The Education Gadfly Weekly

Emily Ayscue Hassel and Bryan C. Hassel
NGA Center for Best Practices
2007

This short paper from the National Governors Association is an indispensable primer on the merits of "pay for contribution" among teachers, of which there are many forms: additional pay for performance, for working "hard to staff" schools, for meeting "skill shortages," and more. The paper makes an especially useful contribution to the (occasionally heated) debates over these reforms by invoking data from other sectors, some of which have found bonuses to be more effective than salary increases in improving staff performance. It also reminds readers that there is very little evidence (except in high school math) linking teachers' advanced degrees to student performance. In fact, there is little evidence at all to suggest that current pay structures, which prize such degrees, bear any relation to what works best for students. As much as 97 percent of teacher performance appears to be explained by factors other than "degrees, certification, or experience"--virtually the only factors that determine pay in many schools today. Finally, the Hassels rightly point out that there is tremendous public support for offering better teachers better pay (up to 80 percent of those surveyed support it), but teachers' unions are often able to cow politicians into ignoring that widespread sentiment. One hopes the nation's governors will read this report carefully and follow the lead of (and perhaps improve upon) their pioneering peers in Florida, Minnesota, and Texas, for example. Those governors have found ways to reward teachers who demonstrate results or who teach in especially high-need subjects and neighborhoods, though their efforts generally have been useful first steps rather than fully developed pay for contribution schemes. You can find the paper online here.

Edited by Frederick M. Hess
Harvard Education Press
February 2008

Frederick M. Hess's latest collection is what you might call an All-Bran book: it doesn't deliver the sugar-frosted goodness of, say, his 2006 volume Education Entrepreneurship, but if you just open up and spoon it down, When Research Matters will prove darn good for you. The book asks several important but neglected questions about how education research translates into policy. Or doesn't. To show the potential hazards of this process, Hess recalls in his introduction the famous Project STAR experiment, which found that class-size affects academic outcomes in a few, special circumstances--but has resulted in billions of dollars wasted on bulky class-size reduction programs that ignore the subtleties and caveats of the original research. The essays that follow examine, for example, the history of research influencing public policy, No Child Left Behind's push for "scientifically based research" (co-written by Fordham's own Michael Petrilli), research and the reading wars, research and the courts, and the incentives that drive education research. Most authors are skeptical about the current state of education research. Dan Goldhaber and Dominic J. Brewer point out, for instance, how "poor studies with results that fit a popular ideological perspective or serve stakeholder interests often dominate," especially in a sphere where government monopolies prevail. And quality research, notes William G. Howell in his chapter on public opinion, often fails to resonate with biased policymakers and voters. To return to the title of the book, how can we make research matter? Hess recommends a few approaches, such as "encouraging the development of professional norms about what constitutes appropriate and constructive involvement in public debate, steering more funding toward research that is vetted by knowledgeable researchers, and investing more heavily in large public datasets." Mmm--branny. Get your copy here.

It's no real surprise that, after years of lurking menacingly in the shadows, The Contract has emerged into the spotlight, indeed has leaped to the top of the education policy agenda. Sooner or later, the purveyors of any number of flavors of school reform were bound to see their prospects entangled with teachers' collective bargaining agreements.

Consider the standards-and-accountability movement. In its early days, reformers focused on setting clear expectations for what students should learn, developing reliable measures of whether they were learning it, and spouting vague talk about holding "schools" accountable. Eventually, though, they came up against the plain reality that one can't really hold institutions accountable (especially when they're not legally distinct entities); one holds people accountable. And if those people are to include teachers, their union contracts are an unavoidable issue.

So too with the school choice movement. (Those disappointed by the weak response of school districts to vouchers and charter schools eventually blame union contracts.) The "teacher quality" movement. (How to transfer great teachers to poor schools if the contract works against it?) Or those, like us, who want to see stronger school leadership and effective management. Each has collided in some sense with collective bargaining agreements (and, in non-collective bargaining states, the formal board policies that substitute for such agreements).

So, all roads lead to Rome, and all reforms lead eventually to The Contract. Hence it's no wonder that the past few years have seen an explosion of studies, analyses, and symposia examining teacher collective bargaining agreements and their impact on just about everything that matters in education.

Some of this work has been quite good. The most impressive product has come from the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) (on whose board Finn serves), with financial help from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: an exhaustively detailed database that codes the collective bargaining agreements of the fifty largest school districts-along with analogous board policies in non-collective bargaining states.

Meanwhile, our friends and colleagues Rick Hess (director of education policy at the American Enterprise Institute) and Marty West (assistant professor at Brown University) published A Better Bargain: Overhauling Teacher Collective Bargaining for the 21st Century. In this crisp manifesto, they laid out a compelling argument for thinner, smarter teacher contracts, the kind that allow principals to do their jobs effectively while still protecting teachers from arbitrary and capricious behavior. They specifically identified three areas--compensation, personnel policies, and work rules--where leaders need significantly greater authority if they are to manage strong schools.

