The Education Gadfly Weekly

William G. Ouchi
Simon & Schuster
2009

U.C.L.A. business professor Bill Ouchi has authored another valuable contribution to the education-reform literature. (We reviewed his last big book, here.) “TSL” stands for “total student load” and refers to the number of students that a teacher is responsible for and also to the number of students in a school. He contends, plausibly enough, that small schools are easier to lead and manage than big ones and that they’re more likely to be managed successfully by principals who are competent but not necessarily superstar executives.

He also contends, again plausibly, that a teacher responsible over the course of a day or week for 80 or so students is far more effective with them than one who must contend with twice that number. But this useful book isn’t ultimately about class or school size. Befitting a scholar of management, it’s really about effective school and district organization. He sets out five “pillars of school empowerment” and “four freedoms” that actually give principals the capacity to lead their schools. Along the way, he does an admirable job of explaining how districts should be decentralized and why they work better when they are.

Taken seriously, Ouchi’s analysis would do important good for American K-12 education, particularly in big cities and large districts. It’s not the whole story, however. Important as it is, for example, for schools to control their curriculum, that doesn’t get us very far if it’s a loopy, flabby, trendy or ineffectual curriculum, or one taught by instructors who don’t know their stuff. Nor must one buy Ouchi’s assumption that districts are forever.

Is it not possible that the geographically-based district itself is an obsolete management structure and that U.S. education would be better off with a direct relationship between states and a host of fully empowered charter-like schools, CMOs, EMOs, and other operators, some of them virtual, some of them national? Still, as long as we have the structure we have, wise policymakers and state and district leaders would do well to heed Bill Ouchi’s findings and sage advice. You can find the book here.

The New Teacher Project
November 2009

Anyone curious whether Ohio will win a $200-400 million share should read The New Teacher Project’s recently released national report, purportedly a “blueprint” for states hoping to win a piece of the federal grant money: How Bold is Bold? Responding to Race to the Top with a Bold, Actionable Plan on Teacher Effectiveness. The report outlines components of a “bold” application, suggests appropriate roles for states and LEAs, and lists five goals a state should pursue to have a coherent plan for improving teacher quality (rather than a “series of disjointed initiatives”):

1) optimize new teacher supply,
2) boost effectiveness of all teachers,
3) retain and leverage most effective teachers,
4) prioritize effective teachers for high-need students, and
5) improve or exit persistently less effective teachers.

While Ohio aligns with a few of TNTP’s recommended components, such as modifying “tenure policies to provide grounds for termination” (House Bill l lowered Ohio’s teacher dismissal standards), the report makes several recommendations that conflict with current Ohio law and contradict the viewpoints of current state leadership: requiring that student achievement growth be predominant in teacher evaluations; basing compensation models on teacher performance; and holding teacher preparation programs accountable by linking student achievement data to the teachers they graduate.

Unsurprisingly, the goals derived from TNTP’s analysis of the Race to the Top application emulate those found in the new Cincinnati report (see above article). TNTP delivers the same message to client school districts as it does to states and to the federal government: improving teacher effectiveness is the lynchpin for closing the achievement gap, and can only happen through a strategic and coordinated overhaul of several policies at once. Read it here.

I’ve just finished reading the Race to the Top program executive summary released by the U.S. Department of Education last week and while there is much in it to excite reformers there seems to be a serious disconnect between its ambition and states’ capability to actually deliver on reforms, given the grim fiscal realities they are facing (see Beyond California: States in Fiscal Peril). Using Ohio as an example is illuminating....Read it here.

…Shoppers across the nation will prepare for the madness known as Black Friday. This week the Cincinnati Enquirer highlighted another unique American phenomenon involving long lines and midnight campers - parents lining up as far as two and a half days in advance in order to win their child a spot in one of the city’s elite public magnet schools. Read the full post here.

Today the Dayton Daily News ran an editorial criticizing the makeup off Gov. Strickland’s Ohio School Funding Advisory Council. The Council’s purpose is to develop recommendations for improving the state’s school funding model. The article laments that key players from Dayton are not represented on the panel, and names Fordham’s vice president of programs and policy Terry Ryan among those whose voices are sorely missed.

