not addressing factors like peer effects, operating in a short timeframe of observation, and holding a narrow view of reading aptitude (as gauged by oral reading fluency). It nonetheless adds to a voluminous pile of teacher effectiveness research that sing the same tune: Teachers matter a lot. Furthermore, studies like this begin to answer an important question about children who are not twins (the vast majority!): How much of variability in reading achievement is the result of nature vs. nurture? Find the study (for a small fee) here.

Philip M. Sadler, Gerhard Sonnert, Robert H. Tai, and Kristin Klopfenstein, eds.
Harvard Education Press
2010

This book looks at all angles of the College Board’s Advanced Placement program—from its origins and development, to the current condition and characteristics of successful (and not-so-successful) AP courses, students, and teachers, and from the correlation between the AP program and later college performance, to policy issues of finance and access. Authored by a smattering of education researchers, economists, teachers, professors, and subject-matter experts, the volume aims to inform key players—not just school personnel, but parents, college admissions officers, and policy makers. A few main takeaways permeate the various chapters: First, AP courses alone cannot solve problems of high-school achievement and college-preparedness. Pushing AP courses into low-performing schools does not automatically raise student achievement; federal and state subsidies might better be directed towards building strong foundations for students in early grades. Second, participation in the AP program does not predict future college success; on the other hand, passing an end-of-year AP test does. Again, resources for classes in which few students pass the final exam might better be directed towards improving less-advanced courses. Lastly, the College Board should post results at the school and district levels, to make it easier for parents and taxpayers to identify those with effective AP programs. On the whole, the book concludes that AP has managed to maintain a meaningful level rigor in the face of expansion, but that its limitations must be recognized in order to put it to its best use. We’d agree on both counts. Buy it here.

Dan Goldhaber and Jane Hannaway, eds.
Urban Institute Press
2009

Amidst a plethora of teacher quality literature, this book is not earth-shattering. But, featuring chapters from an onslaught of education reformers and economists (think Eric Hanushek, Paul Hill, and Frederick M. Hess), it leaves no human capital stone unturned, making it a good one-stop-shop for those interested in reforming teaching. It is divided into three sections: the current state of human capital in the context of teacher quality trends over time, shifts in private sector recruitment and selection, and other countries' attempts to improve teacher quality; how to reform technology, pensions, performance pay, and professional development in light of these current trends; and the responses to these reform suggestions of an ed school dean (David Monk), a big city superintendent (Joel Klein), a teacher union boss (Randi Weingarten), and a policy wonk (Andy Rotherham). This third section is perhaps the most interesting; its four authors were asked to read parts I and II and respond from both the perspective of their fields and the political feasibility of the reform solutions offered. Though Klein and Weingarten treat their respective chapters as bully pulpits for their agendae, Monk and Rotherham offer notable insight into, in particular, section II’s possible political hurdles. Buy it here.

The U.K. may be America’s Motherland, but here’s one thing the Brits can learn from the Yankees: School choice alone is a mediocre route to school improvement. The British backlash to testing and accountability is both notable and understandable—and remarkably like the American response to the failings of No Child Left Behind. But whereas the U.S. is now moving towards refining that accountability system—through new “Common Core” standards, value-added testing, and improved and meaningful teacher evaluation systems—the U.K. Conservative Party wants to pull the accountability system apart. They’d create “Academies,” a U.K. version of American charters, allow schools to use higher-quality international tests over state ones, and raise the entrance standards for prospective teacher candidates. With grade and test-score inflation and curriculum narrowing running rampant, it’s easy to understand their frustration. But independent schools, more rigorous tests, and empowered parents aren’t going to spontaneously force the system to improve. The Tories would be smarter to argue for addition rather than subtraction—choice plus accountability, not choice instead of it. What about schools failing students now? And sub-par teachers in the classroom today? American conservatives are generally repulsed by David Cameron’s policies on the environment and social issues; here’s hoping they reject his education prescriptions, too. 

“A Classroom Revolution,” The Economist, April 22, 2010

“The Conservative Manifesto 2010,” Conservatives.com

Since the U.S. Department of Education named Tennessee and Delaware as the only winners in the first round of the Race to the Top, a battle has raged about the importance of stakeholder buy-in. Since these states, unlike other strong applicants such as Rhode Island and Florida, were able to secure the support of all of their school districts and virtually all of their unions, the consensus is that these establishment groups have a veto over state proposals.

That reading is not wholly true. States can win with bold applications even if their stakeholders withhold their benediction. Secretary Duncan helpfully weighed in on the matter recently, confirming that he will make grants to states that push hard for reform, not those that water down their proposals in order to generate consensus. So states should focus on substance, but how do they actually translate this general guidance into winning plans?

Enter the excellent “Race Smarter” issues briefs from Democrats for Education Reform, the Education Equality Project, and Education Reform Now. These organizations thoroughly analyzed first round applications, state scorecards, and reviewer comments and came up with a number of important conclusions related to the importance of the teachers and STEM sections, oddities in certain reviewers’ assessments, and much more. They’ve translated these findings into a set of state-specific briefs that provide a roadmap for winning in round two.

For example, in the Louisiana report, the groups note that STEM, data systems, and “state success factors” were the Pelican State’s undoing. Reviewers wrote that STEM appeared to be a minor consideration and that overall achievement targets were entirely too modest. The brief then provides suggestions for improving the application prior to the June 1 deadline.

By diving into these details, DFER, EEP, and ERN have not only done a major service for a number of states, they’ve also helped counter the “union veto” narrative by showing how content matters most. These briefs are a significant contribution to the RTTT story. If you’re interested in this important program, federal policymaking, or state reform, you ought to give them a look.