We saw the makings of a great combination: NCTQ had the data while Hess and West had the vision and theory. Put them together and perhaps we could find out which of the nation's fifty largest school districts have contracts that allow for strong school management-and which do not.

West wasn't available, but to our delight Hess agreed to identify the indicators in the NCTQ database that best mapped onto their vision of effective school leadership, then use them to appraise the teacher labor agreements of the nation's big districts. The result: The Leadership Limbo.

The results are truly informative--but complicated, too, and a bit surprising. Those seeking simply to bash teacher contracts may want to stop reading now. To be sure, at the time we tapped NCTQ's database, plenty of large school districts (fifteen, to be exact) had the sort of restrictive, cumbersome teacher union contracts that most alarm reformers. They explicitly barred school leaders from many of the practices that their peers in the business world take for granted: offering extra pay for high-demand skills or strong performance, for instance, or choosing the best applicant for a job instead of the person with greatest seniority, or outsourcing tasks that aren't central to the organization's mission.

Nor should reformers take solace from the fact that just five of the fifty districts in the analysis can claim relatively "flexible" teacher labor agreements that explicitly give leaders broad authority to manage their schools effectively. (The Fortunate Five are Guilford County, North Carolina; Austin, Dallas, and Northside, Texas; and Fairfax County, Virginia.) Particularly because the study is skewed to the "right to work" South--Dixie tends to organize its districts by county, making them bigger than those in the North and West, and thus is disproportionately represented in any study of the "largest" districts--it's disappointing to see so few leader-friendly agreements.

Yet the most surprising finding is that labor agreements in a majority of large districts are neither blessedly flexible nor crazily restrictive: they are simply ambiguous, silent on many key areas of management flexibility, neither tying leaders' hands outright nor explicitly conferring authority on them to act. We call this the "Leadership Limbo." And we take it as more good than bad, for it means, at least in the short run, that aggressive superintendents and principals could push the envelope and claim authority for any management prerogative not barred outright by the labor agreements. And it means that, for a majority of big districts, the depiction of The Contract as an all-powerful, insurmountable barrier to reform may be overstated.

But don't call us naïve. The long run may be very different and leaders who move aggressively to exploit contractual ambiguities may end up paying the price. Teacher unions have ways of tying leaders' hands beyond getting explicit language into collective bargaining agreements.

Still, reform-minded leaders should take some heart. In the report, we offer our advice for language to fight for in the next contract negotiation, language that others have succeeded in getting into contracts in their own districts. In the meantime, most leaders can push the envelope more than their lawyers may be telling them-a measure of management flexibility is waiting to be seized.

Before Sol Stern's City Journal article pitting "instructionists" against "incentivists," there was Ted Kolderie et al's white paper contrasting "innovation with school and schooling" with "system reform." The gist of both: neither the accountability movement nor school choice will ever deliver all the goods in education. But while Stern wants a return to traditional schooling, Kolderie's Education/Evolving crew seeks something rather different. "Changes in the economy are creating a need for skills and knowledge different from those sought by conventional school," they write. "We need to develop different models of schools." Perhaps--but haven't we been experimenting with new models of schools for decades? And haven't most of them faltered because they couldn't demonstrate that they helped students learn? Kolderie is right to promote education's "open sector" through stronger charter school laws. But he's not willing to accept that taxpayer dollars should go only to those schools that succeed against clear, measurable standards for what students should know and be able to do. This means messy fights between the "coverage" crowd and the "critical thinking" claque, but such is the price of public support. If that's too limiting, Kolderie can always make his pitch for innovation to the private school world, which is the original open sector. Good luck with that.

"The Other Half of the Strategy: Following up on System Reform By Innovating with School and Schooling," Education/Evolving, January 2008

Gadfly was repulsed, horrified, stunned to learn that several of his cousins, crickets to be precise, were recently consumed by a Florida middle-school principal in celebration/lamentation of his students' academic success. Bob Vicari promised pupils at Seminole's Osceola Middle School that were they to increase their numbers on the principal's list, honor role, and all-star behavior team, he would theatrically ingest live crickets (12.9 grams of protein per) in the school cafeteria. They did, and so did he. "He is such a proactive, kid-oriented principal," said sixth-grade administrator Susan Alvaro. "He'll do anything for the kids." Gadfly's disgust is tempered only by the fact that Vicari's stunt appears to have worked; Osceola's principal's list and honor roll numbers reached record highs this year, in no small part because of 12-year-olds eager to inflict pain upon authority. If youthful rebellion can be harnessed for positive purposes, such as studying harder, so much the better. But Vicari--why crickets? Dining on spiders is a fine middle-school motivator, and most of those eight-legged demons deserve to be eaten!