In a previous Ohio Education Gadfly post, Emmy pointed out the strange timing of the Funding Council, as its recommendations are due December 1, 2010, four weeks after the gubernatorial election. “If Kasich prevails, it seems unlikely that he’ll heed the advice of a panel convened by the previous administration to improve its flagship policy initiative…There is reason to believe that Governor Strickland won’t embrace the panel’s recommendations either, especially if they call for more resources to be poured into the system.” The Council looks to be more about politics than policy and this is unfortunate as Ohio is facing some serious fiscal challenges that need less politics and more problem-solving to have any chance at being dealt with successfully.

The U.S. Department of Education’s announcement of final priorities for the competitive $4.3 billion Race to the Top (RttT) program has unleashed speculation about Ohio’s position in the pack (see here and here). Weighing in on the application details, a spokesperson for Gov. Strickland told the Cleveland Plain Dealer that Ohio is “one of the strongest-positioned states” and that Ohio would score well in “effective teaching and leadership” (the criterion garnering the most points). Fordham’s Andy Smarick has noticed that such high expectations have become the trend when various states size up their odds in RttT (see here) even though there is credible evidence to suggest otherwise (see here and here). 

As the application deadline draws near, several Ohio lawmakers have introduced bills aimed at bolstering the state’s competitiveness for these funds. If awarded RttT dollars, the Buckeye State stands poised to collect between $200 million and $400 million to be used toward K-12 education. Currently there are two sets of competing bills in the legislature.

The first set of companion bills, Senate Bill 180 and House Bill 312, have been introduced by Sen. Jon Husted (R-Kettering) and Rep. Seth Morgan (R-Huber Heights). These bills would allow alumni of the Teach For America program to receive an initial professional educator license, require the use of student performance data in teacher evaluation and licensure, and lift the current moratorium on e-charter schools (see our Senate testimony here).

This proposed legislation would strengthen Ohio’s standing in several high-value RttT criteria in which Ohio is lacking (see our analysis of Ohio’s competitiveness here). RttT guidelines clearly prescribe that student data inform teacher performance evaluations and licensure decisions. Allowing Teach For America alumni to seek teacher licensure would help satisfy the requirement for alternative paths to licensure that are not heavy on coursework but focus on real performance in real classrooms. Lifting the cap on e-charters would make Ohio seem a little more amenable to successful charter schools (though not by much, considering the otherwise hostile environment charters face, as outlined in our annual charter school sponsorship report).

The second set of legislation, Senate Bill 207 and House Bill 370, sponsored by Sen. Tom Sawyer (D-Akron) and Rep. Jennifer Garrison (D-Marietta), also calls for a removal of the e-charter cap - but not until 2011. This legislation also seeks the creation of a statewide longitudinal data system of student performance. The bills are extensive in specifying what types of data are to be shared between the Ohio Department of Education and Board of Regents.

As it stands, this legislation would have a much smaller impact than SB180/HB 312, as the RttT criteria it addresses are worth far fewer points. Also, the delay in lifting the e-charter cap until well after RttT funds have been distributed may not be interpreted well by the U.S. Department of Education. 

These proposals, while well intentioned, are temporary patches that may have come too late. They address only the fringes of education policy in Ohio and do not embody the true spirit of the Race to the Top program – wholesale, bold, innovative reform.

Yesterday representatives from The New Teacher Project (TNTP), alongside Cincinnati superintendent Mary Ronan and president of the Cincinnati Federation of Teachers (CFT), Julie Sellers, gathered for the release of TNTP’s Cincinnati-focused teacher effectiveness report. TNTP researchers presented recommendations from their 87-page study of the district’s human capital approach, including controversial suggestions to sack the current teacher evaluation system, base teacher evaluations largely on student academic performance, install a differentiated compensation system, and empower principals with more authority over teacher hiring and evaluations.