Missouri has announced it will merge its state boards of education for K-12 and higher ed. Echoing President Obama and other’s calls for a greater focus on college completion, the Show Me State wants to streamline the primary, secondary, and tertiary education systems. That’s all well and good, but really, Missouri, that’s the best you’ve got? In a period when states around the country are busting through data walls, knocking down charter caps, and ripping down teacher tenure rules in order to Race to the Top, all you’ve got is…merging two boards of education most Missourians, let alone the rest of us, have probably never heard of?

“Mo. Senate Approves Plan to Merge Education Boards,” The Associated Press, April 23, 2010

Is this the beginning of the end for last hired, first fired? At least a few cities facing budgetary difficulties have come to an obvious realization: Firing teachers based on seniority rather than performance is going to seriously damage the quality of their respective workforces. New York City Chancellor Joel Klein has gone straight to parents to rally his cause, arguing that because newer teachers tend to be concentrated in the neediest schools, last hired, first fired rules will unduly punish disadvantaged students. The Los Angeles Unified School District is contemplating a policy change too, egged on by the LA Times editorial board. “If there’s a silver lining to the dire school cutbacks,” it wrote on Monday, “it’s how much the public has learned about the arcane systems for compensating and laying off teachers and firing the incompetent ones.” And younger teachers themselves, targeted by said “arcane systems” are standing up for themselves; in New York, they’ve formed their own “union” of sorts called Educators 4 Excellence, urging Klein and NYC’s United Federation of Teachers to change the rules. Before the feds enact another misguided bailout for our schools, they might consider the salutary effect that scarcity can bring.

“Last Teacher In, First Out? City Has Another Idea,” by Jennifer Medina, New York Times, April 24, 2010.

“Opinion: Yes, blame the system,” Los Angeles Times, April 26, 2010

Dan Goldhaber and Jane Hannaway, eds.
Urban Institute Press
2009

Amidst a plethora of teacher quality literature, this book is not earth-shattering. But, featuring chapters from an onslaught of education reformers and economists (think Eric Hanushek, Paul Hill, and Frederick M. Hess), it leaves no human capital stone unturned, making it a good one-stop-shop for those interested in reforming teaching. It is divided into three sections: the current state of human capital in the context of teacher quality trends over time, shifts in private sector recruitment and selection, and other countries' attempts to improve teacher quality; how to reform technology, pensions, performance pay, and professional development in light of these current trends; and the responses to these reform suggestions of an ed school dean (David Monk), a big city superintendent (Joel Klein), a teacher union boss (Randi Weingarten), and a policy wonk (Andy Rotherham). This third section is perhaps the most interesting; its four authors were asked to read parts I and II and respond from both the perspective of their fields and the political feasibility of the reform solutions offered. Though Klein and Weingarten treat their respective chapters as bully pulpits for their agendae, Monk and Rotherham offer notable insight into, in particular, section II’s possible political hurdles. Buy it here.

J. Taylor, A.D. Roehrig, B. Soden Hensler, C.M. Connor, C. Schatschneider
Science Magazine
April 23, 2010

This unique teacher effectiveness study examined the reading test scores of roughly 800 pairs of twins in 1st and 2nd grade Florida classrooms. Included were both identical twins, who share 100 percent of their genes, and fraternal twins who share roughly 50 percent. Because twins share these genetic similarities and also have the same family background—two factors that traditionally complicate teacher effectiveness studies—researchers could better isolate the role that teachers play in advancing student achievement. Analysts found that, among identical twins with different teachers, those whose teachers were deemed more effective—as measured by the gain scores of their entire class—tended to have higher scores on oral reading tests than their siblings who had less effective teachers. In addition, when examining both fraternal and identical twins, researchers concluded that, “Genetic variance in oral reading fluency was greater at higher levels of teacher quality.” Translation? When students have a good teacher, they are more likely to reach their genetic potential (and when they don’t, they are not). The study has several shortcomings, including not addressing factors like peer effects, operating in a short timeframe of observation, and holding a narrow view of reading aptitude (as gauged by oral reading fluency). It nonetheless adds to a voluminous pile of teacher effectiveness research that sing the same tune: Teachers matter a lot. Furthermore, studies like this begin to answer an important question about children who are not twins (the vast majority!): How much of variability in reading achievement is the result of nature vs. nurture? Find the study (for a small fee) here.

Philip M. Sadler, Gerhard Sonnert, Robert H. Tai, and Kristin Klopfenstein, eds.
Harvard Education Press
2010

This book looks at all angles of the College Board’s Advanced Placement program—from its origins and development, to the current condition and characteristics of successful (and not-so-successful) AP courses, students, and teachers, and from the correlation between the AP program and later college performance, to policy issues of finance and access. Authored by a smattering of education researchers, economists, teachers, professors, and subject-matter experts, the volume aims to inform key players—not just school personnel, but parents, college admissions officers, and policy makers. A few main takeaways permeate the various chapters: First, AP courses alone cannot solve problems of high-school achievement and college-preparedness. Pushing AP courses into low-performing schools does not automatically raise student achievement; federal and state subsidies might better be directed towards building strong foundations for students in early grades. Second, participation in the AP program does not predict future college success; on the other hand, passing an end-of-year AP test does. Again, resources for classes in which few students pass the final exam might better be directed towards improving less-advanced courses. Lastly, the College Board should post results at the school and district levels, to make it easier for parents and taxpayers to identify those with effective AP programs. On the whole, the book concludes that AP has managed to maintain a meaningful level rigor in the face of expansion, but that its limitations must be recognized in order to put it to its best use. We’d agree on both counts. Buy it here.