The Education Gadfly Weekly

The latest in a series of reports on U.S. teacher-prep programs, this study from the National Council on Teacher Quality dives into the murky waters of the “student-teaching” experience. This is widely held to be the single most formative aspect of a preparation program, and often a teacher candidate’s first real foray into the classroom. NCTQ examined the protocols of 134 undergraduate institutions to determine which adhere to student-teaching best practices—and which barely adhere to any practices at all. NCTQ analyzed the length of the student-teaching experience (it should last at least ten weeks, they say); the selection of the cooperating teacher (they should be chosen by the prep program, not the school or district); and the qualifications of cooperating teachers (they should have at least three years of experience, as well as demonstrated classroom effectiveness and mentoring ability). The findings? While all programs articulate basic student-teaching protocols, most fail to ensure the quality of the experience. For example, only 38 percent require that the cooperating teacher possess the qualities of a good mentor, while just 28 percent require that they be effective instructors as designated by schools’ principals. Institutions also neglect to provide guidance and feedback to student-teachers throughout their assignment, reducing the experience to merely a rite of passage—an expensive one at that. And the places that do maintain these requirements on paper rarely enforce them in practice. Ultimately, only 7 percent of institutions boast model programs. The analysis is worth a detailed read—both for its overall findings and for its ratings of individual programs.

Private-school choice may not be the panacea that John Chubb and Terry Moe once claimed but that’s no reason to write it off as a means of improving America’s flailing K-12 system, explains Jay Greene in this new broadside. As Greene asserts, “miracles shouldn’t be the standard by which educational programs are judged.” This “panacea canard” is the first of eight common arguments against school choice that he refutes in this fifty-one page mini-book. He covers some arguments widely voiced in anti-choice circles (the research doesn’t show positive effects, choice leads to segregation, etc.) and other, less prominent rhetoric (choice distracts from other reform initiatives like quality standards; choice undermines civic values). Those who follow Greene’s blog won’t find tons here that’s new, but it does provide an all-in-one treatise for the private-choice proponent. Be aware, though, that Greene ignores a few pertinent arguments. For example, in a time of fiscal belt-tightening, what’s the rationale for voucher (and similar) programs that offer public dollars to parents already enrolling their children in private schools?

With most states signed onto the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) initiative, a major challenge ahead is aligning their accountability systems with these new standards (and assessments). Toward that end, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) has developed this roadmap for “next-generation” accountability systems. (This is version one.) It details eight elements, none of which will likely startle you. For example, we’ll need clear performance objectives aligned to the standards, meaningful differentiation of performance between districts and schools, and timely and transparent reporting of actionable student data. Also flagged here are helpful resources (from groups like Achieve and the U.S. Department of Labor) and state exemplars (FL, KY, IN, and TN) for those looking to revamp their accountability systems. Not a bad start. Thanks, chiefs.

Council of Chief State School Officers Task Force on Next Generation Accountability Systems, “Roadmap for Next-Generation State Accountability Systems,” (Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State School Officers, June 17, 2011).

Mike isn’t wrong when he notes with satisfaction that, on some indicators and at some grade levels, poor and minority students in the U.S. are doing better today than they were a decade or so back. Only a churl would say that’s not an accomplishment worthy of notice—and some pride.

This glass is barely one-third full
(Photo by Lihn Tihn)

But the big, glum headline over American K-12 education today is essentially the same as when we were declared a “nation at risk” twenty-eight long years ago: Our kids on average are woefully lacking in essential skills and knowledge across every subject in the curriculum.

Almost all the major trend lines are flat—at least until you decompose them by ethnicity. Sure, it’s great that minority students have made gains, but what does that do for our international competitiveness if the average score is unchanged or declining? Especially in a time when many competitor nations are moving up on some of those same metrics? And what’s the long-term payoff from early-grade gains if scores and outcomes in high school are flat or declining? Some say the early gains are like the pig in the python’s throat and it’ll just take time for them to reach the tail. But we’ve had enough experience by now with early-grade gains and high school sags to throw major doubt on that hypothesis. We simply haven’t found—at least on a large scale—ways to sustain and build on academic gains as youngsters move from fourth grade to twelfth. (Mike wiggles out of this by blaming twelfth graders for not taking NAEP seriously; that may be partly true, but isn’t any truer today than in earlier years.)