The report’s laser focus on defining “teacher effectiveness” by linking it to student achievement data mirrors comments from U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and embodies the federal Race to the Top priorities (in fact, the TNTP report couldn’t be more timely – “effective teaching and leadership” is the single most important category in the RttT application).

Unfortunately, many of TNTP’s recommendations with the most promise to ameliorate Cincinnati’s perennially low academic performance will not be well-received by the CFT. Despite the collaborative nature of the report (which relied heavily on teacher and principal surveys for the findings) and the message delivered by Dan Weisberg, TNTP’s vice president of policy, that “teachers are not the problem; teachers are the solution,” the teachers union appears to be taking a defensive stance. 

The Enquirer reports this morning that the CFT is reticent to scrap the current teacher evaluation system, is concerned with the fairness of individual performance bonuses, and is uncomfortable with shifting more authority to principals (this undermines nearly half of the report’s recommendations). They no doubt also oppose doing away with “last hired/first fired” as well. While the CFT appears to be open to some tweaks, like adopting a “mutual consent” transfer system that would end forced teacher hiring/transfers, this only tinkers with the current system and would be insufficient to truly improve teacher effectiveness within CPS.

The conversation started yesterday in Cincinnati is critical not only for the Queen City, but for districts across the state that face similar challenges and constraints when it comes to modernizing how teachers are rewarded, advanced professionally and held accountable for their performance.

Senate Bill 173, sponsored by Senator Gary Cates (R-West Chester), would delay for one year a major tenet of Governor Strickland’s education reform plan and marks the legislature’s first attempt to address problems with implementing the mandates in the evidence-based school funding model.

The mandate that districts provide all-day kindergarten – along with other requirements in House Bill 1 – would be postponed until the 2011-12 school year under the bill, which was introduced amid concerns that compulsory all-day kindergarten without an adequate infusion of state funding creates an unfunded mandate that would exacerbate financial strains on school districts (see interview above).

SB 173 would require districts that choose not to offer all-day kindergarten in 2010-11 to submit a plan explaining how they’ll meet the requirement in 2011-12. Without this legislation, districts rated Excellent or Effective by the state can apply to the Ohio Department of Education for waivers to delay the start of all-day kindergarten, though the details of the waiver process have not been finalized and there is no guarantee the education department would approve such requests.

SB 173, which was passed by the Senate education committee, has the support of the Buckeye Association of School Administrators (BASA) and the State Board of Education. At its November meeting the board voted 15-1 to pass a resolution expressing support of the bill.

However, soon after meeting with staffers from the governor’s office (see here) board president Deborah Cain released a letter attempting to clarify the board’s position. Cain said that while she recognizes districts’ financial obstacles, she was “concerned that taking a proponent position on Senate Bill 173 does not accurately reflect a majority of the Board’s support for all-day, every-day kindergarten.”

The Senate education committee also amended Senate Bill 167 (also proposed by Sen. Cates), which deals with the way the state rates school districts. The original bill was intended to tighten up the rating of Continuous Improvement on both ends and thereby make Ohio’s academic rating system more meaningful and credible (see our analysis of the original legislation here and here).

In addition to specifying that student sub-groups not making AYP must be the same from year to year for a district to be penalized, Senate Bill 167 sought to minimize a district’s fall in the rankings, designating Effective (a “B”) as the lowest category for an otherwise high-performing district like Kettering City Schools. At the same time, the bill lowered the worst possible ranking to Academic Watch (a “D”) for a district making AYP; districts like Marion City Schools, which met zero of 30 indicators, would no longer get an automatic bump up to “C.” Basically, the bill would have assigned more accurate grades to both high-performing districts and low-performing districts and would have enhanced the overall credibility of the academic rating system.

However, in its newly amended version, the bill now only protects high-performing districts not meeting AYP from seeing their rating drop several levels in one year. While this is still good news for districts like Kettering and Lebanon who were catapulted from Excellent with Distinction to Continuous Improvement last year, it fails to address the imprecision of giving a “C” to a district like Marion City Schools that failed to make any academic indicators. In its current form, Senate Bill 167 at best only tinkers with fixing the rating system. The bill will save face for higher-performing districts and lets lawmakers avoid tough decisions about how to fairly rate low-performing school systems. This is a shame and a lost opportunity.

