The Education Gadfly Weekly

Almost a decade ago, Dan Goldhaber found that only about 3 percent of a teacher’s impact on her students came from readily observable characteristics (things like years of experience or degrees attained). The overwhelming impact could be attributed to intangibles like enthusiasm and “skills conveying knowledge.” This study from Harvard doctoral student Will Dobbie opens the vault of teacher-effectiveness characteristics once again. It links Teach For America acceptance records with New York City student-achievement data for new corps members between 2007 and 2009. The rigorous TFA admissions criteria—which include multiple measures like leadership experience, perseverance, and academic achievement—were evaluated to determine any correlations to ELA and math test scores of TFA-taught third through eighth graders. While the study didn’t uncover a trove of new insights, it did find statistically significant correlations between a few of the admissions criteria and the test scores for first year TFA teachers. Notably: A teacher’s prior achievement and perseverance are associated with student gains in math while commitment to the TFA mission is linked to growth in ELA; leadership experience is correlated with improvement in both subjects. (Correlations between student achievement and TFA admission criteria for second-year teachers were statistically insignificant.) Such findings push Goldhaber’s “3 percent” number northward, at least a little bit—in an area where every little bit counts.

Will Dobbie, “Teacher Characteristics and Student Achievement: Evidence from Teach For America,” (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, July 2011).

The variance between states’ proficiency cut scores has been reported ad nauseum over the past half-decade (we ourselves have weighed in on this issue more than once). Stepping into this clogged space is this NCES mapping study, which compares 2009 state and NAEP proficiency standards for fourth- and eighth-grade reading and math. (NCES did similar comparisons in 2009 and 2007.) The overall numbers remain sobering—in 2008-09, no state set its proficiency rate for fourth- or eighth-grade reading any higher than the “basic” level of the NAEP; only one state—Massachusetts—set its grade four and eight math proficiency rates at this level. Further, fully thirty-five states’ cut scores were set at “below basic” NAEP standards in 2009. Yet there are some positives to report. The majority of states that made changes to their testing systems between 2007 and 2009 actually moved to more rigorous proficiency standards: In reading, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and West Virginia all dramatically upped their cut scores. In math, Mississippi, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and West Virginia did so. And those states that saw a slackening in standards rigor (like South Carolina) were probably right to do so—they had cut scores upwards of forty-five points above the national average in some cases. As states move toward implementation of the Common Core standards, policymakers should take note of this (albeit slow) leveling of proficiency cut scores.

Twenty of education’s most influential thought leaders— Rudy Crew, Larry Cuban, Howard Gardner, Jeffrey Henig, Rick Hess, Marshall Smith, to name a few—gather on the pages of this HEPG volume to explain how their thinking about education and education reform has changed since entering the field. Ironically, for most, it hasn’t much. (A more apt title of the book may be I Used to Think, And Still Do—the first line in chapter one reads: “I have been arguing for theory in educational research since 1982.”) Still, among the twenty there are smart perspectives to be found and recommendations for the system to be gleaned. Larry Cuban reminds us that structural reforms are insufficient at altering traditional teaching practices. Jeffrey Henig argues that the markets and government are intricately and intractably intertwined. And Rick Hess, ever contradictory, explains that there are no real experts. Though groundbreaking shifts are absent from its pages, I Used to Think…And Now I Think does offer intelligent reflection and nuances of perspective—a unique window into the experiences that have shaped today’s educational thought leaders. And it’s a light read to boot.

It was hardly a surprise that Indiana took home the Education Reform Idol trophy today. Pundits from across the ideological spectrum have lauded the Hoosier State for its comprehensive reforms enacted this spring—including a best-in-the-nation teacher bill, an expansive private-school-choice program, and a serious effort at collective-bargaining and benefits reform.

But why 2011? Mitch Daniels has been in office since 2005; Tony Bennett since 2009. While they haven’t been twiddling their thumbs (last year, Bennett enacted new regulations revamping teacher professional development, for instance), legislators didn’t get religion on reform until now. How come?

The answer is obvious: the 2010 elections, which gave Indiana Republicans control of the House and a super-majority in the Senate. The same thing happened in Ohio, where the House and governor’s office both switched from blue to red. Big GOP victories in Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, and other states led to similar dynamics. Though it’s not an ironclad law, it’s still generally true that when Republicans take power, reforms take root.