This week’s NAEP geography results (based on 2010 testing) underscore the problem. Indeed, the National Assessment Governing Board’s own headline says it all: “Proficiency overall remains low; lowest performers show greatest improvement; grade 8 remains flat; grade 4 increases, while grade 12 declines since 1994.”

Geography, as we know, isn’t much taught in U.S. schools, a crime in its own right. But that’s not the only reason our kids don’t know much about it, because the geography results parallel recent NAEP results in civics and U.S. history, both of which are taught, at least in our high schools. Yet here’s how many of our twelfth graders are at (or above) NAEP’s “proficient” level in those three subjects:

• Geography: 20 percent (down from 24 percent in 2001)
• U.S. History: 12 percent (level since 2006)
• Civics: 24 percent (down from 27 percent in 2006)

It takes chutzpah to say this glass is even one-third full, much less that it’s filling. And only a naïf would say that we’re looking toward a bright future as a self-governing polity comprised of knowledgeable voters and discerning citizens if we’re producing high school graduates who know this little about their world and their country.

Critics retort that Americans—including adults—have never known much of this sort of stuff but we’ve gotten by OK over the years as the land of the free and the home of the brave, so not to worry. Well, I worry—and so should you. I look at the lousy choices we’re making at the voting booth and in statehouses, school boards, and the U.S. Capitol itself, and I see plenty to worry about in this realm. I see colleges adding little or nothing to what young people know in these subjects. Then I see what’s on TV (and what passes for “news” and “analysis” these days on the internet and in the theaters) and I do not conclude that our national prospects are improving.

The schools, of course, are not entirely, not even primarily, to blame for this situation. Recent immigration patterns, for example, have flooded classrooms with foreign-born kids who arrive with scant knowledge of America and must first struggle with the language of the curriculum. But we’ve had immigrants before, lots of them even. So that ought not be an excuse for long. And we do need to understand that some of our education priorities aren’t helping at all. Why teach history or geography, for example, if all that your school is held accountable for are reading and math scores? Why do your homework for subjects that don’t really count? Why fuss about whether state requirements for licensing “social studies” teachers are light on history and oblivious to geography?

Mike can crack open the champagne if he is so inclined. But don’t pour me more than a thimble full.

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

Matthew Stewart, a stay-at-home dad in a wealthy New Jersey suburb, is leading a battle against the “boutique” charter schools now being planned for his community. “I’m in favor of a quality education for everyone,” Stewart told Winnie Hu of the New York Times. But “in suburban areas like Millburn, there’s no evidence whatsoever that the local school district is not doing its job. So what’s the rationale for a charter school?” Easy: Different parents define “quality education” differently. One person’s “good school” is another person’s “bad fit.” Stewart may love his child’s public school, which might do a dandy job providing a straight-down-the-middle education to its (mostly affluent) charges. But the parents developing a nearby charter school want something more—specifically, a Mandarin-immersion experience for their kids. For this, Mr. Stewart labels them “selfish.” Why? Because “public education is basically a social contract—we all pool our money.” “With these charter schools,” he explains, “people are trying to say, ‘I want a custom-tailored education for my children, and I want you, as my neighbor, to pay for it.’” This, of course, implies that the “selfless” thing to do is to send one’s children to a school that’s a bad fit, or to write a check for private education. But when choice isn’t an option, energized public school parents turn to advocacy to mold their one-size-fits-all neighborhood school to their liking. Environmentally minded parents push for eco-friendly cafeterias and outdoor education. Numeracy hawks rally around Singapore math. Warm and fuzzy types press for drama classes and self-expression. And on and on it goes. Beleaguered school boards and administrators do their best to find some sort of golden mean but often wind up with a lowest common denominator. Meaning that everybody settles for much less than their ideal. That’s a “social contract” in frustration. Supporters of public education ought not make “hey parents, suck it up” their rallying cry.

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

“Charter School Battle Shifts to Affluent Suburbs,” by Winnie Hu, New York Times, July 16, 2011.