The New Teacher Project
November 2009

Anyone curious whether Ohio will win a $200-400 million share should read The New Teacher Project’s recently released national report, purportedly a “blueprint” for states hoping to win a piece of the federal grant money: How Bold is Bold? Responding to Race to the Top with a Bold, Actionable Plan on Teacher Effectiveness. The report outlines components of a “bold” application, suggests appropriate roles for states and LEAs, and lists five goals a state should pursue to have a coherent plan for improving teacher quality (rather than a “series of disjointed initiatives”):

1) optimize new teacher supply,
2) boost effectiveness of all teachers,
3) retain and leverage most effective teachers,
4) prioritize effective teachers for high-need students, and
5) improve or exit persistently less effective teachers.

While Ohio aligns with a few of TNTP’s recommended components, such as modifying “tenure policies to provide grounds for termination” (House Bill l lowered Ohio’s teacher dismissal standards), the report makes several recommendations that conflict with current Ohio law and contradict the viewpoints of current state leadership: requiring that student achievement growth be predominant in teacher evaluations; basing compensation models on teacher performance; and holding teacher preparation programs accountable by linking student achievement data to the teachers they graduate.

Unsurprisingly, the goals derived from TNTP’s analysis of the Race to the Top application emulate those found in the new Cincinnati report (see above article). TNTP delivers the same message to client school districts as it does to states and to the federal government: improving teacher effectiveness is the lynchpin for closing the achievement gap, and can only happen through a strategic and coordinated overhaul of several policies at once. Read it here.

…Shoppers across the nation will prepare for the madness known as Black Friday. This week the Cincinnati Enquirer highlighted another unique American phenomenon involving long lines and midnight campers - parents lining up as far as two and a half days in advance in order to win their child a spot in one of the city’s elite public magnet schools. Read the full post here.

I’ve just finished reading the Race to the Top program executive summary released by the U.S. Department of Education last week and while there is much in it to excite reformers there seems to be a serious disconnect between its ambition and states’ capability to actually deliver on reforms, given the grim fiscal realities they are facing (see Beyond California: States in Fiscal Peril). Using Ohio as an example is illuminating....Read it here.

William G. Ouchi
Simon & Schuster
2009

U.C.L.A. business professor Bill Ouchi has authored another valuable contribution to the education-reform literature. (We reviewed his last big book, here.) “TSL” stands for “total student load” and refers to the number of students that a teacher is responsible for and also to the number of students in a school. He contends, plausibly enough, that small schools are easier to lead and manage than big ones and that they’re more likely to be managed successfully by principals who are competent but not necessarily superstar executives.

He also contends, again plausibly, that a teacher responsible over the course of a day or week for 80 or so students is far more effective with them than one who must contend with twice that number. But this useful book isn’t ultimately about class or school size. Befitting a scholar of management, it’s really about effective school and district organization. He sets out five “pillars of school empowerment” and “four freedoms” that actually give principals the capacity to lead their schools. Along the way, he does an admirable job of explaining how districts should be decentralized and why they work better when they are.

Taken seriously, Ouchi’s analysis would do important good for American K-12 education, particularly in big cities and large districts. It’s not the whole story, however. Important as it is, for example, for schools to control their curriculum, that doesn’t get us very far if it’s a loopy, flabby, trendy or ineffectual curriculum, or one taught by instructors who don’t know their stuff. Nor must one buy Ouchi’s assumption that districts are forever.

Is it not possible that the geographically-based district itself is an obsolete management structure and that U.S. education would be better off with a direct relationship between states and a host of fully empowered charter-like schools, CMOs, EMOs, and other operators, some of them virtual, some of them national? Still, as long as we have the structure we have, wise policymakers and state and district leaders would do well to heed Bill Ouchi’s findings and sage advice. You can find the book here.