This point might be obvious, but it bears repeating, because so much of the energy within the reform movement today is about moving Democratic legislators toward more reform-friendly positions. That’s certainly worthwhile, and the work of groups like Democrats for Education Reform and Stand for Children deserve support and encouragement. But let’s not be naïve: Getting rank and file Dems to buck their union patrons is a quixotic quest. Asking Republicans to embrace significant reform is a no-brainer. That’s why most of Michelle Rhee’s work this year has been in GOP-friendly terrain. (Perhaps she should rename her group “Rhee-publicans for Education Reform.”)

To be sure, blue states have been working hard on education reform too, and Illinois received a lot of kudos (and plenty of votes) today for its work on Senate Bill 7, a revamp of teacher evaluation. A credible case can be made (and was made by Robin Steans of Advance Illinois) that bipartisan legislation has a much better shot at surviving the changing political winds—and getting implemented on the ground—than laws pushed through in a highly partisan manner. Perhaps she’s right, though Florida’s ten-year experience with path-breaking reform demonstrates that controversial, partisan laws can still lead to substantial progress.

President Barack Obama might be frustrated by his difficulties in working with Congressional Republicans on the debt, the budget, and much else. But on education—where he’s a rare true-blue reformer—he might notice that his strongest allies are GOP governors and legislators. Who would’ve thought?

This piece originally appeared (in a slightly different format) on Fordham’s Flypaper blog. To subscribe to Flypaper, click here.

Unmoved by pleas that he “first do no harm” when it comes to worthwhile reforms like the Common Core State Standards Initiative, Arnius Duncanus seems compelled to attach mandates to his forthcoming NCLB waivers that will require adoption of the standards nonetheless. (Of course, his team won’t mention the Common Core by name, but everybody knows that’s what he’s talking about when he calls for “college and career-ready” expectations.)

Duncan says that he doesn’t want to be tone-deaf to state officials’ concerns about No Child Left Behind proficiency mandates. Fair enough. But then why choose to be so tone-deaf to the politics around the Common Core?

I once heard Arne talking about winning gracefully. That’s what’s called for now. Forty-five states have adopted the Common Core. Most are deeply engaged in developing assessments related to the standards. During the past legislative session, no state backed out: Proponents of the Common Core have won a great victory. The only possible outcome of Secretary Duncan putting more federal pressure on the holdout states to adopt the CCSS is to stoke the fires of conservative backlash—and to lose many of the states that have already signed on.

Walk away from this one, Mr. Secretary. Please, those of us who support the Common Core are begging you.

This piece originally appeared (in a slightly different format) on Fordham’s Flypaper blog. To subscribe to Flypaper, click here.

Hanna-Barbara couldn't predict the future;
neither can we 
(Photo by Mrs. KLF 19)

Every so often educators and reformers think, if we’re educating kids for the future, we need to do a better job of adapting our education system to meet the needs of tomorrow. That our education systems needs to, in some sense, “get with the times” so that we can better serve our students today. The latest argument to that effect comes from a book (Now You See It: How the Brain of Attention Will Transform the Way We Live, Work, and Learn) written by Cathy N. Davidson and a related blog post by Virginia Heffernan of the New York Times. In her piece, Heffernan argues that “fully 65 percent of today’s grade-school kids may end up doing work that hasn’t been invented yet…For those two-thirds of grade-school kids, if for no one else, it’s high time we redesigned American education.”And so, because today’s students will be doing things that we can’t imagine, we need to rethink the kinds of work we’re assigning today: including research papers, which Heffernan argues have outlived their usefulness.

Thing is, we’re no better at predicting what today’s elementary students will be doing in twenty years than Hanna-Barbera was at depicting twenty-first century life in the Jetsons. Our job as educators is not to hitch our wagons to the latest education fad in response to changing—and often fleeting—technology, but rather to identify the timeless knowledge and skills that all students must master to succeed in any environment. Writing a witty blog post to be consumed by one’s peers is surely a skill, but one that says nothing about a student’s ability to synthesize complicated information in a persuasive way, grounded in facts, research, and reading. These skills are critical—and their necessity will remain long after that of motherboards and cloud computing.

This piece originally appeared (in a slightly different format) on Fordham’s Flypaper blog. To subscribe to Flypaper, click here.

Photo by Generation Bass 19

Bullying isn’t just a problem amongst students at your local middle school. Too often, when states and districts find themselves in a financially strapped space (a reality from Atlantic to Pacific), they pass along the suffering to students and families. In California, for example, recent legislation has unilaterally barred teacher layoffs for the 2011-12 school year. In order to mitigate the burden that this will place on already cash-strapped districts, the law will allow them to shorten the school year by seven days—over a week of instructional time. Districts in Illinois (and other states) have taken another route—though one equally detrimental to kids: Pushing costs onto students by charging fees for textbooks, extracurriculars, even required classes like English and physical education. (Some families are writing checks to the tune of $600-plus per child.) This meme may seem repetitive to the avid Gadfly reader, but it bears repeating: There are alternative ways to stretch that school dollar—ones that don’t harm the individuals for which the system exists in the first place.