"Principal eats a bug lunch," by Thomas C. Tobin, St. Petersburg Times, February 7, 2008

"Principal eats bugs" video

After his victories in this week's Potomac Primary, Senator John McCain is predicted to have greater than a 90 percent chance of sealing the GOP presidential nomination, according to the Iowa Electronic Markets. Assuming those predictions hold true, it's not crazy to ask what might come next for his one remaining serious challenger, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.

Some people think McCain should offer the Baptist minister a spot on the ticket as a way to garner support from the party's religious conservatives. But picking an economic populist would demoralize fiscally-conservative Republicans. The Arizona senator may very well want a youngish domestic-policy guru with executive experience, but there are several other GOP governors to choose among.

A cabinet position is a much better fit for the guitar-playing preacher. And no address is more appropriate than 400 Maryland Avenue, home to the U.S. Department of Education.

Some Huckabee supporters might scoff; surely a plausible presidential contender deserves a higher office than one currently filled by Margaret Spellings, a policy wonk and former staffer. But look at the big picture. Some of the nation's most respected education secretaries--Republican Lamar Alexander and Democrat Richard Riley--also made their names as effective Southern governors. And consider the example of another great education secretary, William J. Bennett.

There are some striking similarities to the McCain Moment. Bennett served President Ronald Reagan, a devoted federalist with no aspirations to be an "education president." Education was barely on his to-do list, beyond dismantling the newly created Department of Education and trying yet again to restore prayer to the schools and enact tuition tax credits. Reagan's preeminent concerns were global and transcendent: fighting the Cold War; building up the military; giving the American economy room to breath. He was more than happy to delegate education to the able and affable Bennett, his second-term secretary. (Ted Bell held that office in his first term.)

And Bennett made the most of the office. No, there weren't any major policy breakthroughs, and after the No Child Left Behind experience, we might count that as a plus. But Bennett understood the power of the bully pulpit as well as anyone, and used it aggressively to shake America out of its slumber and awaken it to the necessity of serious quality-centered school reform. Bennett, like his boss, was (and remains) a Great Communicator, and used the tools at his disposal to move the country from "A Nation at Risk" to a nation embracing standards, accountability, school choice, and more.

Fast-forward to today. McCain may not be a full-fledged Reaganite conservative. But the Arizona maverick too has shown zero interest in education in his campaign so far, and minimal concern about the topic in his legislative career. That's no knock against him. Education policy shouldn't be the President's top priority, the more so if you believe in a limited, humble federal role. And if there's anything that NCLB has taught us, it's the need for greater humility in Washington when it comes to education policy-making.

A President McCain would no doubt give a Secretary Huckabee lots of running room. (Unlike the current president, whose staff tried to keep his first education secretary, legendary Houston superintendent Rod Paige, on a short leash-to the administration's detriment.) And run he would. The governor, rare among Republican candidates, shows an affinity for education, and an ability to connect with parents and teachers. Like Bennett or Alexander or Riley before him, he also knows how to communicate in today's vernacular. And he has a strong record on education (well, save for some paleo views on evolution), even if his position on vouchers hasn't always been crystal clear.

Huckabee's folksy charm plays especially well with an education system that prides itself on its niceness. He has championed art and music education on the campaign trail--a boutique issue but one that illustrates his concern for the real stuff of the classroom and for kids who can do more than read and cipher. And an ability to connect to-and inspire-what happens inside schools is the most important attribute for the next education secretary to have.

That's because we stand at a unique moment in history. The last two decades have witnessed dizzying change and endless education reforms, culminating with NCLB. A backlash against high standards, clear accountability, and greater choice is gaining steam. What's needed from Washington is not more shoot-the-moon rhetoric and top-down mandates, but leadership. We need a credible education secretary who can effectively communicate this simple message: accountability and competition are here to stay, and nobody should freak out about it.

In other words, education reform could use a kinder, gentler face--but one backed by steely principle.

And we need policies that give the nation's governors--the true drivers of school change--the room to innovate again. That means updating NCLB to be friendlier to reform-minded leaders at the state and local level. As a former governor, Huckabee could lead this update with credibility, thoughtfulness, and poise.

Huckabee's friendly populism may be just what we need in an education secretary, much as Bennett's jovial jousting was what was called for in the late 1980s. Huckabee could be the nation's next great education secretary-and might hand a President McCain an education legacy, after all.

A slightly different version of this article ran in National Review Online on February 11.