D.C.’s much-discussed teacher-evaluation system, IMPACT, is making itself felt. On Friday, 206 District teachers (about 5 percent of the instructional staff) were fired due to poor performance. Among them, sixty-five were deemed “ineffective” (cause for immediate dismissal) and another 141 were rated “minimally effective” for the second year in a row. While firing any well-meaning, hard-working person can sound heartless, Gadfly sees several reasons to celebrate. D.C.’s terminations over the past two years mark a major milestone: the first time that teachers have been systematically, objectively assessed—and then held to account for their performance. Not even Montgomery County or Cincinnati (both of which are praised for their teacher-eval systems) can boast the rigors or consequences of IMPACT. What’s more, IMPACT has survived the Fenty-Gray mayoral shift (and the exit of its architect, Michelle Rhee). It looks like the evaluation system is here to stay. And the icing on this double-decker cake: While the Washington Teachers Union is still none-too-pleased with the evaluation system, D.C. teachers we’ve spoken with believe that IMPACT has actually improved their teaching. (The $25,000 bonus for which top teachers are eligible—there were 663—might have helped generate positive feelings, too.) IMPACT’s not perfect but this work-in-progress is years ahead of yesterday’s status quo.

“D.C. Mayor’s Office Live: Vincent Gray on teacher firings, council changes,” Washington Post, July 19, 2011.

“More than 200 D.C. teachers fired,” by Bill Turque, Washington Post, July 15, 2011.

“D.C. teacher performance evaluations are working,” by Editorial Board, Washington Post, July 15, 2011.

The latest in a series of reports on U.S. teacher-prep programs, this study from the National Council on Teacher Quality dives into the murky waters of the “student-teaching” experience. This is widely held to be the single most formative aspect of a preparation program, and often a teacher candidate’s first real foray into the classroom. NCTQ examined the protocols of 134 undergraduate institutions to determine which adhere to student-teaching best practices—and which barely adhere to any practices at all. NCTQ analyzed the length of the student-teaching experience (it should last at least ten weeks, they say); the selection of the cooperating teacher (they should be chosen by the prep program, not the school or district); and the qualifications of cooperating teachers (they should have at least three years of experience, as well as demonstrated classroom effectiveness and mentoring ability). The findings? While all programs articulate basic student-teaching protocols, most fail to ensure the quality of the experience. For example, only 38 percent require that the cooperating teacher possess the qualities of a good mentor, while just 28 percent require that they be effective instructors as designated by schools’ principals. Institutions also neglect to provide guidance and feedback to student-teachers throughout their assignment, reducing the experience to merely a rite of passage—an expensive one at that. And the places that do maintain these requirements on paper rarely enforce them in practice. Ultimately, only 7 percent of institutions boast model programs. The analysis is worth a detailed read—both for its overall findings and for its ratings of individual programs.

Private-school choice may not be the panacea that John Chubb and Terry Moe once claimed but that’s no reason to write it off as a means of improving America’s flailing K-12 system, explains Jay Greene in this new broadside. As Greene asserts, “miracles shouldn’t be the standard by which educational programs are judged.” This “panacea canard” is the first of eight common arguments against school choice that he refutes in this fifty-one page mini-book. He covers some arguments widely voiced in anti-choice circles (the research doesn’t show positive effects, choice leads to segregation, etc.) and other, less prominent rhetoric (choice distracts from other reform initiatives like quality standards; choice undermines civic values). Those who follow Greene’s blog won’t find tons here that’s new, but it does provide an all-in-one treatise for the private-choice proponent. Be aware, though, that Greene ignores a few pertinent arguments. For example, in a time of fiscal belt-tightening, what’s the rationale for voucher (and similar) programs that offer public dollars to parents already enrolling their children in private schools?

With most states signed onto the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) initiative, a major challenge ahead is aligning their accountability systems with these new standards (and assessments). Toward that end, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) has developed this roadmap for “next-generation” accountability systems. (This is version one.) It details eight elements, none of which will likely startle you. For example, we’ll need clear performance objectives aligned to the standards, meaningful differentiation of performance between districts and schools, and timely and transparent reporting of actionable student data. Also flagged here are helpful resources (from groups like Achieve and the U.S. Department of Labor) and state exemplars (FL, KY, IN, and TN) for those looking to revamp their accountability systems. Not a bad start. Thanks, chiefs.

Council of Chief State School Officers Task Force on Next Generation Accountability Systems, “Roadmap for Next-Generation State Accountability Systems,” (Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State School Officers, June 17, 2011).