In our current “plutonomy”—a term coined by Citigroup analysts back in 2005—economic growth is powered and largely consumed by a wealthy few. Instead of a rising tide, we’re seeing a slow hollowing of the middle class. To reverse this trend, author Don Peck advocates for both a continued push for better schooling and the creation of clearer paths into careers for people who don’t immediately go to college. It must be a combination of the two, he argues: Over the past three decades, college completion rates have risen by just 1 percentage point every four years. Peck thinks that there is no reason to believe that, in our lifetimes, we’ll be able to push this number up to the critical mass needed to keep our economic waterwheel spinning. Instead, improving the quality and rigor of voch-tech programs for adolescents—and opening pathways to profitable career tracks—may well “determine whether the United States remains a middle-class country.” Sage advice, think we.

“Can the Middle Class Be Saved?,” by Don Peck, The Atlantic, September 2011.

Almost a decade ago, Dan Goldhaber found that only about 3 percent of a teacher’s impact on her students came from readily observable characteristics (things like years of experience or degrees attained). The overwhelming impact could be attributed to intangibles like enthusiasm and “skills conveying knowledge.” This study from Harvard doctoral student Will Dobbie opens the vault of teacher-effectiveness characteristics once again. It links Teach For America acceptance records with New York City student-achievement data for new corps members between 2007 and 2009. The rigorous TFA admissions criteria—which include multiple measures like leadership experience, perseverance, and academic achievement—were evaluated to determine any correlations to ELA and math test scores of TFA-taught third through eighth graders. While the study didn’t uncover a trove of new insights, it did find statistically significant correlations between a few of the admissions criteria and the test scores for first year TFA teachers. Notably: A teacher’s prior achievement and perseverance are associated with student gains in math while commitment to the TFA mission is linked to growth in ELA; leadership experience is correlated with improvement in both subjects. (Correlations between student achievement and TFA admission criteria for second-year teachers were statistically insignificant.) Such findings push Goldhaber’s “3 percent” number northward, at least a little bit—in an area where every little bit counts.

Will Dobbie, “Teacher Characteristics and Student Achievement: Evidence from Teach For America,” (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, July 2011).

The variance between states’ proficiency cut scores has been reported ad nauseum over the past half-decade (we ourselves have weighed in on this issue more than once). Stepping into this clogged space is this NCES mapping study, which compares 2009 state and NAEP proficiency standards for fourth- and eighth-grade reading and math. (NCES did similar comparisons in 2009 and 2007.) The overall numbers remain sobering—in 2008-09, no state set its proficiency rate for fourth- or eighth-grade reading any higher than the “basic” level of the NAEP; only one state—Massachusetts—set its grade four and eight math proficiency rates at this level. Further, fully thirty-five states’ cut scores were set at “below basic” NAEP standards in 2009. Yet there are some positives to report. The majority of states that made changes to their testing systems between 2007 and 2009 actually moved to more rigorous proficiency standards: In reading, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and West Virginia all dramatically upped their cut scores. In math, Mississippi, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and West Virginia did so. And those states that saw a slackening in standards rigor (like South Carolina) were probably right to do so—they had cut scores upwards of forty-five points above the national average in some cases. As states move toward implementation of the Common Core standards, policymakers should take note of this (albeit slow) leveling of proficiency cut scores.

Twenty of education’s most influential thought leaders— Rudy Crew, Larry Cuban, Howard Gardner, Jeffrey Henig, Rick Hess, Marshall Smith, to name a few—gather on the pages of this HEPG volume to explain how their thinking about education and education reform has changed since entering the field. Ironically, for most, it hasn’t much. (A more apt title of the book may be I Used to Think, And Still Do—the first line in chapter one reads: “I have been arguing for theory in educational research since 1982.”) Still, among the twenty there are smart perspectives to be found and recommendations for the system to be gleaned. Larry Cuban reminds us that structural reforms are insufficient at altering traditional teaching practices. Jeffrey Henig argues that the markets and government are intricately and intractably intertwined. And Rick Hess, ever contradictory, explains that there are no real experts. Though groundbreaking shifts are absent from its pages, I Used to Think…And Now I Think does offer intelligent reflection and nuances of perspective—a unique window into the experiences that have shaped today’s educational thought leaders. And it’s a light read to boot.