A statewide task force in Maryland recommends requiring youngsters to stay in school until the age of 18 (today's pupils can leave legally at 16). This move, promises the task force, will keep more Old Line State students from dropping out, which may or may not be true. What's jarring is that the report's recommendations are being attacked not because of their validity or soundness, but because of their potential price-tag. According to the Baltimore Sun, "Baltimore lawmakers have been pushing the change for four years, but it didn't get to a vote in the General Assembly because of concerns over what it would cost." Maryland factors dropout estimates into the amount it budgets for education; hence decreasing dropouts means increasing costs, and apparently that doesn't sell in Annapolis. What a joke! Tax-paying Marylanders should take note: Their state is opposed to keeping kids in school because, well, it's more expensive than letting them hit the streets. Sheesh.

"Dropout Rate Targeted," Baltimore Sun, Ruma Kumar, February 11, 2008

Is the charter movement--which has sputtered along, making steady but slow progress--finally ready to kick it into high gear? Signs in New York point to yes, say USA Today's Richard Whitmire and Eduwonk Andy Rotherham. In the latest Education Week, they write about how three top-performing Big Apple charter operators (KIPP, Achievement First, and Uncommon Schools) have banded together to practice and promulgate successful methods of teaching and running schools. (Real "coopetition.") The schools don't compete for resources, or hoard their best practices. Instead, they work with each other in order to strengthen the whole group. And these organizations aren't just changing the way schools are run; they're altering personnel pipelines as well. A new program at Hunter College's ed school, under the capable leadership of Dean David Steiner, has founders of successful charter schools act as instructors (more here) for other charter-school- teachers to be. Scaling up such ambitious efforts is challenging, but KIPP and similar programs, like Teach For America, have shown that it can be done. If the "New York effect" catches on, the charter movement might just catch fire.

"A Defining Moment for Charter Schools?" by Richard Whitmire and Andrew J. Rotherham, Education Week, February 11, 2008

Edited by Frederick M. Hess
Harvard Education Press
February 2008

Frederick M. Hess's latest collection is what you might call an All-Bran book: it doesn't deliver the sugar-frosted goodness of, say, his 2006 volume Education Entrepreneurship, but if you just open up and spoon it down, When Research Matters will prove darn good for you. The book asks several important but neglected questions about how education research translates into policy. Or doesn't. To show the potential hazards of this process, Hess recalls in his introduction the famous Project STAR experiment, which found that class-size affects academic outcomes in a few, special circumstances--but has resulted in billions of dollars wasted on bulky class-size reduction programs that ignore the subtleties and caveats of the original research. The essays that follow examine, for example, the history of research influencing public policy, No Child Left Behind's push for "scientifically based research" (co-written by Fordham's own Michael Petrilli), research and the reading wars, research and the courts, and the incentives that drive education research. Most authors are skeptical about the current state of education research. Dan Goldhaber and Dominic J. Brewer point out, for instance, how "poor studies with results that fit a popular ideological perspective or serve stakeholder interests often dominate," especially in a sphere where government monopolies prevail. And quality research, notes William G. Howell in his chapter on public opinion, often fails to resonate with biased policymakers and voters. To return to the title of the book, how can we make research matter? Hess recommends a few approaches, such as "encouraging the development of professional norms about what constitutes appropriate and constructive involvement in public debate, steering more funding toward research that is vetted by knowledgeable researchers, and investing more heavily in large public datasets." Mmm--branny. Get your copy here.

Emily Ayscue Hassel and Bryan C. Hassel
NGA Center for Best Practices
2007

This short paper from the National Governors Association is an indispensable primer on the merits of "pay for contribution" among teachers, of which there are many forms: additional pay for performance, for working "hard to staff" schools, for meeting "skill shortages," and more. The paper makes an especially useful contribution to the (occasionally heated) debates over these reforms by invoking data from other sectors, some of which have found bonuses to be more effective than salary increases in improving staff performance. It also reminds readers that there is very little evidence (except in high school math) linking teachers' advanced degrees to student performance. In fact, there is little evidence at all to suggest that current pay structures, which prize such degrees, bear any relation to what works best for students. As much as 97 percent of teacher performance appears to be explained by factors other than "degrees, certification, or experience"--virtually the only factors that determine pay in many schools today. Finally, the Hassels rightly point out that there is tremendous public support for offering better teachers better pay (up to 80 percent of those surveyed support it), but teachers' unions are often able to cow politicians into ignoring that widespread sentiment. One hopes the nation's governors will read this report carefully and follow the lead of (and perhaps improve upon) their pioneering peers in Florida, Minnesota, and Texas, for example. Those governors have found ways to reward teachers who demonstrate results or who teach in especially high-need subjects and neighborhoods, though their efforts generally have been useful first steps rather than fully developed pay for contribution schemes. You can find the paper online here.